Proofs of God | Catholic Central

[@imperialgo5331]

Point by point rebuttals: - On the logic of causation: The logic of causation falls apart when we reach the point in time of the big bang(a point that was not the definitive "start" of the universe but rather a point where it was infinitely hot and dense). Causation assumes something came before to act as a cause and thus assumes a time before the event in question. The problem of this argument arises when we look at time(more specifically spacetime) as the dynamic plane of the universe. Everything that exists, exists within space time and is affected by it while also affecting it. Spacetime however, started(from our knowledge) with the big bang. Thus time did not exist before it and so nothing could have caused it. - Second argument is ad consequentiam in hindsight. "God possibly caused our existence. Our existence is good for us, therefore God." Its also an appeal to probability. "The universe existing as it is is improbable, therefore impossible(without God), therefore God." - This argument is a God of the Gaps argument(and a really bad one at that). "We can't explain why we are fascinated by the transcendent, therefore the transcendent(God)". Firstly, we can explain it, its called curiosity, the desire to understand that around us and that which we construct(like the idea of the transcendent). Curiosity is an evolutionary trait, we as humans have gained. Due to the development of the brain, knowledge became the primary form of defense for humans. Hence, it is in our evolutionary interest to seek knowledge in the form of curiosity. In fact, other animals are also curious, since understanding their surroundings is key to their survival.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks Tanay, here’s a point by point reply to your rebuttals: 1. As long as we continue to think of God anthropomorphically - or is it cosmomorphically? - we will forget that God does not exist in spacetime. God exists within it, yes, but also before it and beyond it. Spacetime is essentially an “object” within God’s eternity. Thus God could have caused spacetime before spacetime began. 2. As long as we seek proofs of God - “X therefore God” - we mistake lines of reasoning for arithmetic. The improbability of the universe is a strong basis for faith in God, but the God who can be proved ad consequentiam is not God. We feel we made this point clear in the episode, which we whimsically titled Proofs in honor of the ancients but which Kai and Libby go on to verbally characterize as reasoned arguments rather than formally demonstrated theorems. 3. Science ceases to be an objective methodology and becomes scientism, a religion, when biological determinism is presented as an absolute certitude and all alternatives are dismissed as constructs. As people of faith ourselves, we are sensitive to this tendency, which is why in the episode Kai and Libby are at pains to sum up the case for transcendence with these words: "The non-material part of ourselves that connects us to the transcendent is what Catholics would call the soul, which has its source in God. Ultimately, a certain leap of faith is still required. Reason can point our minds toward God, but the heart must also seek Him."

[@stevewebber707]

​@@CatholicCentralVideos Interesting and serious debate in youtube comments. I like it! And I'm impressed that you clarify that this arguments should not be construed as proof. Though I disagree with a few things. Lets see; Could you provide a citation for the "law of causation"? While causation certainly is generally true, unless it is truly universal, pointing to something that may have happened once It's nice that you don't present these lines of arguments as proofs, but you still need to defend them as good arguments, if they are to be taken seriously. The cosmological argument in it's conclusion, points to something outside our spacetime continuum. Which could be any number of things we don't know about, including other space time continuums. It does not provide a logical demonstration of God. It examines a gap in our understanding, and comes to an unwarranted conclusion. I do not find it impressive to not have positive claims and arguments pointing to God. I do appreciate that we weren't hit with "something can't come from nothing" though. I'm not going to get into the fine tuning argument, as I've never heard it presented in such a way to be taken seriously. With premises leading to a conclusion And I've heard it presented a lot. I think this touches on the divine hiddenness argument. Why wouldn't God want his existence to be so clear as to be undebatable? Certain passages in the bible even claim that his existence is shown clearly, though I dispute that strongly. We can make decisions freely, and probably better, if given accurate information by which to make those decisions.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Steve, The Second Law of Thomas Aquinas is his “Argument from Efficient Cause.” Since his time, of course. the scientific conversation about “cause” has become more nuanced. You seek “logical demonstrations of God,” but that exceeds what science is capable of, like proving the meaning of life or the existence of love. We present the investigations of science as part of a conversation between faith and reason, not as a set of demonstrable theorems. Ultimately, as we make an effort to show in the other sixty episodes of our series, Catholic reasoning about faith isn't trying to do purely observational science and failing. It is about trying to answer questions that are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Even from a totally secular perspective, not all uses of reason can take the scientific approach. For example, concluding that human life has inherent worth and that it's wrong to hurt the innocent ultimately requires a value judgment. No lab experiment or scientific analysis can settle that on its own, but science can certainly help inform our ethical discernment. As for God’s "hiddenness", a God visibly looming on a mountaintop over the peoples of the world is not the God of freedom who made our freedom in his image. God preserves our freedom, the source of our human dignity, by giving us the power of choice, in this case the choice to accept or reject him. In your words, he presents “accurate information” of the cosmos, of nature, of humanity, of art and science, of the marvels of our personal existence, and leaves it up to us to make “these decisions” about God based on faith. Faith is the back door, so to speak, through which we are given to know and experience God, a chosen path rather than a forced march. That said, history reveals that even when we had a “logical demonstration of God,” such as many testify we had in Jesus, even then we were still free to believe in God … or kill him. Thank you for your comment, Steve, and even though you may disagree with us, we appreciate your courtesy and open mind. Meantime we invite you to see our episodes "Faith and Reason" and "Creation and Evolution."

[@ibperson7765]

@@stevewebber707 Fine tuning argument is compelling. If we determine initial conditions that have no apparent fundamental basis (like there is not now, and theoretical physicist cant imagine there will be, any theory that should ever imply that the initial universe should have just a tiny drop more matter than antimatter), then it’s only natural to wonder if however they were set was something involving chance or something involving design. There doesnt appear to be any reason they had to be as they were. This is why the question “Could it have been different?” and similar have mattered throughout history.. on two dimensions. One could other values have created anything complex, dynamic, interesting, at all. Two is there something fundamental about this right values that force them to be that when universes are created. We are getting more and more sure the answers are no and no. No one can think of any reason those values had to be that way. The sets of initial conditions that allow any complex ensembles of matter at all from within the conceivable sets of initial conditions are one in 10^(~200). If we had a random draw if ten digits of 5736295174 then the odds of exactly that would be one in trillion. Yet we are not surprised ex post. If the draw had been 10000000000, most anyone would begin to wonder if it really was chance, esp if we didnt know whether chance or choice. What if it happened over and over. Or the draw was 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Really. Imagine that. I say “this thing makes numbers, is it random?” And press the button and THAT comes out. No. Incredibly unlikely. But in some sense that isnt as compelling as what we actually have. The number could come out 1000000...000001. And wed be suspicious. Or 7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777 (At this point if all your logic and philosophy training has made it so that you cannot see why that draw would make us suspicious that it wasnt a random draw, then the education is taking you further from truth not closer. That can happen btw. No normal person would fail to suspect that it wasnt random. In fact theyd say either the choice space has a reason only that can manifest or only repeating numbers can or something similar, or there is agency involved). But in the actual case the result is special in a more compelling way. It is within the tiny subset that allows anything complex or interesting. Allows chemistry, life, etc. It’s not just one of several apparent patterns. Somethings wrong if your education cannot make that fine-tuning argument rigorous in your terms. Because it’s obvious. Not only is it evidence that it wasnt chance, but if designed, then it was designed by someone or something with intelligence beyond anything we can begin to imagine. But how can it not be designed? There are some mechanical laws of physics that require only initial conditions giving insanely well-balanced masterpieces of universes?? Is that it? Then what possible form could these laws take? I know the form cant be known in advance but initial conditions on so many different knife-edges do not seem to theoretical physicists to be at all likely to end-up being the result of basic laws if physics (not the several Ive heard talk about it, and even the very few trying to dismiss it apart from anthropic dont say THAT). It is perfectly tuned and balanced in many dimensions (plus the five values we believe are fundamental physical constant ratios). Pondering the creative analytical prowess necessary is like pondering the size of the known universe. Unless we pull 10^200 universes out of our butt for no reason other than to avoid the obvious implications, someone made this. And he’s smart. And powerful.

[@theratking14]

@@ibperson7765 hey I have some rebuttals to their second point in my comment that might explain some theories a little better than this commenter (no offense to you commenter).

[@MisterItchy]

You cannot prove God. No matter how personable you are, you must have faith and incuriousness in abundance if you are to believe in a supernatural deity. Going from 'we don't know what caused the Big Bang' to 'God did it' is not a valid leap. You also can't say that there was a 'first' cause because you don't know that to be true. Just be happy with faith because that's all you've got. You can't presume to know that life could not exist under different circumstances, yet you state it as a fact. Life, as we know it, may not be possible but other life might. If things had happened differently, they would be different. That's all you can say.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Mister Itchy, you have faith just as we do. Faith is choice, a decision, an “assent of the will.” We have looked at the same body of evidence and made a decision about God. Your decision is NO and ours is Yes. Here is what Hans Kung, one of the great theologians of the last century, says about our choices: “Atheism cannot be eliminated rationally. It is unprovable, but it is also irrefutable. On the other hand, atheism is incapable of refuting the alternative - the affirmation of God. Since reality is not imposed on us with conclusive evidence, there is scope for human freedom. We are expected to decide without intellectual constraint. Both atheism and belief in God are ventures, decisions, and both have the character of belief.”

[@AKdon68]

Do you have faith in the love of your wife and parents as well? That is very personable.. If yes.. Can you prove to be scientifically.. BTW Science would not be here for if not for Christianity.. Few scientist come to my mind out of the hundreds. Georges Lemaître (Catholic Priest) - Father of the Big Bang Gregor Mendel (Catholic Priest) - Father of Genetics Nicolaus Copernicus (Catholic canon) - Father of Astronomy Blaise Pascal, etc..

[@heath_00000]

@@CatholicCentralVideos That's a bad quote. If you strip everything we know down to "I think, therefore I am," then atheism is on the same playing field as theism. The quote tries to remove "intellectual constraint" by saying you can't be 100% sure of something, so you can't be sure at all. Separately, you're warping "faith" to your own definition for a stronger point. Faith means belief with complete trust. If a new theory of evolution came out, for example, and it was much more plausible, testable, and concrete than the last, atheists wouldn't "lose faith," they'd believe in the new science. If you, a religious person, saw new data, you wouldn't stray from your belief in God, because you have faith. See the difference?

[@deadbedfellow]

@@AKdon68 science would still be here. Hell, many scientific discoveries (including evolution) were uncovered and proven by scientists attempting, and failing to show god's work. Beyond that- faith isn't needed to feel or show the existence of love. Brain scans have shown that our brains themselves release the hormones and stimulants needed for us to experience that feeling, after which the brain will correlate those feelings with the person, or people that caused the chemical release the first time. Every emotion you've ever experienced has an explainable chemical trigger. No magic needed.

[@AKdon68]

​@@trichotillomaniac1959 It is cowardice not to look at the evidence when there are ample just so you can feel that your are right..

[@jabby1492]

Even if these statements were true, it doesn’t prove a Christian god or any other known god. It would just prove that something unknowable created the universe.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Part of the problem is that people look at the "Christian God" or the "Jewish God" or "The God of Islam" and think of that as three different God. That feeds into the "My God is better than your God" argument. As Catholics, we believe that there is only one God and it is the perception of that God that differs from faith to faith. That being said, what name would you give that "something unknowable"? As Catholics we believe that is God, who reveals himself to us through Scripture, nature and in so many other beautiful ways.

[@histreeonics7770]

@@CatholicCentralVideos What evidence is there that the descriptions in Scripture is from a particular being therein described? That is as circular as an argument gets. Most beauty correlates to a low information content needed to make a fair neural representation of the beautiful thing. For instance, facial symmetry is high in faces deemed beautiful in psychological tests on beauty. High symmetry means less information about structure is needed to record that image. The smaller the jpeg file the prettier the face ;) Most of nature is horrid, we live in perpetual concern for our imminent demise. That is the origin of all emotion, and belief in God is mostly emotion. -- Sociobiology explains religion far better than any religion explains reality. Until you have studied things like why people are concerned about their purpose you will be missing most of the fundamentals of what makes a human human (a social mammal).

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Actually, considering “why people are concerned about their purpose” is one of the main things that draws people to seek God. The question of purpose is framed either within a cosmic reality that is itself purposeless, absurd and “horrid,” or within a universe governed by a benevolent intelligence. For many this becomes a dialogue that does not begin in terror but in wonder. The JPEG file of socio-biology does not have all the information needed for the quest. It’s not big enough to help us decide if we should try to make the world a better place or just indulge ourselves in pleasure. It doesn’t have the resolution to help us find peace and joy despite our sufferings and the sufferings of the world and nature. The knowing embrace of mystery we call faith does not have to be an act of desperation, histreeonics, it can be the beginning of wisdom and a life of purpose. Please see our episodes "Faith and Reason" and "The Meaning and Purpose of Life."

[@aves_green4923]

3:08-Lack of explanation doesn't mean God did it. Also, whats the cause of God? 4:07-Its still a number, however small it is. 5:08-Again, that is just a lack of explanation. Hope your phone didn't explode.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

(3:08) Shrike: Lack of explanation doesn't mean God did it. Also, whats the cause of God? CC: God is the Eternal Uncreated Being from whom all being flows, the Uncaused Cause. . (4:07) Shrike: Its still a number, however small it is. CC: Correct, but it would take a faith much bigger than ours to bet on it in Vegas! (5:08) Shrike: again, that is just a lack of explanation. CC: But neither can we explain the existence of love in the same way we explain a tree. Shrike: Hope your phone didn't explode. CC: Thanks for asking, but our phones can take it!

[@SaveRobbie]

Thank you for this !

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

You're welcome!

[@childofolivares8754]

I'm Muslim and really appreciate this video. Thanks guys

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Our pleasure!

[@alexiscarrillo7305]

Thank you for doing what you're doing. I was born Catholic but have been an atheist for the majority of my life. I've always been the type to only believe in things that I can see or that have evidence behind then. Recently, I've been reconnecting with my spiritual side and working on strengthening my faith. Your videos are very helpful. Please let me know if you have suggestions on how I can help my strength gets stronger. I genuinely want to be closer to God.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Please head to CatholicCentral.com, where we have additional links and resources attached to each episode.

[@patriceyi123]

Alexis, God bless you, I can totally relate. Yeah, check out their other episodes for sure. But also check out Heather King - she's a Catholic blogger in LA, and has a great list of her favorite spiritual books. They've been a huge inspiration for me. Here they are: Henri Nouwen's With Open Hands Surprised by Joy by C. S. Lewis, Karl Rahner's Everyday Faith Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship Romano Guardini's Lord Thomas Merton's Seven Storey Mountain Graham Greene's The Heart of the Matter, St. Teresa's The Way of Perfection. The Confessions of Saint Augustine Meister Eckhart. Evagrius Ponticus's The Praktikos. Chapters on Prayer. .

[@phdmarcus7125]

@@colinjava8447 Evidence? Hey, man, look around! And it's a bad thing to try to make your life happier? Yeah, really, where 's the evidence that being lonely and miserable rules?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi PhD Marcus, thanks for the assist. Scripture is full of instances that tell us that God wants us to be joyful; “happy” is a momentary state, “joyful” is a way of life: “The Lord is my strength and shield. I trust him with all my heart. He helps me, and my heart is filled with joy.” (PS 28:7) "Those who look to him for help will be radiant with joy; no shadow of shame will darken their faces." (PS 34:5). Paul tells us in 2 Cor 6:10 - "Our hearts ache, but we always have joy.” We are encouraged to drink in the beauty of life around us, even at times when it is hard to do so.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Colin, we don’t choose to follow Christ for the sake of happiness itself. Christ calls us to love and serve others. We will know joy in that calling but we will also know the cross. No one in this life escapes suffering. And yes, the loneliness and misery you cite can move us to seek change and therefore help us in the long term. But going back to something you said earlier in this thread about belief not being a choice. Christianity requires a leap of faith, it’s a choice. All Christians are totally free to believe otherwise. You too have made a choice. Your belief in “naturalistic explanations” is a faith statement: If science can’t prove it, it doesn’t exist. And quite honestly, Colin, you would do more justice to this belief if you stopped defending it by simply debunking other people’s beliefs as “false,” and insisting over and over that you are right and they are wrong. This is the language and behavior of trolls. At Catholic Central we state our beliefs with respect and we respect the beliefs of others. We embrace conversation and discussion, not disruption and personal attack. We understand that your beliefs are different from ours and why they are different. We’re content to leave it at this stage of mutual understanding, since continuing to call our beliefs false and to tell us we’re wrong isn’t going to advance your ideas or convince us to abandon ours. Meantime we do wish you well in your continuing quest, and a life of contentment and peace.

[@howdyr6200]

Everyone brings up causes but what caused god to exist?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

If God were a thing in a universe of things like poodles or cellphones we would have to search for something that caused God's existence. But God is not a thing. God is the reason there is anything instead of nothing. He is what makes the existence of all things possible. God is the Ground of Being. "God is Spirit" says Jesus in Scripture. God does not have a body or a gender (we call God "He" because Jesus uses that term). God exists in the "nothing" out of which He created the universe. God also exists in the "everything" of His creation - in you, in us, in poodles, even in the swirling atoms of cellphones. What caused God? Causation is a phenomenon of the universe that God caused. It does not apply to God himself. Causation began when God created space, time and matter. God existed before He made causation a principle of existence. Nothing can escape that principle, science has shown this. Science has also shown it cannot use the principle of causation or any other category of empirical analysis to describe God. God cannot even be described as infinite because infinity begins with the number one and ends with the number we call infinity. God is eternal because eternity has no beginning and no end. In other words, Howdy, God is truly bigger than we can think, which is why "everyone brings up causes" ... because it really is so much easier to understand the why and how of poodles and cellphones!

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

A big question in philosophy. Some say God didn't have a beginning, he always was.

[@victhecatholickid]

Another great video! Thanks guys!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks for watching!

[@m.e4752]

Are we Christians?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

If you're referring to Catholics, yes, indeed!

[@m.e4752]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Great!! I have muslim friends relentlessly trying to tell me that we, Catholics are not Christians and that other major denominations who believe in Holy Trinity are not Christians as well because apparently Jesus was a muslim, a mere prophet.. sick of the persuasion.. Im learning a lot from videos bcoz my church mass is kinda dry and boring at times, not too attached to the elders, im an introvert.. hope we could get videos to strengthen our faith and to firmly answer these kinda questions that deny our Jesus as God.. some friends are aggresively trying to convert weak Catholics to Islam, sorry for being straightforward, cant be PC here..

[@walkerjobe6964]

That was a very fun to watch video. May I ask for references please?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

What do you mean by references?

[@walkerjobe6964]

@@CatholicCentralVideos I meant, the source of the informations. Like a website or something. Please.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

In terms of source references, we draw on the New American Bible for most scripture, as well as the Catechism, Church documents such as papal encyclicals, and relevant historical scholarship. Our use of these materials is informed by the backgrounds of our dedicated staff of religious and lay writers and producers. They draw on many years of secular, theological, and clerical training, pastoral experience, and of course the personal experiences of all of them on the path, with God's grace, questioning their faith and finding answers.

[@walkerjobe6964]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Ok, thanks. I have another question. Lately, some people I know say that catholicism is the true way, but in the bible Jesus is a typical Jew. He prays, fasts, keep kosher. So if catholicism is the true way, was Jesus a catholic, or a Jew?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Our teaching tells us that Jesus came to save the Jews, but they rejected him and as a result, salvation is offered to all. Two of the ways we know this are the appearance of the Magi in Matthew and the Roman Centurion at the foot of the Cross, also in Matthew. Jesus did not come to create a new sect of Judaism or a completely new religion, he came to bring us our salvation. When we look at the papacy, we naturally look to the comment “Upon this rock, I will build my Church” (Matthew 16), but we need to look at that within the context of the time and realize that Jesus was putting Peter in charge of his disciples. His use of the term which is translated to the Greek "ekklesia" could mean assembly or group as well as sect or church. What he was saying was that Peter would guide this new movement in Judaism once Jesus had risen. You have to remember that many of his disciples, Peter included, thought that after the Resurrection the end-time would happen relatively soon (1 Peter 1:20, 1 Corinthians 7), so a universal ekklesia lasting millennia was not the common expectation, not even for Peter's first few successors. But Jesus was open to, and probably realized that, this movement would grow beyond Judaism. In his ministry, he sought out people who were not part of Judaism, such as the Woman at the Well, the Roman Centurion with the paralyzed servant as well as the others we mentioned earlier. In the end, of course, as we read in Acts, it wasn’t the Christian Jews who left Judaism. It was the Jewish hierarchy (not the Jews themselves) who kicked the Christian Jews out, threatened by their way of teaching. The Jesus movement then went “underground” (literally, in some cases) and morphed into what we practice today. So, LONG answer to your short question: "Yes" Jesus was born, lived, and died a Jew.

[@Jack-uf3ql]

your argument that everything has to have a cause, i.e. the cosmological argument, is flawed. If everything has to have a cause, then what caused God? And if God doesn't have a cause, why does He not need a cause but the universe does? Why does anything need a cause if one thing doesn't? What's the difference between the need for a cause of God and the need for a cause of anything else?

[@middlegroundlogic]

There's a flaw in asserting that the questions above dismiss God. It's not completely irrational to conclude that nobody can answer those questions. Simply not being able to answer those questions does not mean that there is no God. I can ask the same questions about how unlikely the universe, biological life, and consciousness it won't cause life as we know it to cease and desist. I don't, nor does anyone, know the answer to the questions you ask. That's why you can't lean on them for credibility on any particular position

[@Jack-uf3ql]

@@middlegroundlogic I never said that the flaw in the cosmological argument meant that there was no God. And it seems like you agree that argument "can't be leaned on for credibility", despite this video and many religious people who do.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thank you both for your clarifications. To clarify further, the cosmological argument in the theology of virtually all religions is not “leaned on” as a proof for God, since God inhabits - or rather IS - a unique and uncaused order of being in a unique and uncaused dimension occupying neither time nor space. Science would probably use the term “singularity.” In any case TJ is right in asserting that arguments for or against these inexplicable mysteries can neither definitively prove or disprove God’s existence. Our episode presented them rather as part of the conversation between faith and reason.

[@TheRoseCat6_11]

Found u at RE Congress. Keep up the good work! =)

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks!

[@watermelongaming1192]

3:00 personally I am an atheistic scientist and scientists believe that the universe existed before the big bang it was just an expansion of SPACE and creation of MATTER but there still were things like virtual particles which are believed to directly or indirectly creating the big bang before that is believed to either all be the same for infinitely back or the big crunch could have repetitively destroyed and recreated it all until eventually life was coincidentally created the big crunch is more supported due to it disputing the argument of it being impossibly unlikely for life to form because it would have happened infinitely back in the past due to time itself being reset multiple times which once again eventually, and coincidentally created us

[@watermelongaming1192]

Also if you do see this then I want to thank you for not just discrediting scientists for there accomplishments and discoveries and saying that they are dumb for not believing in God full respect to you guys for maturely talking about this

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Watermelon Gaming, thank you for the “mature talk” as well. Definitely our favorite kind! At this point in our scientific understanding, the theory of an infinite regress of cosmic cycles is entirely speculative. But even if someday it were to be factually proven that our universe represents the trillion trillionth cycle of expansion and contraction, of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, it would by no means disprove God’s designing hand. Our present universe, and the universe of universes it might well have followed, are all objects - physical objects existing in a space-time continuum. God is Pure Subject: I AM, as he explains to Moses. For us, this Uncreated and Eternal Intelligence is beyond the infinities of space, time and matter. The universe occupies a place, whatever its mind-boggling dimensions and properties. But of God’s place it has been said that its center is everywhere and its circumference is nowhere. Thank you again for your courtesy and interesting contribution to the discussion. And we hope anybody who called atheists "dumb" had a time-out in the principal's office!

[@j-joe-jeans]

@@CatholicCentralVideos "At this point in our scientific understanding, the theory of an infinite regress of cosmic cycles is entirely speculative." - This goes for a god as well. " it would by no means disprove God’s designing hand. Our present universe, and the universe of universes it might well have followed, are all objects - physical objects existing in a space-time continuum. God is Pure Subject" - Yes, it does not "disprove God’s designing hand" as you define it. - The latter are a claims needing to be supported with evidence. Cheers

[@mastim6617]

There’s one thing you need to realize: if the conditions of the universe and earth weren’t good enough, we wouldn’t be here in the first place. There’s no way any intelligent form of life in any possible universe would be able to experience a universe that wasn’t good enough, because they wouldn’t exist in the first place. Your reasoning doesn’t make any sense.

[@even___]

Finally a sign of intelligent life in this comment section.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks, Mas Tim, you’re citing a form of the Anthropic Principle. What you say is true, but it doesn’t diminish the incredible odds against our universe producing us. Even famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking found it mind-boggling that “if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed and no intelligent life could have evolved.” That’s just another way of saying what we’re saying, that the conditions of the Big Bang were in fact “good enough” (if improbable enough) to make human life happen. We don’t see the false reasoning in this.

[@mastim6617]

Catholic Central True, but this would make more sense in another situation. If humans were beings that existed before the universe, and then had one chance to get it right, then it would be magically lucky. But we as humans are a result of the universe being perfect in the first place. What I’m saying is that there is no possible universe where humans or other intelligent life would exist and then would say: “Wow, what a crappy universe. Guess there’s no God.” Because if the universe was bad (which statistically speaking most possible universes would be), there wouldn’t be any life. It’s true that we’re one in a gazillion, but we wouldn’t be able to experience the other gazillions anyway. No one would.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks again, Mas Tim. As suggested before, we share your understanding and hope you haven’t interpreted anything in the episode to suggest otherwise! The brain dumps of Scientist Libby and Scientist Kai, as well as Libby and Kai’s hilarious BTS improv we added after the end-title, were riffs on the “one in a gazillion” chance of our “universe being perfect in the first place” (your words here). But they were not about how “magically lucky” humans would have been if they themselves had been given only one chance to create a suitable universe and succeeded. This one-in-a-gazillion universe came first, eventually followed by this one-in-a-gazillion life-form called you and us. That God is behind it all doesn't change the mind-blowing physics. If there’s any way this thread of our presentation tugged the wrong way, we apologize! And again our thanks for your observations.

[@even___]

no spam pls yall

[@theratking14]

Hey great video but as a rebuttal to your second point (or to show it in a differ light), if you interpret that tiny chance of a life giving universe in a different light it can serve as proof to two scientific theories. The first theory is a fairly common one and that is a the theory of a multiverse. The small chance of perfect condition can serve as proof to the idea of infinite, unique, universes happening simultaneously. To simplify the explanation if you needed a computer to output 1 to get life and you ran infinite simulations, that picked a number from 1-10^12,300, at the same time, you would definitely get a 1. The second theory is harder to explain but is kind of the same thing. The second theory is that when the force of the big bang wears off, gravity will pull the universe back into a single point causing another big bang. Basically, what this means is that there could have been an infinite amount of universe life spans. To explain this one it is essentially the the same as my first simplified explanation but instead of the simulations happening at the same time they are happening one after another. The cool part about these is that they could both be true, you could have infinite dimensions each one having its own universal cycle. I don’t think your points are invalid and i am just trying to shine this one in a new light. I would give my thoughts on the other points but this one seemed to be the hardest to make a counter argument to and I got to bring up love for theoretical science (also i have to get back to math HW because i have been procrastinating lol)

[@ibperson7765]

The theory about the collapsing over and over has an issue. It’s interesting and creative and Ive never heard of it 🙂👍🏻. But I do see a problem with it. It’s not that only 1 on 10^500 wouldn’t collapse, it’s that only 1 would have any interesting ensembles of matter or any chemistry or anything interesting at all. Many of the universes would not collapse again.

[@theratking14]

@@ibperson7765 I see what you are saying but it would always have the same amount of matter, because of the 1st law of thermodynamics, therefore there will always be the same amount of gravity in the center (although the center can move there will still always be a center). This means that the universe will always collapse back in on itself. And, to address your thoughts on the low chance of anything interesting, all you need is one cycle where anything happens and that would be the one we are in right now.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Rat King, good stuff! Yes, the cyclical and multiverse theories. No big deal, but you speak of the infinitesimal probability of our universe as providing "proof " of these two theories. But we're confident you're aware that there is no proof, they are speculation only, if fascinating and well-presented. And neither of the theories has any bearing on the existence or non-existence of God, which is our theme. But we can enjoy our capacity for wonder, and give thanks to the Creator for our own universe's starry nights that stir our minds and imagination, and awaken our hearts' longing for the divine.

[@theratking14]

@@CatholicCentralVideos By the word “proof” I meant more of like “Possible evidence” when I wrote that I was tired and couldn’t think of a better phrase. Also I didn’t intend to disprove a god but to merely point towards the possibility of another explanation.

[@ecclesiastesxyz]

Another great video!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks!

[@timmymannies6888]

Hey, I found this video very educational. I would like to know your thoughts on Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Magnificent poetry! The literary form of the Book of Job is poetic drama. Please see our episode called "The Bible" to learn of the many other literary forms the writers of scripture use to express God's word. Job contains some of the greatest poetry ever written, in any language, and its theme of the problem of suffering in a world created by a benevolent God has been a classic text on the subject for the last 2500 years. Thanks for the comment, Aden, and don’t forget to like and subscribe!

[@MajestyofReason]

Thank you for being so civil and loving in presenting these points. Too often we hear people on either side of the debate say things like "this is a decisive demonstration or proof that God does/does not exist". I think you guys did really well in conveying the complexities of these issues instead of saying it is all decisively settled. :)

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Awww, thanks so much!

[@rstehlik100]

I don’t get it, maybe I’m missing something. It sounds like because you don’t know or understand how we could exist by natural means, therefore god exists. Do you or anyone know or understand god? If yes, please explain how. If no, then there’s no point in asserting god, just stop at “I don’t know”.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Ryan, what you may have missed in relation to “natural means” is Frank Turk’s interview with pop atheist and best-selling science writer Richard Dawkins in January of 2015 (now available on YT). Dawkins is asked how the first self-replicating molecule - the origin of earthly life - came into being. Dawkins replies in part: “I told you I don’t know…. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology and designed a form of life that they seeded on to perhaps this planet. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the B-cells of biochemistry, molecular biochemistry…. You might find a signature of some sort of designer, and that designer could well be a higher intelligence from somewhere in the universe.” What Dawkins seems to demonstrate here, granted in a pretty far-fetched way, is that “natural means” itself requires an explanation for its origin that has yet to be empirically verified. Thus “natural means” can hardly be used in an argument that champions empiricism as the sole basis for establishing truth. But even more problematic for us is your implied assumption that we must choose between “natural means” or “God” when pondering human existence. Everything in the universe lives and moves and has its being in God, to paraphrase St Paul. God is not an entity, a "thing" separate from being. God’s name revealed in the third chapter of the Book of Exodus is I AM WHO AM - in other words, Being Itself. God is the condition of possibility of everything, including “natural means.” God does not negate nature and its processes, and nature does not negate God. To find out whether we know or understand God, please have a look at our episodes, “Who is God,” “Creation and Evolution,” and “Faith and Reason.”

[@rstehlik100]

@@CatholicCentralVideos sorry, but I guess I wasn’t clear in my comment. I most definitely wasn’t assuming or asserting anything, dichotomy or otherwise. So I’ll ask the question in a different way, Why do you insert god when we just don’t know? If you just believe it and don’t know, then that’s the end of it. Maybe I missed this in your video that I was responding to. I don’t really care what Dawkins or Turek have to say, I care about what you have to say, it is your channel after all.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Ryan, Thanks for your clarification and continued interest. We don't insert God as if he were a missing piece of a puzzle. If you watch our episode "Faith and Reason," maybe you'll understand how, for us, God is not a place-holder for what we don't know, or just a Big Idea, or the CEO of a cosmic club we joined because we're desperate to belong. Our personal relationship to the mystery of God arises from a lifelong discernment of our deepest intuitions and interpersonal relationships, from our experiences of the human condition and our own intimate encounters with darkness and light, alienation and love, restlessness and peace. It arises from our lifelong study of truth - not only in science but in the arts and humanities, in philosophy, history, anthropology, psychology, theology and sacred scripture. It arises from our interactions with nature, and from the contemplation of the immeasurable vastness beyond the human horizon. This quest of the mind, heart and spirit becomes, by intention or surprise, a way that the grace and mystery of God is intimated - not completely "known" by any means but somehow understood and experienced, enough to venture a leap of faith and to say "I believe" and finally "I love." Using only science for this journey is like using science to quantify happiness or determine the right person to marry. Not all journeys lead to the same place, we realize and honor that. What we have in common are our choices. Just because we don't have all the answers that lead us to those choices, doesn't mean we make them because we "just don't know" what we are choosing.

[@rstehlik100]

@@CatholicCentralVideos sorry, but you’re still not answering my question. Maybe think about it more. I also am in search for truth in that I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. Knowledge being a subset of belief. I didn’t bring up science, the term that’s important here is your epistemology. I really don’t want to be rude, I’m just trying to understand how you came to believe that a god exists and inserted it into the way you experience the world. You hinted at feelings in your reply, but I would challenge how feelings are a reliable pathway to truth.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Ryan, no apologies needed for your persistence. That's the "desire" Augustine says is the pull of truth. The basic fact is that each person's road to God is different. Another basic fact that we appear to agree on: philosophy with its structures of logic and science with its singularities and "God-spot" can only go so far, and ultimately can neither prove nor disprove God. (We assume you understand that our episode is titled "Proofs of God" as a playful nod to the ancients and instead, as Kai explains, it presents "lines of reasoning.") Your latest comment touches on fundamental issues of religious epistemology and the extent to which personal experience can be considered "evidentiary" in an epistemic argument. Developing that thread with you is beyond the scope of this forum. but we point out, with emphasis, that the pursuit of philosophy and science are both exercises of the mind. Belief in God calls on the totality of our being: not only our intellect, but our emotions, our senses, our personal history, our will. Ultimately, belief in God is an experience that's greater than the sum of its parts, a felt experience to which we give our assent, not a theorem we arrive at with mathematical precision. This is by no means to conclude that you should stop your philosophical investigations. As we suggest in both "Proofs of God" and "Faith and Reason," philosophy and logic can provide armatures for faith, but not faith itself. We hope you don't find us presumptuous, but it seems to us that you are at an important threshold, one for which a spiritual director might be a helpful sounding board. In any case we thank you for sharing your journey with us.

[@samalamichael1]

Excellent works. The best way to reach out the young generations. SUGGESTIONS

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Michael, thanks for your kind words. We do believe that this is one good way to reach our audience. Please check our website: CatholicCentral.com for more resources and study guides for each episode.

[@pollypockets508]

I must say that I am very grateful that you didn't strawman atheists. That gets annoying.

[@garrett5559]

Im an atheist and also dont want to be a believer but watched this video to see what the other side thinks and it was very interesting I dont agree with you at all but this video is great to learn a little bit about faith and what you think

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Garrett, thank you for your comments.

[@kylerwood8569]

I'm not Catholic, but I randomly stumbled across this channel today and found it really cool! I've wondered about other religions beliefs but haven't known how to learn more. These videos are super comprehensive and fun and have helped me realize some of our beliefs aren't quite as different as I thought!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Beautiful insight, Kyler, thanks!

[@marianougaz1744]

Want a disproving? Well it's right here 1) Causation: The logic applied here can be the same applied for how a god came into existence, either god has been existing for an eternity and if so why did it take him so long just sitting in the dark to finally create the universe? Or god did come into existence but if so what created this god and if nothing created him then did he simply come from nothing? If so then Christians are contradicting their main narrative that something cannot come from nothing. 2) Physics: I hate to break it to everyone but things do happen by chance every once in a while, many of these interactions might be on a molecular level and we may never notice, so when they are visible or more to scale we perceive it as impossible but a small chance is still a chance. Besides the consensus among many scientists is that the big bang is the most likely way the universe came into existence but it is agreed that no one really knows. 3) Human experience: Literally just god of the gaps, if you are not aware what that is it is simply when religious people say "oh well science cannot explain everything about the world or the universe so in place of this gap of knowledge lets place god". This is a horrendous way to approach something that is still unknown in the universe because we should try our best to try and figure out and research this uncertain thing instead of just labeling it as god and leaving the mystery unsolved. Religious people have been proven wrong on many things they claimed were god, they claimed that when there were earthquakes it was god being angry, they claimed that the immense difference in species was god (we now know it's evolution). Consciousness and human experience will one day or another be given an explanation just like many other gaps in scientific knowledge

[@DaveyBee25]

I wander what both of your professions are? Like what do you work?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Practical Dave Kai and Libby are both amazing actors that live in LA :)

[@lauterunvollkommenheit4344]

Why the misleading title?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

As the episode said: In the 13th Century, Catholic thinker St. KAI: Thomas Aquinas created an intellectual revolution by applying the philosophical tools of ancient Greece to Christian spirituality. He proposed five ways of arguing for the existence of God. LIBBY: They're sometimes called proofs, but they're not like mathematical proofs; they're just different lines of reasoning. So, that's the sense in which we say "proofs." It's not misleading; some words have more than one shade of meaning.

[@lauterunvollkommenheit4344]

@@CatholicCentralVideos I don't get you. In the video, they both use "proof" in its usual sense. At 2:04, the word "PROOFS" is even crossed out with red lines. And you're saying using it in a different sense in the title of the video is not misleading?

[@random-kun]

0:17 Well that's KZbin for you! Straight up! this is true no need to debate on it, YOU'LL GET THAT EVERYWHERE IN KZbin! I love these guys already!

[@whaym318]

You guys still respond?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Yes...why?

[@whaym318]

@@CatholicCentralVideos I want to debate

[@matthew_kohai3]

A human is free to believe in whatever they would like as long as it does not prevent another from doing the exact same thing. If there is an all-good god, why would it punish?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Kohai3, actually a human being is free to believe in whatever they would like…period. We are not forcing you to believe in God or to believe in God the same way we do, we are just presenting our case for his existence. We do believe in a God that is “all-good” and not the stern disciplinarian of the Old Testament often misunderstood by the modern reader. One of the beautiful things about the Incarnation is that God, through Jesus, showed us who he really is; a loving and forgiving parent. Like any other parent, this God - the same Old Testament God - created us in his image and gave us our freedom to believe in whatever we choose to believe. Please watch our episodes, “Who is God”, “Who is Jesus”, and “Being Human.”

[@matthew_kohai3]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Therefore, this god would not punish. There is no freedom to believe as we wish under this god as, to not believe, means damnation forever. That is no choice. If a Muslim believes as fervently as you do in the same god, you both cannot be right.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi kohai3. We think that the fact that people can commit heinous crimes while on this earth and are not struck down on the spot is a good proof of the amount of freedom we have. As Catholics, we believe that God - like a good parent - is always reaching out to us, hoping we turn back to him. This offer of salvation lasts for at least as long as we are walking on the earth (this is one of the reasons why Catholics oppose the death penalty, it removes forever the opportunity to repent) and further, in purgatory. All we have to do is to choose to turn towards God. As for your comment about Muslims; the three Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all worship the same God but differently. It is as like a family where there are three children. If you ask each of those children to describe their parents and the relationship to those parents, you will get three similar but different stories - because they all relate to those parents differently. BUT they are the same parents, so it is the same with Jews, Christians, and Muslims - we all relate to God differently, but it is the same God.

[@bigbriggsof1996]

Faith is synonymous with gullibility. You can use a faith based position to argue for the belief of literally anything. That makes faith an unreliable method of understanding what is true and what is not. Try again.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

We’re not sure that faith can argue persuasively for “literally anything.” There may be an argument for the existence of leprechauns but on the whole it’s “unreliable” in light of reason, human experience and the preponderance of evidence. Whereas an argument for the existence of “love,” say, would be a different case. Even though we can’t empirically measure and weigh love like a basket of apples, we have a vast resource of human testimony and personal witness as to its reality in people’s lives, even though love may elude some folks and for others is just a blind spasm of chemistry. In other words, a majority of people accept on faith that love is “real” and has “real meaning” in accordance with basic standards of reason, personal experience and a significant body of evidence. Much like love, God is a luminous mystery eluding scientific measurement. But faith in God has left its signature across all of human history, in many of its greatest works, and in the hearts and minds of every variety of human person. Many witnesses (like us) believe that the object of such faith is a transformative power far greater than “literally anything.” Along with other grounds for faith described in the episode, our “assent to believe” does not strike us as gullible, defined as a mindless acceptance of anything that appeals to our fancy like, well, leprechauns.

[@joshuadunford3171]

I have a question I hope you can please answer for me. When people get brain damage, they lose memories and people who had near death experiences either reported being one place one moment, and on an operating table the next, or had heavenly encounters that were just the result of stress lack of oxygen. Wouldn’t it be logical to conclude that our when our brains rot, we are 100% done, no memories, just an internal dreamless sleep?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

The brain is part of our physical body and will indeed decompose with the rest of us after death. The Church doesn't have an official position on near-death experiences, but it does teach that the soul -- which is in union with the physical body during life -- doesn't perish along with the physical body. This article may be of some help ... www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/new-research-confirms-life-after-death.html

[@joshuadunford3171]

Catholic Central thank you guys so much God bless

[@NatzKulz]

My religion teacher sent us this video now that we are doong online class and I really liked it, your content is so didacitc and unny, keep up the good work!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

NatzKulz thanks!

[@grove124]

idk but it bothers me like when ppl tell me abt god and stuff but then i wanna believe but when i read the bible or when sum one talk to me abt it i just start over thinking and i feel trapped like i can’t do anything and then ppl say they talked to god then theirs other religions and they say they talked to their god as well so it’s like which is real bc how can they be talking to their god if it’s only one god if that made sense

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Indeed. There's God, and then there's people's individual experiences of their religions and how they see God. As Catholics, we think that anyone making an honest, goodwill attempt to speak to God, however they do it, will reach the real thing. Catholics believe there is only one God, and that's true no matter what religion you follow. The hope is that, if people honestly pray, and if what they pray for is in line with what God wants for them, that their hearts will be open to the Holy Spirit.

[@caitroseco6752]

I’m not Catholic but I am subscribing! (And I am a Christian). Great video

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Cait RoseCo, thank you for subscribing! One of the aims of this series is to promote dialogue and understanding.

[@laurakotsmith6280]

Love you guys!! Will you be coming out with another video soon over these weird times?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Laura Kotsmith stay tuned!

[@michaelscarn9190]

Just Subscribed!!! Keep making videos and god bless you!!!😄

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks for subbing!

[@carlosenrique1712]

I love yalls channel!!

[@leibniz4455]

I'm a Christian, but what if atheists say the right answer is "we don't know" would it just lead to Existencialism? Which I know is lead by emotion.. What if there are other factors in the creation of the universe? I always wonder to find answers for my faith

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Jefil, wondering about and questioning your faith is very normal and healthy in defining your relationship with God, so long as you do not do it in a bubble. It is always good to speak to people you trust when questioning faith and to try to include people of faith in that discussion. When it comes to existentialism, it is important to remember that atheists do not own that particular school of philosophy. Kierkegaard, who is one of the fathers of that movement, believed in God. Existentialism is, like much of philosophy, a search for meaning and would say that your search for God is not found in books or rules or faith, but that your faith must be something you own. Your faith has to be a personal one. As Catholics, we can approach our faith in much the same way. The Bible and the rules of the Church are there to help you find God, but you cannot really know him until you find him for yourself. And what if there are other factors in the creation of the universe? Science is continually unravelling the beginnings of line life on this planet and we have done a pretty good job of it - including some really great Catholic scientists. That being said, mystery will always remain, and that mystery is God's hand and heart in all of it.

[@leibniz4455]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Thank you for the enlightenment there Catholic Central 😁 So I realized that knowing God is a personal search, and if I really want to find Him, I have to search for Him myself.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

But you can ask for help as well. Maybe you should consider a Spiritual Director or speak to a priest or religious that you trust.

[@leibniz4455]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Yes, in fact I consider a site of "Ligonier.org" to give answers to my questions, thank you again for enlightening me 😁

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Jefil, whether you are a Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical or a disciple of the biblical literalism of R.C. Sproul's Reformed Church in America, you should make sure that the sites you visit for such information are giving you real information. Balance one site with another and come to your own conclusions. We still urge you to find a Spiritual Director or Advisor, who can help in those times when you feel lost or need to sort through questions with a third party. You may also want to check out some of our other episodes for a broader look at the God-centered life within Catholic tradition and spirituality. They are meant to help people just like yourself on a personal search for God. See "What's Catholic", of course, and "The BIble", "The Pentateuch"," Revelation", "Creation and Evolution", and for a great way to enter the bible personally, "Lectio Divina" and "Ignatian Meditation". From there you might branch out to our lively "Seven Deadly Sins", "The Problem of Evil", "Being Human", and finally our episodes on the seven sacraments, the heart of the Church. The complete Catholic Central series with additional resources is on our website at catholiccentral.com. Wherever your path takes you, you have our blessings!

[@ChristianSigma]

I love the way you both presented the video! Very approachable and user friendly. However, I’d have to point something out that certain atheists or theists might misunderstand-and that’s Aquinas’ argument for God. He isn’t concerned with the universe tracing back to a cosmic beginning-he didn’t think we could prove that through natural reason/revelation alone but instead only took it on divine revelation in the Bible. He did however believed that God could be proved via the very existence of a thing and that’s what his argument mentioned in the video would rely on more metaphysically. I would explain it but it’s complex and takes a lot of time. Anyways, good video once again!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi friendly user and thanks for the friendly use! Yes, Aquinas assumes "Let there be light" does the trick and builds from there. As the episode suggests, though, Aquinas's causation argument maintains its essential shape even in relation to the Big Bang. We mention this in case it was just the Genesis origin account that led to misunderstanding. Thanks for pointing out Aquinas's other argument for God, which prefigures Leibniz's concise and compelling "Why is there something rather than nothing?" You have tempted us to know your further reflections on these two arguments, and why the second argument might prove more resistant to misunderstanding, which is what we assume you're proposing. We have no fear of complexity when clearly spoken, and there's a good chance that many of our viewers would be as interested as we are. Thank you for joining in the conversation.

[@julianaweber9336]

You guys make me laugh SO HARD! Thanks for what you're doing :)

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks for watching!

[@adrenalinewill]

Thankyou this really helped me understand God more!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

We are glad we could help!

[@naturezaesferica]

Guys I just discovered you and I am loving it!!! You are so funny and explain things in such an appealing way. Thank you! 🙏🏼

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks!

[@donnadifonzo339]

I just discovered them as well. I hope they continue. Extremely helpful and spot on for authentic Catholic theology !

[@freddan6fly]

@@donnadifonzo339 Spot on for lying scientific illiterate half-wits in lab coats. Reminds me of flat earthers in labcoats. Gives me a good laugh.

[@confirmationpreparation-go8859]

I LOVE this channel and your videos! I point my Confirmation teens towards your videos to reinforce our lessons and they love them! PLEASE keep these coming!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Wonderful!

[@TDangerPtrow]

Great vid!

[@LuisPerez-ow7sz]

thank and god bless you two! I've always loved being catholic because its home to some of the smartest people around.

[@GSDPops]

So I've asked this question several times and I keep getting nothing but confusing answers on it. Perhaps you would be willing to explain it to me in a way that makes sense? Why should I care about the Catechism? We all know that God wrote the Bible and because of that we definitely should care about the dos and don'ts of it. But the Catechism of the Catholic Church was written by a bunch of guys sitting around a table in Italy. I understand that the Catechism is a guidebook that elaborates on certain things in the Bible and a lot of the laws in it are tradition. But in the end, the Catechism was written by man and isn't divinely inspired. So really, why should I care about what it is or what's in it?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Zach, yes, it’s important to make the distinction between the Catechism and Scripture. You could say that Sacred Scripture, along with the Sacred Tradition that arose even before Scripture was compiled, is the “main resource” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism is basically a textbook that helps Catholics understand and interpret what was written by the Bible’s inspired authors, set down and practiced by the Apostles, the first Christians and the early Church Fathers (and Mothers), revealed in word and action by the saints and martyrs, and pondered by two millennia of Catholic thinkers and theologians up to the present day. Think of it collectively as your religious ed teacher on steroids, explaining to you and your classmates the collective reasoning and wisdom of these multitudes…btw just as we try to do on Catholic Central! Finally, the Catechism is not just the work of “a bunch of guys in Italy.” Its consultants include laypeople as well as clergy from around the world - teachers, scholars, writers and theologians both male and female, Catholic and non-Catholic. Does the CCC take the place of sacred scripture? No, Scripture should always be the starting point for any discernment. Does it help us understand who we are as Catholic people of the Word? Absolutely!

[@anthonyharty1732]

‘God’ wrote the Bible? No that is wrong, MAN wrote the Bible. MAN created Religion not ‘God’. All this NONSENSE about ‘God’ having chats with people back in the Bible days is just that, NONSENSE. ‘He’ has gone quiet since the Bible days. The only people who claim to hear ‘him’ and ‘Jesus’ talking to them are deluded brainwashed religious people. They are met with SILENCE when they try and talk to ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’, they hear nothing. The reason for that is whatever ‘God’s’ they are talking to do not exist.

[@shuabshungne8043]

Did she say: "A live supporting universe" ? Seriously?

[@ironymatt]

"True tornado manufacturing just hasn't yet been properly tried" - Joseph S.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

We are guessing that is good?

[@NateBostian]

I am a chaplain and priest at an Episcopal school. I work very hard to find resources that demonstrate the truths of Christian faith to a diverse student and staff body. This is a very good video that presents Theistic faith in a winsome and non-exclusionary way.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks very much. We're so glad you found it helpful. Also, if you go to the episode on our website, CatholicCentral.com, there are additional resources.

[@melissamang8320]

I'm so blessed to have found you, Kai and Libby- and your incredible staff at Catholic Central- for all your great work in teaching our faith through these engaging and hilarious videos! I use your videos exclusively when teaching our middle and high school youth. Thank you so much for providing this information on all the pertinent topics/doctrine of our faith. Prayers for God's continued blessings on your ministry, now and throughout your careers! Love you!!!

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thank you so much -- that's so encouraging to us!

[@jannavarro5364]

Continue to use this platform as a venue to inform people about what and why we believe in God.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thank you, we will! Please help us by spreading the word!

[@willyh.r.1216]

Fruitful and mindful thoughts on "proofs of God". Please, keep spreading around this open minded message.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thanks!

[@michaelverde4844]

Spiritual woo-hoo!

[@even___]

*woohoo?*

[@even___]

@graham CRACKER more confused screaming

[@MmmBopsPops]

Umm, why is Libby wearing a Captain Kirk outfit?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Because Capt.Kirk is AWESOME.

[@deankahui4601]

I believe in God and in Jesus...but not in Catholics. Answer this for me please...how is it that a Catholic priest has the ability to forgive another person of there sins in confession?..Jesus stated clearly that God can only forgive you of your sins. And this nonsense you talking bout the big bang, where does the Bible talk about that.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Dean, thank you for your comments, we delight in your faith in God and Jesus. Regarding your question about the Catholic priest’s ability to absolve our sins, the priest is not actually the one doing the forgiving. The priest represents Jesus in the confessional, but absolution comes from God to the person in the confessional. When we sin, we also separate ourselves from the community, so the priest also represents that community - he helps the sinner to reconcile himself back into the community. Finally, the priest helps the person to reconcile themselves. Sometimes the hardest part of being sorry for our sins is forgiving ourselves. As for where this is in the Bible, there are several sources that point to this concept. Jesus names Peter be the “rock” of his future church - the first pope. He says to him: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”(Matthew 16:18) After his resurrection Jesus appears to Peter again as well as to the rest of the apostles, telling them: “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” (John 20: 22-23). With these words Jesus gives his own power to forgive sins to the future leaders of the church, who will lay hands on those who come after them, passing along Christ’s power to “bind and loose” through the ages. This is known as the “apostolic succession” and is why today Pope Francis, his bishops and his priests have the power to forgive our sins, a power given them by Jesus himself. As for where the bible talks about the “Big Bang” -- the scientific term used to describe the beginning of our universe - we’re sure, Dean, that you know the passage well: “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. And God saw that the light was good.” (Genesis 1:3).

[@templargfx]

really? The fine tuning argument? seriously....

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Yes, templargfx, it's unavoidable in a discussion like this, but please see our reply to Austin Master on this page regarding scientific and secular perspectives on the fine-tuning argument.

[@templargfx]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Even that document makes it very clear that 'intelligent design' is an extremely flawed position to hold. While it does not eliminate the possibility of a designer, it does eliminate the possibility of it being the God of the Bible. Perhaps you didnt read it all? The Fine Tuning argument should be avoided by theists at all costs, not inevitably brought up. It is so extremely flawed from a theist perspective.

[@deckermunroe7547]

What an absolute misrepresentation of the science and the logic behind it. For one, the astronomical chances argument is a silly one, we actually don't know what the chances are (for all we know they could be 1 in 1, meaning this is the only way the universe can be), but despite the chances, they are irrelevant. Here's why. I can roll 10,000 dice and the end result would be astronomical, but that doesnt matter because a end result is guaranteed, the result is a consequence of the initial conditions and nothing more. Just like the dice, we are the end result, we are the consequence of the universes and its conditions. If we want to talk about causation, we have examples of things in the universe coming from nothing, like quantum number generators, which uses subatomic particles being in one, or many different positions at once to generate a truly random number with no initial conditions that could have caused it. Gravity fits with this as well, as the gravitational energy of the universe cancels out the momentum kinetic energy of the universe. If a rock is right at the edge of a gravity well with no kinetic energy, it will start to fall to the center of mass. The kinetic energy required to leave the gravity well from the center is equivalent to the kinetic energy gained by falling into the center from the edge the gravity well. Where does this energy come from? As for human experiences, they're unreliable, as they are plagued by bias and by human minds deploying a defective form of reasoning. This rebuttal doesn't prove that god doesn't exist, but rather its to show that a naturalistic explanation is perfectly viable, understandable, and reasonable.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Decker Monroe, many thanks for your engaging and knowledgeable glimpse of the horizons of science. We understand from other cosmologists and scientific observers that there is more than one view of a "something-from-nothing" universe or its counterpart, an "always-was" universe. A middle-course is taken by Alexander Vilenkin, for example, who argues for a universe with a definitive beginning, one where there may have been no space, time or matter beforehand, but where something did pre-exist, namely the laws of physics. In any case, the science we referenced in the episode was not intended to represent the full range of this scientific conversation, but it is supported by the views of the scientists we named. Finally, as you point out, an argument for the existence of God does not hinge on what science reveals to us in its ever-greater understanding of our glorious universe.

[@deckermunroe7547]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Hey, thanks for the reply. As for the "the universe has always been here" point of view, i would read up on the Grand Unification Theory if you want a better understanding of the "Always was" view. As you know, our universe is governed by 4 forces, them being gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. In particle accelerators, conditions similar to the big bang are created. We see that for a mere sliver of a fraction of a millisecond, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force literally melt into each other, creating the electroweak force, an entirely new law, a new property of the universe. Before the expansion within the big bang, the singularity had conditions unlike anything in the universe today (except for incredibly small systems created in labs which are similar), the laws we have today hardly apply to the universe when it first began, a lot of the rules must of been different. I think all of our answers lie within the those first milliseconds of the universes existence and with particle accelerators getting bigger, we only get closer to truly recreating those conditions and seeing what happens. At the end of the day it doesn't matter who or what made the universe, it's here, and we're stuck with it for better or for worse. At least it is very pretty to look at at night.

[@hudgaming_7022]

@@deckermunroe7547 Let me ask you what seems more reasonable. An intelligent, conscious cause that created intelligent and conscious humans Or An unintelligent, unconscious cause that created intelligent, conscience humans? There can only be one answer

[@aves_green4923]

@@hudgaming_7022 The 2nd one for me.

[@dianasaunders2832]

I have to vehemently disagree with you about one thing: I think that licorice us delicious!!!

[@dianasaunders2832]

(I meant to type “is”.)

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

The staff is split on that one!

[@pollypockets508]

If Psalm 139 is true, then why is DNA needed?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Polly, we are not sure what you mean. DNA is one of the basic building blocks of life on this planet. When talking about human beings, it is what makes us who we are - it carries all our hereditary information. God designed us this way - not with a “poof” on an empty screen as if we’re cartoon characters, but creating us out of a fabric of life woven for eons before us. Yes, God knew us before we were born and “fashioned us” in his image, why would he not implant a pattern of our earthly genealogy in our cells, our DNA that marks us as brothers and sisters but also shapes each of us uniquely?

[@boeinga370]

The bible says that the world was created 7000 years ago. Then they have the probably true theory about evolution. This has taken me to believe that god exists but the bible and official religions are man made. Then you have other religions that most are centred around god, but with all different ways and beliefs about it. This lead me to believe that there is a god but all different religions have different ways of worshipping him and different beliefs and ideas about him. I’d say that no religion or even person has the true story about god. Because of this, I avoid things like churches and bibles but I still pray to god and worship him in my own way.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Boeing A370 let’s break up your comment into three sections. We’d first like to address the part about evolution. As we explain in our episode on “Creation and Evolution” you could look at the story in Genesis as an allegory - a poetic or shorthand expression of the larger truth. Each word we translate as “day” may have been an epoch as opposed to a 24-hour day, since Hebrew “Yom” can mean both day and epoch (like our own “back in the day”). Also, if you look at the evolutionary sequence of creation in the Bible, you will see that they pretty much got it all correct - and there is practically no way a fifth century B.C. mind could have conceived that if it hadn’t been divinely inspired. The second section of your comment is about God and religion. Your logic is that all religions look at God differently and, as such, they are all false. There’s another way of looking at this. Let’s say you come from a very large and loving family with parents who are hopelessly devoted to each and every one of their many children. If I were to go to each child and ask them to tell me about their parents, I would get very different but, at the same time, similar stories. This is the way with most of the world’s religions. You have to remember, as Catholics, we believe that there is only one God. We also believe it is the same God as the Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and others believe in. The third section relates to your claim that “all religions are man made.” As Catholics looking at the history of the early Church, we believe that Catholicism is actually Christ-made. See our episode “What Is Catholic?” This doesn’t mean we consider other religions to be false. Like the other children in that large family, we see God and our relationship with God in our own way and differently than do some of our brothers and sisters. But as to all religions being “man made,” we would respectfully challenge you by asking how the God you pray to and worship in your own way is not “man made”? By what process have you come to know and understand your God? What is the nature of your God and to what extent does it resemble or differ from the God of the Bible and religions that you say you reject? In the absence of a loving and sacred community for support, insight and dialogue, how do you know your God is not just a comfortable self-construction that can be modified at will in the interest of convenience or moral expediency? These core questions can and should be asked of all religions, of course, but honestly you can’t make an exception for your own beliefs without implying that your God is the true God and the God of everybody else is man made. Religion exists for a reason, not only for communal support in centuries-long conversations about God, but because the community strengthens our conscience and helps us guard against the trap we set for ourselves by thinking we alone can have all the answers.

[@boeinga370]

Catholic Central thank you. When I said religions are false, I meant that there’s so many stories to tell and the majority of them are really old, so as a result the stories probably changed up quite a bit to what originally happened. It’s like the game Chinese whispers, a story is told and as the story is passed on through many generations, there has more than likely been a miss understanding or a mix up in some place, changing up the stories in some way or another. So with thousands of people different beliefs, there is probably none that are 100% accurate, probably including mine or yours. And for the part I said man made, the religions and things told in them MIGHT be true, but he organisations and beliefs of major religions are all based on stories and things people believe and a lot is organised from the founder, such as Jesus in our religion, so technically they would be man made. And when I said I like to avoid churches and religions, I do so because every religion and some of the things said I don’t particularly agree with, and it’s probably the same for everyone else. There’s just so much different things and stories and history to every sort of religion, I just don’t really know what to believe and how and what to worship, so that’s the reason I choose not to follow any particular religion and choose to follow my own beliefs, which probably are incorrect in some place or way, but I personally feel more confident in what I believe, like everyone else and some things other people might disagree on. Although officially I’m part of the Catholic Church but I wouldn’t attended religious services unless its for something important that means a lot to my family, so that’s the reason behind me not choosing to follow or practice any specific religion. Thank you so much though for your reply and giving your opinion on the topic to me

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thank you for sharing your personal journey. We urge you to trust that your journey is not over. And we’re on the Path with you... like our Pilgrim Church itself! Don’t let an ecology of relativism discourage you. Truth exists, and the search for truth is at the heart of the adventure of religion. Just remember that in our quest we need each other as well as the Holy Spirit. “Read, study, pray,” urges theologian Michael Novak. “Evidence of the truth is everywhere, in the smallest details of existence. God made everything with intelligence, care and love. Commit yourself to intelligence; love your studies; devote yourself to science. Read, study and pray the book of the Bible; read, study, pray the book of the Mass; but also read, study and pray the book of Creation. These books will lead us to the truth; the truth of Jesus Christ, the Word who came into the world and changes everything.” Godspeed, Boeing! We’ll be praying for you, and please pray for us.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Nick, see our episode on The Bible as well as The Gospels, The Pentateuch and Revelation addressing your concerns. A statement like “I love you more than anything,” can express truth without having to be trusted as literally true. As for “twisting the bible’s words beyond recognition,” two-thousand years of biblical scholarship by a vast multitude of scholars and thinkers from all cultures, world-views and generations is pretty good insurance against “agenda”! Remember that truth is also preserved by Christian tradition, which existed for three-hundred years before the bible was assembled and continues today in the sacraments of the Church. Christianity isn’t just a think-tank about words or ideas, it’s about a personal encounter with Jesus.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Boeing, we hope all is well. Just to let you know, we have removed trolls from your thread and elsewhere. But you might find our note to "Nick" of interest anyway. We would also like to expand on that with a quote from Pope Francis: "Christianity is not a science, an ideology, or an NGO. It's an encounter with a person." Something to keep us focused on the forest, not the trees. God bless!

[@theoskeptomai2535]

When you stated that "Reason is our ability to think, interpret, understand, and make judgements,“ you've left out an integral and necessary phrase. Reason is based on _knowledge._ And knowledge is derived from _observation._ So, to complete the definition, "Reason is our ability to think, interpret, understand, and make judgements about phenomena *_based on information or knowledge_* we have acquired from direct observation of such phenomena." This is a more honest and intact definition. Faith in a mythological god through the revelation of a fictional narrative are *_not_* truths founded upon observation. They cannot be verified for validity, accuracy, and authenticity. Therefore, they are not a means to knowledge. And without a base of knowledge and information, there is no base from which to deduce truths employing reason. Faith is not a reliable means to truth. Examination of demonstrable evidence initially based on observation is the best path to understanding.

[@benorzell9485]

Theo Skeptomai I agree with this. This reasoning is based on knowledge. Hippocrates, or the father of medicine was educated at a young age. He used knowledge and observation to find illnesses and diseases. From the observation he explained how diseases were made and how they could be cured. This process of diagnosing and curing diseases was never used before. They way Hippocrates achieved all of this was becuase he used observation and logic instead of relying on gods. This is one of the first times that observation and knowledge was used instead of relying on the gods. I am a Christian but I wonder how much is just skeptic because people just need a faith to guide them, rather than it being fully real.

[@mikemallett64]

I believe the reason God requires us to believe in Him by faith and not physical proof is to allow us to be free beings capable of living our lives as we please. If God were a physical presence in the world then the world as we know it would not exist. It could not exist. However I do believe that God created a "back door" so to speak that allows Him to reveal Himself to those who truly seek Him with humility and a desire to share in His divine life. Faith may not be a "reliable" means to truth but it absolutely can lead to truth if that faith is well placed. I believe that the faith I have in God and in Jesus will lead me to the truth of His existence when my life on this planet is over. Until then I will try to live as He has instructed us to do. Love others as myself.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@mikemallett64 Thanks for your heartfelt reply. Peace.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thank you for these comments, Theo and Benjiboi. We do not intend to minimize the value of knowledge and observation at all. Both are absolutely essential to many uses of our reason. But even from a totally secular perspective, not all uses of reason can use a scientific approach. For example, concluding that human life has inherent worth and that it's wrong to hurt the innocent ultimately requires a value judgment. No experiment can settle that on its own, but science can certainly help inform our ethical discernment. Put another way, Catholic reasoning about faith isn't trying to do purely observational science and failing. It is trying to answer questions that are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. People from nonreligious perspectives are welcome to seek their own answers to these questions - these videos are simply intended to explain what informs our worldview. Theo, we don't expect we'll change each other's minds over the existence of God in a KZbin comments section (if that happened, it might be a world's first!), but we appreciate your watching with an open mind nonetheless!

[@benorzell9485]

Catholic Central I agree with this! Thank you for your time and respect. I love your channel. Even though I am not a full believer yet... I’m getting there!

[@bogoney]

Well God tells me things . Those things happen. It’s that simple. Some have changed the world. Like covid . I knew in early 2019 . I also knew your pope wouldn’t last . When he first walked out in front of the world. I look at him and said he won’t last .

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Thank you for sharing your experiences of God. May they always bless you. As for the pope not "lasting," we are not quite sure what you mean. He is sure to pass to the next world at some point in the future, as all of us must, but meantime he is still with us. Francis is beloved by a great many. May he fulfill his sacred mission as long as God wills.

[@neddevine7692]

If god is eternal then why can't the universe?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

No created things are eternal. Only God, existence itself, is eternal. A universe with no beginning would have to defy every known law of physics. All physical things must have a beginning, a material cause. The universe is a physical thing and therefore requires a cause. God is not a physical thing. God is Spirit (John 4:24), and the name of God is "Existence Itself" (Exodus 3:14). Existence Itself is not a physical thing. It's a condition of Being from which the universe and all material things take their existence.

[@neddevine7692]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Does not Aquinas say that the universe can be eternal and still have a god? "A universe with no beginning would have to defy every known law of physics." (citation needed). For all we know the universe is infinite i.e. no beginning or end. "All physical things must have a beginning, a material cause." No they don't, pre-existing matter can be rearranged into something else, but it is still the same matter "God is not a physical thing." So does god not exist in reality? "and the name of God is "Existence Itself" (Exodus 3:14)." What a useless definition of god, how is one supposed to test for that. "Existence Itself is not a physical thing." That makes no scene.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Ned: Does not Aquinas say that the universe can be eternal and still have a god? CC: Yes, but he clarifies that the universe can't be eternal without God. NED: "A universe with no beginning would have to defy every known law of physics." For all we know the universe is infinite i.e. no beginning or end. CC: Infinity has a beginning (zero) and is defined as a finite quantity without bounds. Eternity is bound by neither time nor space. NED: "All physical things must have a beginning, a material cause." No, they don't, pre-existing matter can be rearranged into something else, but it is still the same matter. CC: By your own argument if “the same matter” is created by “pre-existing matter” then it has a beginning and a material cause. NED: "God is not a physical thing." So does god not exist in reality? CC: God very much exists “in reality” and is both the creator of reality and ultimate reality. NED: "and the name of God is "Existence Itself" (Exodus 3:14)." What a useless definition of god, how is one supposed to test for that. CC: We invite you to see another of our episodes, Who is God? NED: "Existence Itself is not a physical thing." That makes no scene. CC: Over the past two millennia, philosophers have made a distinction between being as being and the existence of material phenomenon. This is the field of ontology which, to vastly simplify the multitude of conversations over time, presents being - the fact of the existence of existence - as the armature within which physical things can be said to be. For Christian theologians, this ultimate beingness is God and not a physical thing.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Ned, Catholic Central here again! We are having to "reply" to our previous reply to you (see immediately above) because your latest comment contains an outside link. Our current policy does not allow for external links in comments, but we do want to address your withheld post, so we're responding to its numbered points below. This will also have to conclude our exchange, since this is not the proper forum for taking it further. We hope you will have gained a better understanding of where we’re coming from because of our dialogue. Our mission is not to persuade the viewer to become Catholic or even to believe in God, but to present our Catholic faith as clearly as possible. In this case, we titled our episode “Proofs of God” in a whimsical nod to the ancients, many of whom used that title for their treatises. But in the episode, Libby pointedly reminds us that “there are really no proofs, only lines of reasoning,” adding later that “a certain leap of faith is still required.” The great Catholic theologian Karl Rahner said that our life is “an island surrounded by an ocean of mystery.” As both you and we gaze in wonder at that same horizon, hopefully we do so in mutual respect despite our differences in the “leap” we choose to take. But now, on to your comments: 1. You state that because Aquinas says, “the universe can be eternal and still have a God,” there is “no reason to think of the universe as finite.” To clarify our position, Catholics believe that the universe was created and therefore does not exist outside time, space, and causation, as we believe God does. Whether the universe is spatially infinite is a problem for science and cosmology, not theology - there's nothing definitive in Catholic teaching that contradicts that possibility. 2. You challenge our mathematical definition of infinity, and we could have worded it more clearly, sorry. We were referring to infinity under the basic mathematical definition of positive infinity, which can be constructed by repeating a finite operation along the number line (like +1) forever. 3. When you say that "pre-existing matter can be rearranged into something else," you seem to assume the question at issue. In the Catholic view, if you follow the chain back far enough, matter has not been pre-existing eternally. This is hard to study scientifically but is certainly not inconsistent with current cosmology according to the Big Bang theory. 4. You wonder that if God is not a physical thing, then how does God exist in reality and is also (somehow) ultimate reality? As a loose analogy, we all agree that gravity is real. But there's no physical entity that IS gravity. Rather, we understand gravity as a pattern of effects on physical entities like stars and planets. In a similar way, Catholics understand God to be real like gravity, but not physical like the Sun. 5. In our episode “Who is God,” Kai says, “Often the things we say about God say more about us than they do about Him.” You vigorously agree with this statement, as do we of course. We would add that although we try to understand God from the limited perspective of finite human beings, there's a long tradition in Catholic spirituality holding that the true nature of God is beyond human understanding, or as Aquinas puts it, beyond all categories of human thought. 6. Your three-part question focuses on the challenges of ontology. Different philosophers encompass many definitions of being. But Descartes's famous formulation "I think, therefore I am" provides a useful analogy. Descartes understood that it's possible to be mistaken about any particular fact of our experience - we might be fooled by a deceptive illusion, or our logic may be erroneous. But if we didn't exist at all, it would be impossible to experience anything at all. So, the fact that we have some kind of experience gives us inescapable certainty that something exists. This is roughly what we mean by "being" itself. It's existence with all the specifics stripped away. And it operates on a higher level of certainty than any knowledge we can gain about physical objects. Very roughly speaking, Catholics see God as this idea generalized to the whole universe - the basic level of "being" that makes all other physical existence possible. Thank you for joining us, Ned. We wish you a journey of peace and joy.

[@neddevine7692]

@@CatholicCentralVideos I appreciate this comment and the format you presented in this tread, I understand that this will have to conclude our exchange, however I will offer my final (short) remarks to you're reply. 1. By infinite i meant that with respect to time and general existence, or in other words like how most theists think that god has always been. (my apologies). 2. Fair enough. 3. True about Big Bang theory and yes it is hard hard to study scientifically, yet Occam's razor says it is the most likely. 4. Still problematic, but oh well. 5. True, and one could ask why believe? 6. Also problematic. Your welcome, I found this it was insightful, and again thanks for the reply format. Cheers.

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Well, non-combative comments, ay? Nothing about Flying Spaghetti monsters, then? OK, well, as an interfaith Christian, I loved your video! Catholics can keep coming to the World Council of Churches meeting as far as I´m concerned! Even more so, my dad was an ex-Catholic atheist humanist. I found my spiritual path as a seeker in high school through Unitarian Universalism and scholar Huston Smith, and learned a lot reading Alan Watts, visiting Buddhist temples, and getting my degrees starting with liberal arts Bio Anthro. I´ve come a long way, and am a big talker about Jesus´ loving legacy in University-based, UN human rights (un)sustainable society. OK, so Catholics love to take credit for Aquinas. I get that. But look, I realized that I didn´t actually have to give up my interfaith spirituality to become a Christian, or Jesus follower. Jesus taught love, that is, God´s love that he demonstrated. So, for ex, what about the Buddha´s ideas that the self doesn´t exist? That´s on them. Clearly, the healthy, caring, and nurturing love of self in Jesus´ loving Commandments for Moses and God refutes that, or contextualizes it, depending. So, wonderful to see your presentation. Still, since I´d be a heretic if I became a Catholic, and I see that we need to challenge any hierarchies that are dragging their feet in these days of profiteering business abuses, I hope you guys will keep agitating in Catholicism for the insight that God isn´t limited to a denomination. Integrity in Jesus gives us the motivation through our relationship with God to advocate for the values we need. Are there Catholics for organic foods, green power, and co-op economics? I´m sure there are. If I were God, that´s what I´d want a lot more people to start valuing and starting social movements, or not for profits around. Thanks again, you Catholics! I love you guys, as an interfaith Christian! Like Gandhi, or Dorothy Day, or George Fox, or some Liberation Theologist like Leonardo Boff of Brazil, who likes Black Elk shamanic stuff, and more, only me!

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

To me, God is something that can't be proven nor disproven through science.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Right, science is just a mode of analysis, not a religion or a theory of existence.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

@@CatholicCentralVideos, yes science is the most powerful tool that man has made. It helps us find answers and study the natural world and universe. But questions regarding God, the soul, Afterlife and such aren't things we can prove nor disprove scientifically "at least now or ever".

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Of course, Mr Fossil. But bear in mind that just because certain things are beyond the reach of science doesn't mean they are not real. Love is a good example. Love can't be weighed or measured like a basket of apples, but most people would agree that love is real. Even gravity, which is real, is not a physical entity with measurable weight and dimension. Rather, we understand gravity as a pattern of effects on physical entities like stars and planets, just as we know love by its effects, and as many of us know God, who is Absolute Love.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

@@CatholicCentralVideos , I see the point your making but I didn't say that things beyond our reach don't exist. I'm just saying that the question of God's existence isn't necessarily scientific, it is more philosophical or theological. Plus, God is believed to be in the realm of metaphysics and the supernatural, which is beyond the physical and natural world. That is what I am saying, plus I do believe in God.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Mr Fossil, Yes, all that you state is true, and you make very good points in your answer, all points we can agree on. We are actually saying the same thing in different ways, supporting the idea that God is indeed beyond the reach of science, and that this fact in no way negates scientific truths, truths based on the natural and physical world that can neither prove nor disprove God's existence. Thank you for your joining us, and we invite you to check our Episode Guide (see link below) for other episodes that you may find of interest. All here at Catholic Central wish you the blessings of the New Year. 275132.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/275132/Catholic%20Central%20Episode%20Guide.pdf

[@joshuat5140]

Science has always been something people will try to use to prove god doesn't exist and that's ok I believe in god always have and always will so when I'm asked about god I always say that there's no real proof either way can't prove god is real or fake but the one thing science can't even explain is Love no one knows why we love so that alone is what I' would say proves god exists and that god is love and love is god imo

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Yes, Joshua, people have always tried to use science to disprove the existence of God, but we have to remember that it is not the goal of science to prove or disprove God’s existence. Science is simply a process by which we understand how the material world works, taking theories and observations and developing them through testing and experiments. You don’t “believe” in science - you accept its findings (until and unless some new information that questions them comes along). Faith is not so much about how the world works but about why there’s a world at all, and how humans, in particular, should act within it. The Church has no issue with science and has funded and participated in it for centuries. In terms of love, science can explain the chemical processes having to do with sexual attraction, or the societal and evolutionary drivers behind altruism. But anyone who’s human knows that true sacrificial love is far more than just chemistry, and compassion is far more than just something useful in society. God doesn’t begin where science ends - God and the universe He created are what science studies. But to paraphrase Shakespeare (who is likely to have been Catholic), there is more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in the laboratory.

[@pollypockets508]

Did it ever occur to you that the bang could have kept banging until the universe happened?

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Polly, it may be that someone has actually considered the idea that the Big Bang could have continued to bang until the universe happened, but that is not a logical option. Scientists and cosmologists overwhelmingly agree that the Big Bang was a “singularity,” an inexplicable one-time explosion 13.8 billion years ago of unimaginable magnitude. It had to have been a one-time occurrence and the outcome had to have been a once and for all outcome. An objective viewing of our episode should affirm that had not everything happened as we explain it, the universe would never have happened as we know it. Everything would either have fizzled out or exploded beyond the capacity to sustain life.

[@_giuseppe9467]

Just discovered your videos and I am pleasantly surprised! Really a well-done work. My compliments! I really appreciated your humour. As an atheist, I would like to discuss the presented proofs. Concerning the argument from motion and causation: if everything must have a cause, what caused God? From the scientific point of view assuming that a cause exists, even if we already do not know it, is not a problem: science provides interpretations of observations, so there will be no conclusion of this cause-effect chain, there will always be questions with no answers. So, when the big bang will be explained, what will happen to god? He will be back-propagated to other future not-answered questions? Maybe God will become the dark energy? Concerning the fine-tuning argument, in my opinion, you are inverting the cause-effect sequence: we are observing the universe as it was formed given the physical laws and universal constants, including life which is the result of these laws and constants; just a simple example: each form of life able to see has photo-receptors centred on the green colour, why? Simply because the sun emits a lot of energy as green radiation. In the same way, we could explain other features of life, planets and star, as a consequence of the law of physics. Finally, regarding the experience level: first, the fact that science has not yet explained how humans feel the transcendent (on a biology scale, but a lot of explanations exist on an anthropological and social scale) does not imply that it will be not discovered in the next future; second (maybe more important) human experiences can be misleading or partial, for example, it's a common experience that sun is rotating around the earth, so the human experience can not prove something. Sorry, if my words could be sound aggressive, English is not my native language, my only aim is a sane debate.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hello Giuseppe, Thank you for the kind words, and no need to apologize for your excellent English. We appreciate your sincerity and interest in respectful debate. Welcome to Catholic Central! Nobel Prize-winner Bertrand Russell - the celebrated mathematician and philosopher (and atheist!) of the last century - was asked what caused the universe. He famously answered, “It’s just there and that’s all.” Lord Russell’s leap of faith, professing a Universe That Always Was, resembles what someone might say of God today. For Catholics anyway, “God is just there and that’s all.” You ask what will happen to our understanding of God if we ever discover an empirical cause of the Big Bang. Actually, as we’re sure you know, scientists like Roger Penrose and Paul Davies have now proposed a “conformal cyclic” theory in which the universe goes through a cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches about every 120 billion years (which would mean our present one has another 100 billion years to go before it crunches). As far as Catholic theology is concerned, God will not have to be “back-propagated” to precede these cycles, however many of them there were or will be, because God is already “just there and that’s all.” Less glibly - and Russell didn’t mean to be glib and neither do we - the issue of ultimate causation, for us, can be approached by considering the difference between our realm in space-time and God’s timeless realm without beginning or end “whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere,” to quote Pascal. Through that lens of God’s eternal “Just There,” even an infinite regress of Bangs and Crunches can be understood, in effect, as a finite phenomenon of God’s creative action. This inevitably leads to your epistemological questions about transcendence. We are fascinated by the speculation about how humans “feel the transcendent.” Where the research will take us, God only knows. For now, admonished by scripture to “walk humbly before the Lord,” we can only claim to evaluate our personal experience of transcendence against the similar experiences of untold millions of others over the millennia and into our own time, always seeking the light of reason to keep us in balance, and the rule of love to bind us fast to the world and its people, whom we embrace as sisters and brothers. You ask if our experience of transcendence can prove transcendence. In any scientific sense, no. To cite another example, the experience of love doesn’t prove that “love” exists either, but we live by it in faith, just as we live by our faith in God. We hope this helps you understand us a little better. We wish you all the best and thank you for joining the conversation.

[@_giuseppe9467]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Hi! What an interesting debate! I really appreciate your rational and sensible answer which also shows your dedication and attention. I would like to reply. There are many theories about the ultimate fate of the universe, the cyclic theory is just of them (by the way, the aeon of the universe, in the cyclic theory, is 10^100 years, I'm just emphasizing it because it is a little more than 120 billion years, i.e. 1.2 times 10^11 years). I understand you can see every possible state of the universe as an act of a timeless-spaceless God, but, I'm wondering, is this probe God existing? Paraphrasing Pascal, you can not probe God existing by observing nature. As you said, there is a difference between our physic realm and the God realm, and this difference makes impossible to explore, to know God realm, which is inaccessible. All you can do is "feel" Good, as you said in the second part of your answer. Yes, it is irrefutable that billions of individuals have experienced "transcendence". How our brain makes this possible is a mystery as intricated and complex as the "feeling" of love. In my opinion, the problem is not that the experience of transcendence (or love) can or cannot probe transcendence (or love), rather, by observing (in the scientific sense) human feelings you deduce the existence of God, what scientists can deduce from these observations is that humans are very similar one with each other and (this is more speculation) all human beliefs and behaviours are iterated over hundreds of thousands of years in the form of narratives. I am having a lot of fun discussing with you, I am very happy to have learned new things and to have met new people. I reciprocate the good wishes, wishing you all the best and good luck for your works and your beautiful youtube channel.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Interesting indeed! But we may have created a misunderstanding in our first reply. One of the things that distinguishes Christianity from other world religions is its grounding in two paradigms - Judaeo-Christian revelation and Greco-Roman rationalism, a fruitful if paradoxical mix of the two ancient currents of East and West. As a result, Christians are not just left with the “Eastern” options of knowing God either through the revelation of scripture or just “feeling God,” which some of the mystics like to call love-knowledge. There are also “Western” lines of reasoning available to Christians of the kind we presented in this episode. Even before the categories of philosophy were adopted by Christian theologians, the ancients used them to probe the “inaccessible” realm of a Prime Mover, an Uncaused Cause, an Absolute Being and so on, a tradition which Christian theology carries on. The scientific investigations of nature too, despite Pascal’s wariness of them, have created a springboard from which both philosophy and theology have made their leaps, though often in different directions! What we‘re saying is that neither an understanding of God or a belief in God is dependent solely on scripture or mystical interiority, at least for Christians, though bearing in mind that ultimately Christianity is not about ideology, it’s about a personal relationship that draws nourishment from both its Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian sources. Your second point brings up the leaps in different directions that begin with anthropology. Humans through the eons have indeed expressed their sense of the sacred in similar ways. For some this suggests that the “feel for Transcendence” is an evolutionary adaptation within our brain that helped us cope with the terrors of the night and the mysteries of our long-suffering existence. But others spark to the observations of the apostle Paul, who weighed in on this very topic in the opening to his letter to the Hebrews. “In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors,” Paul writes, but God is now fully revealed in Christ, the Logos “through whom God created the universe” (Heb 1: 1-2). If all things in nature and humankind including our sense of the divine are marked with this christic signature, then it stands to reason that our sacred rites and narratives over the course of human history would resemble each other in many of their archetypal tropes and features. What interests us here is that neither the evolutionary scientist’s faith in natural selection nor Paul’s faith in a divine pattern of creation have to contradict each other. If neuroscientists have located a “God Spot” in the brain, as some claim they have, wouldn’t God want it there in order to commune with creatures expressly created to be God-communing? Well, we’ve drifted a bit far from the exactitude of the formula for calculating the aeon of the universe, but we appreciate your interest, Giuseppe, and thank you again for your positive words.

[@hans_nektarinko]

If you were in one of these bilion universes where complex life didn't evolve, you wouldn't have the chance to do the math. To exist means to be percieved. If not percieved, you don't exist, same as lifeless universes. Our universe will once fade away and with it all the things that happened during its time. After that, only beings from other universes could remeber us, but sadly, because of their universes having no connection to ours wouldn't have any idea we existed. Our theoretical God will enable all of his beloved humanity being forgotten, he allowes wars and pain among us today. God even pretends to be someone else in different world regions by giving people different orders as to how they should behave, creating many religions that are convinced that their God is the one. The thing humans have in common with God seems to be our ability to make mistakes.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Bohemian, God is the God of all, including universes that may come and go (known as the Cyclical Universe Theory). In his eternity, God does not fade with fading universes, nor does God ever “pretend’ to be something other than God is. There is only one God, and it is human beings who respond to God differently, often misunderstanding him and representing him in ways that reflect the human mind rather than the mind and heart of God.

[@karlazeen]

Even though I disagree with almost all of your points you guys were very nice.

[@robertboulanger4098]

if i like this it would be 778 likes instead of 777 and I can't ruin that.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Oh, go ahead, we don't mind!

[@rpboulan]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Somone else ruined it. So I added number 780 like

[@ibperson7765]

I think you should do one on this: Now thanks to recent scientific developments, even initially assuming the self-contradictory philosophy of scientific materialism and proceeding, there is overwhelming evidence for God: 1. Evolution is falling apart: A. I would point someone to a video “the origins of life have NOT been explained” by synthetic organic chemist James Tour. So the first cell is a impossible. With our best tech, we cannot synthesize the simplest possible life of any kind. Many think otherwise but they start with kits that contains organic stuff. Abiogenesis is a sound law. B. Secondly there is no proffered way to increase complexity. From the book Not by Chance we have, “Of all the point mutations that have ever been observed not a single one has increased complexity in the genome. Not one”. Yet the genome contains the info and complexity of a book from the earth to the moon. C. On here is one called “Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s..” where the Yale information theorist (and atheist) has mathematically proven that proteins with hundreds of amino acids could not have formed as proposed even if we set the number of generations equal to the total number of single- and multi-cellular organisms that have existed in earth’s history. Theres a quote in that one at 50: 10 that is huge. D. Finally, Darwin thought the Cambrian explosion was a challenge to his theory and very hard to explain. But he thought it was 70 million years long and that cells were simple blobs. We now know a cell is like a city, and that the Cambrian was a mere 5-10 million years. ~60% of multicellular evolution including *all major animal forms* suddenly appeared during the Cambrian. Someone added information to the biosphere’s genome from the outside during the Cambrian. Despite hundreds of thousands of fish fossils having been cataloged from around the globe the last century, and tens of thousands of invertebrates fossils, we have no transitional animal alive today. *Nothing* between the simplest vertebrates (fish) and invertebrates. The gap is so large the intermediate forms should have been robust enough that something survived. Even worse, no such fossils have ever been found! (Three minute one on here “Evolution debunked: fish fossils”) 2. What you said. I would only add that not only does the fine tuning situation mean it couldnt be chance, but the intricacy and the final solution are so advanced that whoever did it is a mathematical genius beyond all comprehension. He must have had God like brilliance. Could be emphasized. And then if the two were combined.... All that said: great work. Really well created and done. Thanks 🙏🏻 👍🏻

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Charles, Thanks for your informed and provocative observations. Many mysteries still challenge Darwinian orthodoxy as well as origin theories of the universe. Your tally includes the conundrum of cell#1, the paradox of complexity in an entropic universe, the mathematical impossibility of protein formation in amino acids, the singularities and missing links of the Cambrian explosion, and a cosmic math so intricate it is beyond chance. Current scientific theories should not be spared the continuing rigors of inquiry. As our episode argues (despite its title!), science can neither prove nor disprove God, an infinite Being beyond the metrics of space and time. But the conversation between faith and reason is enriched whenever science opens us further to the mysteries of God's creation, as you are doing.

[@ibperson7765]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Thanks for the great reply. God bless you keep up the great work. Evolution is a bother for me. Most educated people think it is utterly proven and established and undeniable. And very helpful to atheism. Not determinative, but extremely potent.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Charles, there does seem to be a preponderance of evidence that points to the legitimacy of evolution and it is compatible with Scripture, as we pointed out in our “Evolution” episode. Most educated people will agree that is the likely explanation for how life came to be, they would also (if educated) agree that it is all still theory or, in other words, a reasonable proposition at this stage in our knowledge. While it can be bothersome to you and somewhat helpful to atheists, the more educated we become and the more we accept evolution as a workable model of biological development, then the less of a tool it will become for atheists.

[@ibperson7765]

@@CatholicCentralVideos No there is not a preponderance of evidence. Theres a revolution happening in cellular biology. Major disputes about evolution in journals. Incl unavoidable mathematical proofs is impossible. (By that yale atheist information theorist among others). Some covered in “information enigma” If by “evolution” we mean species evolve then ok. But as the mentioned expert says in the other video: darwin is done, “how quickly the field will get over Darwin is our great test”

[@ibperson7765]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Oh i think I misunderstood your first sentence

[@mongonius]

Evolution 👎🏽

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi mongonius, you should watch our episode on "Creation and Evolution."

[@PEPE-sg2hm]

Morgan Freeman is God.

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hard to argue with that! 😀

[@saplingseedsaccrew3143]

@@CatholicCentralVideos Its a joke also why are you commenting on everyones comments

[@CatholicCentralVideos]

Hi Saplingseedsac Crew, we realize it was a joke, just as our response was tongue in cheek. We try to reply to those comments that we feel merit a response, serious or not. We certainly do not reply to every comment.