I teared up a bit as you mentioned how the scientist reacted to the pi joke -- I had a very similar experience with fractal calculus, just thunderstruck in the middle of studying where I just started thinking *why* does this work? Why is the universe like this? Why does it seem *so* intentional? These feelings eventually pushed me home.
@JosephHeschmeyer11 ай бұрын
Beautiful witness, thank you for sharing that!
@urkosh11 ай бұрын
You've highlighted an interesting and and counterintuitive point: Faith is entrenched not in unintelligible phenomena (miracles), but in the phenomenal (miraculous) intelligibility of the universe.
@mariatr49211 ай бұрын
This episode was fascinating, especially since I am a catholic in the sciences (biology and forestry degrees). Science and religion have always been compatible. The smartest person I know was my highschool physics teacher, Sr. Ethel!
@pajamaninja215711 ай бұрын
i find it humorous that you didn't specify your teachers religious stance, i just imagine your Sr. Ethel was an atheist.
@chronic_corpse463811 ай бұрын
@@pajamaninja2157 what do you think Sr. stands for?
@michaelscofield197011 ай бұрын
Senor
@chronic_corpse463811 ай бұрын
@@michaelscofield1970 okay thats a funny answer, but I was pointing towards "Sister" which also has the same shortened form.
@pajamaninja215711 ай бұрын
@@chronic_corpse4638i thought it was senior. I figured it meant sister after i replied. though you do see how i find it humorous right? that's the important part
@MrsYasha198411 ай бұрын
I will have to listen to this multiple times. Not because it was not in an easy to understand form, but because it was simply amazing and beautiful!
@JosephHeschmeyer10 ай бұрын
So glad to hear it! Thank you!
@NTNG1311 ай бұрын
Some extremely sensitive poets like Wordsworth reached the same conclusion as scientists from observation and reflection on the natural world alone, that there is a common spirit giving rise and sustaining all things and that at it's heart it's benign. He says: I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air, And the blue sky, and in the mind of man: A motion and a spirit, that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought, And rolls through all things.
@cwhilburn11 ай бұрын
One of the reasons I've always dismissed the simulation theory is the sheer stability of the universe's laws point to the Divine and not just some great intelligence. Good talk!
@John_Fisher11 ай бұрын
A good example of how weird the intelligibility of math seems at times is Euler's identity, the equation e^(i*pi) = -1. It seems so weird when you try to explain what e, i and pi represent that when you put them into an exponent in this way you get an integer spit out. It's often re-arranged to be e^(i*pi) +1 = 0 because having those remaining additional fundamental numbers, 1 and 0, all fit so neatly together in an equation is a great example of mathematical beauty but also an example of 'unreasonable intelligibility'.
@bigfootapologetics11 ай бұрын
My brain broke reading this in the best way.
@John_Fisher11 ай бұрын
@@bigfootapologetics lol yes, if you're interested in getting why it's weird and cool you're better off Googling a quick explainer or Wikipedia then me trying to explain it intelligibly here.
@rhwinner11 ай бұрын
The universe is intelligible not only rationally, but morally as well. ❤
@michaelrome352711 ай бұрын
I like this. “How do you know God exists?” “Cuz, math”.
@m464111 ай бұрын
Looking forward to this series. Thanks Joe!
@rhwinner11 ай бұрын
Can't wait for the Heidegger segment. My, and one of Bishop Barron's, favorite secular philosophers.
@PatrickInCayman11 ай бұрын
Awesome video. Will share with my agnostic friends
@AllanKoayTC11 ай бұрын
i'm very intrigued by Week 4. i've been a life-long fan of Edgar Allan Poe. i even have his middle name. looking forward to that.
@JeffMillerCurtJester11 ай бұрын
I loved your talk at the conference on this, so I am happy to see you expand on it.
@_thomase11 ай бұрын
What I always found interesting was that with all of Einstein's religious talk in his pursuit of science he always claimed that he didn't believe in a personal God. It never really made any sense to me. What was his god? Just a divine intelligence that made all these really cool things and then left it to its own governance?
@matswessling660011 ай бұрын
He didnt belive in a god at all. He say all this talk about god a a symbol for this awe for the universe.
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
It's hard to explain. What he believed was sort of the God of the Philosophers, the one Plato and Aristotle swore by. Things like "God wants you to X" makes no sense there. But Christians recognize this is just imagery for, well, this is a deep rabbit hole actually.
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@matswessling6600 No, it was certainly not a mere symbol to him. You should go read Einstein yourself.
@_thomase10 ай бұрын
@@crusaderACR Maybe it's like Jordan Peterson's intellectualizing this "God" concept of a collective intelligence that humanity has been historically accumulating and perfecting. This intelligence is stored in our DNA and as a human species manifests itself in our stories of "God" as in the Bible.
@matswessling660010 ай бұрын
@@crusaderACR i have read it. Einstein in letter to Eric Gutkind, 1954: "The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of venerable but still primitive legends.”
@ToddJambon11 ай бұрын
It's really interesting that computer programmers are creating game worlds all time. They see how much work must go into programming rules of physics, color, speech, etc. I wonder if programmers ever sit back and say, "Hey wait a minute...if a game world must be meticulously created, how much more must it be for the universe?" Now, they could take that a different direction than God and say that we live in a simulation. To that I would argue: we do in a way. What's really the difference between saying we live in simulation programmed by a higher intelligence and saying that we live in a reality programmed by God? We are just disagreeing on who owns the simulation, or perhaps disagreeing on the nature of the simulation creator, or disagreeing on the tools of creation. If you think of Heaven, Eden, and Earth as different programs God created, then one could say we live in the Earth simulation and still believe in God. Wouldn't it be easier to believe in an omniscient God creating our "simulation" than to simply think an advanced civilization created it? As Joe said, programs have bugs. Our reality does not. Unless that's what UFOs are. :p
@sadetec11 ай бұрын
The problem here is that programmers don't use evolutionary processes to create their game worlds, so they have to be designed long-hand by a designer. There's a branch of computing that uses evolutionary principles to create algorithms over successive generations through selection. That branch is called Artificial Intelligence, and using it we've been able to create software that far exceeds what a human programmer would be able to do. The humans merely create the conditions for the computer to create its own algorithms through trial and error constrained by selection, then sit back and let the machine program itself to solve the assigned problem. Believers should probably stop using computers and software as analogies for the design of the universe, because what modern computing is demonstrating -- more and more with each passing month -- is that the power of a 'blind watchmaker' far out performs the power of an 'intelligent designer'.
@ToddJambon11 ай бұрын
@sadetec I would disagree. Even the AI still has to create a world that is programmed with rules. The AI still has to do its programming based on the capabilities its programmer gave it. Also, it sounds like you're saying that AI far exceeds what God can do?
@BalthasarCarduelis11 ай бұрын
Simulation is to creation as hominculus is to thought. "How does thought work?" 'Well, there's a little homunculous inside your head and he is thinking and that is thought.' "And how is he thinking?" '...' "Why do we exist?" 'Well there's an advanced civilisation that programmed us.' "And why do they exist?" '...'
@pajamaninja215711 ай бұрын
i remember watching a Pilgrim Pass video in which he said "simulation theory is just theism for computer nerds."
@DigitalDummies11 ай бұрын
@@sadetec Except we have no evidence that anything in this world was created by evolutionary process except life. If you have evidence that the physics of the universe evolved over time, then please share it so you might collect your nobel prize. Also, that's a poor understanding of how machine learning works. First in that a ML almost never exceeds human capabilities on any given project. As one of my professors used to put it "ML is the second best way to accomplish any problem". Second in that best fit functions are only useful in a wider mathematical framework of neural nets that are exactly what the sort of mathematical phenomenon this video talks about. It is supremely odd that we should be able to reduce even pattern recognition to an intelligible mathematical framework
@jennyohanlon538011 ай бұрын
Love all these lately Joe but we need more Protestant ones. Recently was told by my Baptist family that the Catholics kept the Bible from the masses, Luther gave the people the Bible and the Catholics wouldn't let ordinary people get confession if they didn't pay money, would love an episode on that😅. Also read your indulgences blog the other day and it was so great! ❤🙏 Keep up the great work, you're our favorite apologist 😁😁
@JosephHeschmeyer10 ай бұрын
Those will come in time, but atheism is a much more serious error, and a growing threat. I think it's easy to get too caught up in Catholic-Protestant things and forget that much of the world isn't Christian at all.
@jennyohanlon538010 ай бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyer Amen. Selfish thinking on my part because I'm dealing with those issues. Keep up the amazing work Joe! Congrats to you and your wife on the new baby! You and Cy need your own show, love the banter. God bless you and your family. We will keep you in our prayers ❤️🙏
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@jennyohanlon5380 What they gave you is (false) historical claims. You can find the info of how masses were done before and whether scripture was read there (it was) and also the Church's historical stance on Simony (that is, charging for the sacraments). It's always better for you to learn where to look for or where to ask, like how historical claims are resolved through history. Some notes: Copies of the Bible for personal use existed in the Middle Ages, the masses didn't have them because they were really expensive. Bible translations had to be checked by the Church and later approved but translation was never forbidden, the first Spanish bibles and the first English bibles were made long before the Reformation. Not that they don't have things to point out. In the Reformation era it was highly suspicious when someone had an unauthorized translation of the Bible at home, and that WAS illegal in many Kingdoms (I don't approve of this, but we have to recognize when we mess up). You had to try getting an official one (though some Kingdoms may demand you get formal instruction first), or better yet ask your priest so you'll read it together (which happens to be free and you don't even have to be literate!). But let's not forget Protestant countries had similar laws, e.g. in England "popery" was punished with death, you had to have KJV, etc. There was never, not once, in any Catholic country, been a ban on Bibles as a whole, nor on translations. However, please note that while these won't sway them to Catholicism, if they recognize these errors they'll start doubting their sources (maybe not immediately, let it sink in for a while), which, God willing, may eventually lead to conversion. Direct arguments and proofs won't work with those closed-up in their beliefs. I'll pray for your family. May God bless you and keep you strong, Jenny.
@kyrptonite18259 ай бұрын
1. The Catholic Church did let the masses have the Bible, that’s a myth. The main translation of the Bible was in Latin, however back then, Latin was Vernacular, or the language people spoke. There were also early Catholic translations into other languages. What the Catholic Church did do, is forbid certain translations of the Bible, that were falsely translated to support positions that were say, Protestant. For example, Martin Luther in his German translation of the Bible added the word “alone”, behind the word faith in one verse to make his doctrine, “Faith Alone”, seem more true. The Catholic Church quickly though came up with Her own translations in response to the Protestant ones. You can look that up on Catholic Answers and probably find it. 2. I’ve never heard the Confession thing before. My guess is that it’s completely made up.
@kyrptonite18259 ай бұрын
If this is the real Joseph Heschmyer - and not an imposter. Then I have a request for you. Catholic Miracles are great proofs of the faith. However, unlike with say, the Resurrection, we don’t see many people defending these Miracles, leading to Athiests attacking them and nobody defending them. These are great tools for Evangelization that aren’t being used enough in my opinion. It seems to be a hole in Catholic Apologetics. So I’d love for you to dig deep and defend Catholic Miracles like the Miraculous Tilma of Guadalupe, the Fatima Miracle of the Sun, the Shroud of Turin, the healings of Lourdes, Our Lady of Zeitoun, the Eucharistic Miracles, Incorruptibles, etc.
@zacharymello849711 ай бұрын
Beautiful case. It really is awe inspiring to think about
@jendoe943611 ай бұрын
I have always found it funny that people act like the study of science is for “intellectuals” who don’t believe in the idea of a creator or divine being, when in reality religious folks have been involved for years. Heck, the Catholic Church was a supporter of the sciences and Francis Bacon (a monk in the 1600’s or so) helped develop and sort of gave a name to the Scientific Method. Not to say the base ideas of the SM were made by him, but he did pull things together in a way that took off. The Big Bang was also thought of by a Catholic priest, who was laughed at for the idea because everyone thought it was unlikely to improbable the Universe had an origin. Even Einstein had manipulated his famous formula to precluded the idea of a BB like event, only to later regret ever messing with it as more evidence and study went into the idea. Not to say the Church always got the science right, but scientists also don’t always get everything right either. I would say, having the boundaries of there being a God or at least Creator in the scientific studies seems to be the best way to study something. Early Christian scientists were inspired by a desire to understand God’s creation that led to them conducting experiments, ideas, theories, etc to see how everything ticked. I won’t generalize all scientists as I know the field itself is pretty large, but I would say devoted followers of The Science(TM) miss out when they close themselves off to only the physical and not save at least a little room for the possibility of something beyond current human understanding.
@michaelanderson484911 ай бұрын
@jendoe9436 Friedmann did that a few years before LeMaitre. Oddly enough I've never see a catholic point this out. Wonder why? 🤔
@danieldoherty503410 ай бұрын
Roger Bacon.
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@michaelanderson4849 You shouldn't take LeMaitre's credit out like that. Dude made it rock solid, convinced Einstein, convinced Hubble. He was a genuine theoretical physicist and the greatest minds of the era recognized his contribution, what Friedmann did on this topic may be worth a footnote but no more.
@michaelanderson484910 ай бұрын
@@crusaderACR Did I take away LeMaitres' credit by pointing it out? Friedman published solutions for Einsteins' field equations years before LeMaitre. Friedman also communicated with Einstein about this. If Friedman was just a footnote in the development of the standard model how come he is the F in what's known as the FLRW-metrics (Friedman-LeMaitre-Roberts-Walker) which is the foundation thereof?
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@michaelanderson4849 I believe we were talking about the Big Bang Theory. The standard model is one of the greatest contributions to science though and I don't want to get that across.
@Meauss11 ай бұрын
Quite shameless. Good work!
@atrifle836411 ай бұрын
My apologies, going by the title. If this video helps someone great! However, my understanding was that Einstein was deist, which in pratical human thought patterns is almost indistinisible from atheism. I also have my deep doubts that the "Hey look! This guy who 99% disagrees with the Church agrees with us on this one point." is a very strong argument. It' does not feel like an argument from strength. There are many Catholic scientists who deserve more press than they have gotten. Much of what we take for granted in modern science was studied by a Catholic or a Christian. Einstein himself was sitting on the shoulders of giants.
@bengoolie519711 ай бұрын
A Catholic IS a Christian, a Protestant is NOT a Christian.
@albertsaxony809211 ай бұрын
He was a pantheist along the lines of Spinoza, basically saying that God *is* the universe. He certainly didn't believe in a personal God, so in that respect you're absolutely right. This is a terrible argument.
@bethanyjohnson800111 ай бұрын
@@bengoolie5197 While Protestants may not have the fullness of the truth that is only found in the Catholic Church, it seems wrong to dismiss them as "non-Christians." Since they hold to the divinity of Christ, why should they not be considered Christians? There is an article that explains how modern protestants can still be considered Christians while holding some objectively heretical beliefs. It is called "Protestants: Are They Christians, Heretics, or Both?" by Dave Armstrong.
@richardjackson788711 ай бұрын
@@bengoolie5197a Catholic is a pagan, a Protestant is not understand the Word of God and understand who the serpent is Genesis 3
@calebadcock36311 ай бұрын
You don’t have to be a theist to believe that atheism is false. Also Catholics are Christians.
@davidfabien722011 ай бұрын
Simple but profound. Very enlightening. You make it easy for the reasonable man to see a reasonable supernatural being behind reason in nature. No wonder Jesus often appealed to the understanding of his disciples: Matthew 13: 15-19 ".......lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them..........The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart. They do make perfect sense although In Geometry books they are not proven but given that opposite angles as well as corresponding angles are equal. Why is a circle a circle? It is what it is in the same way as God describes himself: "I am what I am."
@ΕλέησονΑμαρτωλόν11 ай бұрын
Thank you
@bombastoid7 ай бұрын
Thanks for this enlightening episode.
@steveimhoff564611 ай бұрын
Excellent. That’s all I can and need to say. There are no real atheists. There are just people that don’t want there to be a creator. Deep down, they KNOW there is a designer. Consciousness, science, and mathematics presupposes a designer. Otherwise, these things don’t really exist and are a futile joke. They exist, so therefore there has to be a superior author. How would such a superior designer communicate this to the puny designed intellect, maybe something like…. “In the beginning….”
@michaelanderson484910 ай бұрын
"There are just people that don't want there to be a cretor. Deep down they know there is a designer." How about you speak for yourself and let me speak for myself? Since you know exactly 💩 about me, claiming to know what I think or don't think is just... silly.
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@michaelanderson4849 I agree with you. Back hen I was an atheist I truly believed things may just be accidental or just there. But there was uncertainty sometimes, and perhaps you may doubt enough to call yourself agnostic instead. I'd never call this delusion or denial. I was sane and healthy up in my head. But still, once in a while things the idea came up, or I recognized I knew nothing about this (in retrospect, I should've been ashamed of my self-inflicted continuous ignorance). People 10x smarter than me believed in God, what gives? My very own father has been a scientist his whole life, is way smarter than anyone I know, and firmly believes in God. I never once asked my dad why he believed. Now I find all this about God blatantly obvious. If I've always thought like this and never went through my years as an atheist I may have been tempted to call atheism a denial, which it isn't. It actually took me several years longer to go from atheist to theist, than from theist to Catholic, but theism seems now the most obvious step of the two. I'm not sure where I was going with this post. Words just came out, here it is.
@michaelanderson484910 ай бұрын
@@crusaderACR Of course I can't be sure. But I find no compelling data pointing to the existence of a diety. Not even the Abrahamitic one. And believe me I have searched. Even if this deity does exist it obviously does not bother to communicate with me. So why should I waste time trying to?
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@michaelanderson4849 Why waste time? To know the truth. If I can help it I'd rather know than not know. If I can't help it then oh well. So I don't know Michael, I never had to ask myself that question. Learning stuff never was a waste of time to me.
@michaelanderson484910 ай бұрын
@@crusaderACR Read my reply one more time. You must have missed large parts of it. Having spent most of my life studying natural sciences I can honestly say that understanding our reality has been my main focus. But having a limited time to do so I must make executive decisions in regard to how that time is spent. So why should I spend time investigating the eventual existence of a deity who clearly does not wants to communicate with me? If it exists, but does not want to communicate with me, what is my gain of knowing about its existence?
@dynamic901611 ай бұрын
Really appreciate this video.
@kyrptonite18259 ай бұрын
One question I’ve always had about math is this. Since God is a Trinity, did God create math or in other words, quantity?
@jhoughjr110 ай бұрын
FOr me idk if I would consider god a mind. God feels even more vast than a mind. It also feels that god could be both personal and impersonal.
@adamq821611 ай бұрын
Great video!
@LANDCRUISERLIFE11 ай бұрын
Great podcast as always... *Was it not Issac Newton who discovered gravity, not gallileo??
@danieldoherty503410 ай бұрын
Gravity is a natural force that everyone experiences. Neither discovered it. Galileo made certain observations about how it worked, such as the one Joe mentioned but also that a parabola describes the motion of an object moving under gravity. Newton went much much further and connected terrestrial gravity with celestial movements. The whole Apple myth was based on his realization that the moon “falls” at the same rate as an apple. Mathematically! Needless to say both were theists.
@JosephHeschmeyer10 ай бұрын
Did I say Galileo in the video? If so, that was (hopefully-) momentary stupidity on my part! Mea culpa!
@totallyrealnotfakelifeadvi754711 ай бұрын
I understand what you’re saying, and agree that the universe is clearly intentional. It makes sense that Einstein would come to that conclusion. However, as an observant Jew like him, I don’t find your evidence compelling that this proves the divinity of Jesus. I suppose you aren’t necessarily trying to prove that though, only the monotheistic G-d.
@JosephHeschmeyer11 ай бұрын
That's right. I address this around the 4:00 mark: what I'm showing here is that atheism is false. It doesn't automatically follow that Christianity is true, but it certainly helps the case for theism.
@spykezspykez700111 ай бұрын
Was Einstein shomer shabbos? I honestly didn’t realise. I would have thought he’d have been more like Spinoza.
@totallyrealnotfakelifeadvi754711 ай бұрын
He was more of a chanukkah and pesach jew, but that's at least not secular@@spykezspykez7001
@thomasmcgraw877811 ай бұрын
I'm not sure I like this argument. I'm not sure I'll be any good at articulating why but here goes. I don't think you will ever convince an athiest with this argument and that's presumably the intent. Let's just say we grant every premise. We have no idea why the universe is intelligible or why math maps it out so well. It just works for some reason. What's to stop the athiest from simply making their version of the argument from motion that terminates in these scientific principles are just brute facts. On paper that seems shallow but it doesn't seem too far off from how we say God needs no justification, he simply is. Tl;dr I don't think this argument does an adequate job of making the connection from the universe being intelligible to the universe needing an author.
@JosephHeschmeyer11 ай бұрын
I think you're right that this is the move a lot of atheists would make, but I think there's two things to keep in mind: 1. This isn't blindly accepting one "brute fact," but countless "brute facts" -- each of the various aspects of order and intelligibility and the rest. 2. The Christian claim about God is that "He Is who Is," that He is infinite metaphysical being and the ground of being. That's a confusing concept, but it isn't irrational to say "infinite being exists" any more than it's irrational to say "existence exists." In Aquinas' phrasing, God is the explanation for his own existence. But that doesn't work for things like physical laws. Saying gravity just exists as a "brute fact" is like saying that Romeo and Juliet "just exists" and therefore we don't need to posit the existence of an author like Shakespeare. It's the height of irrationality, and using jargon like "brute fact" doesn't get around this.
@thomasmcgraw877811 ай бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyer hopefully I'm reading what you're saying right because you obviously took a lot of time to respond to a random comment and I don't want to waste your time. But I think you misunderstood the issue I had. My issue wasn't the reliance on brute facts or anything like that. My issue is the argument seems like it's trying to do more than it actually ends up doing. Again let's grant every premise: the universe is intelligible in ways even our greatest minds are astonished by; you would not expect this from a random universe; the classical definition of God happens to perfectly explain this contradiction. The hurdle an athiest is going to run into from there I think is that while it's a sensible explanation it is not a demonstrative one. Christians like you or I already accept the universe has to be contingent on something, but the athiest who doesn't already take that for granted probably wont be moved by this argument and the whole discussion will likely end up shifting to something that is more demonstrative like the Kalam argument. And I also don't think the Romeo & Juliet comparison will ever land because while it makes sense to us, an athiest would probably say something like 'those arent the same thing. The universe is real, Romeo & Juliet is ink on paper. They're two totally different things." They might even just say it's just a grown up version of the watchmaker argument which is a conversation of it's own. What this seems far better suited for is showing the compatibility between faith and science and maybe moving an open minded agnostic who hasn't thought too much about religion to investigate further. But as for a proof for God, I just dont see it. Maybe I'm missing something, expecting too much, or just not articulating my thoughts well because I'm an amateur. Idk.
@pike164311 ай бұрын
I admire how you approach and explain most topics but the skeptic in me doesn't buy this argument about the intelligent design of the universe. If the physical constants weren't perfectly the way they are, the universe wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to observe it. Any number of big bangs could have occurred prior to/apart from this one but never created universes if the physical constants were different or imperfect. That doesn't mean the universe was intelligently designed, it's just the one that lasted long enough to create beings to observe it. I think that's considered the anthropic principle. FWIW, I've got a BSME, like Bill Nye. I look forward to the rest of the episodes on this topic.
@JosephHeschmeyer10 ай бұрын
You're right about the anthropic principle: that IF there are a multitude of universes, then it’s less surprising that we should find ourselves in a universe capable of sustaining life… just as the person writing a memoir about being the sole survivor of a plane crash is ALWAYS (by definition) the one that beat the odds and survived. But this requires something like a multiverse, since otherwise, it’s still insanely improbable. But all of that is about fine-tuning: that we “happen” to have just the right set of universal laws. The point Benedict and Einstein are making is actually more fundamental: that regardless of whether the laws of the universe are good or bad for the existence of life, it’s impossible that there should be ANY laws (and laws that are stable, predictable, etc.) without a Lawgiver. Similarly, if you’re reading a book, the question isn’t, “is this the best of all possible books?” but “how could there be a book, unless there’s an author?”
@crusaderACR7 ай бұрын
I know this is an old post, but just to throw this out there, the multiverse theory only pushes back the question one step. If you argue our Universe was just one of many random tests (to put it that way) and so the precision was accidental, then the question veers to that similarly mysterious Universe printer. If you apply the same argument for the printer, that there was a printer that generated printers, then you either have to get to an end-point (from which the rest of the argument shall follow) or you get an infinite recursion. Does that make sense? The question here is even more fundamental. If not the Universe, then the Multiverse. To put it in reverse, it's like someone commenting on the odds of Earth coming about, and you reply with the Universal processes and billions of dead planets needed to end up having Earth. Doing the Universe is going one step above. The Multiverse, same thing. The core of the mystery remains. Because the ultimate mystery is existence itself. It has rules, across the multi-multi-verse and there's no way to explain them without a Lawmaker. Personal or not, Christian or not, there must be one.
@matswessling660011 ай бұрын
Faith doesnt go beyond reason. Its a way to fool yourself.
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
I don't know what your definition of faith is. I'm not sure I wanna ask.
@matswessling660010 ай бұрын
@@crusaderACR?
@sadetec11 ай бұрын
You have to be careful quoting Einstein when it comes to god or religion, because he uses these terms in deceptive ways that confuse many believers. You're not the first believer to get tripped up, and you won't be the last. When Einstein talks about 'god' he doesn't mean a god as Christians, Jews, or Muslims might understand it. Einstein's god is the laws and mechanics of the universe -- an entirely naturalistic view. He also tends to use the term 'religion' to refer to deep thinking, contemplation, and meditation -- not organised religion. True, Einstein refuted the term 'atheist', as he had what he called a "cosmic religious feeling" when contemplating the big questions about the universe. But he didn't believe in a personal god, an intelligent designer, as he demonstrated in a letter to William Hermanns when he wrote, "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." Einstein thought that deep thinking about nature and physics was a kind of religion, and could lead to spiritual feelings like those of religion. As he wrote, "My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature.'" There's a handful of writings in which Einstein addresses organised religion directly. Of Christianity he wrote (in a letter to Eric Gutkind), "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Of his own Jewish faith he wrote, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them." During the reds-under-the-bed scare of the 1950s, when Einstein was accused in the Press of being an atheist (and by association a Communist), a leading American rabbi challenged him to put on record what exactly he meant by the term 'god'. This is when we get the famous "I believe in Spinoza's God" comment. In effect a pantheist view of religion that sees the natural universe as being 'god', rather than a supernatural agent. The Spinoza comment is pretty definitive, and ties in with other comments Einstein makes about god in other letters and writings. He rejects a personal god, like the supernatural intelligent designer found in the Abrahamic faiths. For him Nature itself is god, god is Nature, and there's nothing outside of that. When Einstein says the universe has an intelligent design, he thinks the designer is a natural process. To steal a famous trope from Evolution, he agrees there's a watchmaker, but he thinks the watchmaker is blind. Thanks for the video.
@MrsYasha198411 ай бұрын
Thank you for explaining all of this! It sounds a bit sad for Einstein though.
@kylej.reeves426811 ай бұрын
Irish mathematician John Lennox has some amazing work on this subject.
@matswessling660011 ай бұрын
no , he hasnt. Lennox is intellectually bancrupt.
@Kefa...11 ай бұрын
Einstein was the biggest plaguerist of all time 💫
@rhwinner11 ай бұрын
If you're going to criticize one of the great minds in the history of science, you can help your case by knowing at a minimum how to spell. 😅
@Kefa...11 ай бұрын
@@rhwinner , I'm laughing in my high heeels.
@hglundahl10 ай бұрын
38:03 Obviously you know the thoughts of the late Antipope Ratzinger better than I. So, is this "intelligibility of the universe" (which I agree on, and agree with him is a prerequisite for the "reading of it" just as I agree with CSL in Miracles the intelligence of the reader and the applicability of his intelligence is also a prerequisite and also above non-Theistic explanations) at the heart of his maybe even gut reaction against Fundamentalism? You know, in 1994 the document about reading the Bible in the Church contained a paragraph that for the first time _ever_ from what millions took as Catholic magisterium condemned Fundamentalism as Fundamentalism. I think he had this gut reaction, and that it took him away from the faith. I'm not speaking about condemning a Protestant qua Protestant, for sth he shares with Luther rather than with Leo X or Calvin rather than with St. Pius V. I speak of condemning him for having sth in common as much with Leo X and St. Pius V as with Luther and Calvin. So, is this gut reaction perhaps rooted in some kind of impressionistic impression or urban legend that the view of reality a Fundy has would make the universe less readable in a scientific way?
@richardjackson788711 ай бұрын
Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
@clpage8611 ай бұрын
14:11 Bill Nye has a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. Not that that makes him an expert scientist, but it’s certainly more than an associates degree in “science”. Not the main point of the video, granted, which is an astounding one, but a distracting oversight that could lead people to discredit the rest.
@femaleKCRoyalsFan11 ай бұрын
He's not an expert in the weather but pushes climate change nonsense
@JosephHeschmeyer11 ай бұрын
You're right, that was my mistake - he has a B.S., not an associate's. My memory failed me on that point and I was speaking extemporaneously. Mea culpa! (But still, my point remains that he's not really a scientist.)
@spykezspykez700111 ай бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyerI think everybody has to be clear on what they mean by a scientist. If you mean ph D post doc whatever ... that’s a very strict one. Lots of people do science. Scientific method. Publish papers. Or solve problems (engineers for example). But don’t have ph d’s. Conversely, if you’ve been in the game a while, you know a lot of papers are also just published because the authors need to publish because academic (or other ... grants from pharma etc) pressure. Not a few papers are rubbish. Is this science? That woman from Stanford caught falsifying data. Or recently, look at dr. Avi Loeb’s papers....
@crusaderACR10 ай бұрын
@@spykezspykez7001 What's a scientist is well-defined. You could've looked that up in 2 seconds. No, it's not about PhDs. It's about those applying the scientific method as a career. If you've never done proper research then you aren't a scientist. >e authors need to publish because academic (or other ... grants from pharma etc) pressure. Not a few papers are rubbish. Is this science? That woman from Stanford caught falsifying data. Or recently, look at dr. Avi Loeb’s papers.... All scientists. Bad ones, but scientists nonetheless. An engineer is not a scientist the same way a plumber is not an electrician. Just because engineers take a few courses in some sciences doesn't make them scientists. They learn it, but don't endeavor to expand these books.
@mordimerlives10 ай бұрын
I've actually lost a lot of respect for this channel. Bad arguments are bad regardless of which side makes them. So -> 1) Bill Nye has a BS from Cornell. 2) Most 'scientists' don't believe in God (in overwhelming numbers relative to the general population). Based on those two facts, your rhetoric of suggesting true scientists would believe in God while subpar associate degree scientists like Bill Nye might not is very very misleading. Now, I'm not going against Einstein's argument that the pinnacle of Science presupposes and recognizes religion but your swipes at Nye and suggestions that more educated scientist would understand this is ridiculous and a bastardization of Einstein's enlightened points.
@CaptainFantastic22210 ай бұрын
Atheism isn’t a claim. There is nothing to prove or disprove
@JosephHeschmeyer10 ай бұрын
"There is no God" is every bit as much a claim as "there is a God." This is basic logic. Likewise, if someone (say) denies the Holocaust, that's a claim. It's possible to claim someone or something doesn't exist.
@CaptainFantastic22210 ай бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyer Atheism isn’t a claim that “there is no god”, although some atheist hold this view. Atheism is simply unbelief in a god or gods. Saying “I don’t have a belief gods exist” is not the same thing is “I believe no gods exist” Like you said, it’s basic logic
@michaelanderson484911 ай бұрын
1. We have no other universe to study. So claiming this or that probability for a certain aspect of this universe to be different seems quite pointless, in my opinion that is. 2 The opinion of Saul in Romans 1 is, to me, just that - an opinion. 3. Natural causes or a personal idea as the origin of the universe? I don't see any way to answer this from studies of the universe. So far we can only observe the universe as it was some 380,000 years old. We can recreate what we think conditions were when it was less than 1 second old. But this it not direct observations. Going from this to a creation event or prior to such, is pure speculations and not science. 4. Phillsophy deals with proof. Science does not. 5. The term natural law or laws of physics or similar, is very unfortunate. The use of law in this contex makes the user think of written laws as the primary stepping stone. The laws of nature are no such thing. Observable patterns is what those laws are. We dont know how universal those patterna are. We have ideas, but we do not know. 6. Einsteins opinion on this matter is interesting but he was hardly an authority thereof. 7. I fail to see the immediate connection between us being able to figure out parts of the universe, and the conclusion that the origin of the universe must be intelligent. But I might just be too stupid tl see it. 🤥 8. Regarding Wiegners idea, I'd argue that we develop mathematics as we need it. So why is it that peculiar that it is successful? 9. 31.00 The center of mass of both rocks has to be at the same distance from the center of mass of the earth for this to be true. This means that the resulting velocity will not be the same in Topeka Kansas as at the North pole. 10. Chaos on the quantum level... A W boson has a mass of 80 GeV (78-82 is the normal range). But for a neutron in carbon-14 to decay a W boson having a mass of 0,000156 GeV has to be created. How can this be, when the mass is 80 GeV? A miracle perhaps? Or is it that the mass in reality can have any non-zero value?
@johannaprice488011 ай бұрын
God created Science
@matswessling660011 ай бұрын
😂
@matswessling660011 ай бұрын
you are making is an dishgusting but thankfully obvious lie at 12:06. Einstein does NOT say that there barely are any atheist scientists that are any good. you dont have to be theist to have "a peculiar religious feeling of its own". Even atheists can have that. And what eisntein means with that is a state o awe and wonder. Not a belief in abrahams god or something naive like that.
@JosephHeschmeyer10 ай бұрын
I mean, I've got his quote literally on screen at that moment. He claims that "you will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own." He then explains what he means by that. Calling it a "disgusting but thankfully obvious lie" seems like a ludicrous overreaction, if what you really mean is something like, "I think you're misreading him," or "that's now how I would characterize what he said." In any case, do you agree with Einstein's actual claim? That the top-tier scientists are almost universally driven by a religious feeling akin to that of the great saints and mystics?
@matswessling660010 ай бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyer Einstein in letter to Gutkind 1954: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. .... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions." and answer to Dispentier also 1954: "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." these qutations are so easy to access that I can say that anyone that says that Einstein was a religious person does so while knowing better, that is: lies.
@beorbeorian1508 ай бұрын
@@JosephHeschmeyerespecially since Einstein himself spent a long time fighting against the Big Bang theory because he believed of true it proved God. And he did not want that. When he finally gave in Einstein stated it was his biggest mistake. With the determination and pace he worked, science probably lost a lot because Einstein spent so long disputing the big bang theory. He could have worked on plausible theories. Strange now people think the Big Bang disproves God.
@benjaminfalzon462211 ай бұрын
Creation is science, not human science, but Higher science. God says the wisdom of man is just foolishness to him". "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: He catches the wise in their craftiness". 1 Cor 3:19. Think about this: "Male sperm makes contact with a female egg, life immediately begins to form, and nine months later a baby is born". "What human science can achieve that without sperm or egg donors?
@CaptainFantastic22210 ай бұрын
What’s “higher science”?
@benjaminfalzon462210 ай бұрын
@@CaptainFantastic222 Higher science means creating from nothing. Human science can only create with materials that Higher science has already provided. Example. Human science is totally useless on Mars since the chain of minerals doesn't exist on Mars as they do on Earth, and humans can't create the mineral from nothing.😩
@TboneWTF10 ай бұрын
Never believe in God or religion. You will only become confused and upset with the contradictions and lies.
@richardjackson788711 ай бұрын
why is it the Catholic institution does not listen to the Word of God but the word of men? why does the Catholic institution teach the doctrines of men and not scripture? Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. why does the Catholic institution avoid Daniels prophecy's? the legs of iron and toes mixed with clay the small horn that rises from among the 10? could it be that they want to deceive as the serpent did? is it that they want to make god in their own image? read, study and understand what God is trying to tell you unless your pride is to great!
@thepalegalilean11 ай бұрын
*why is it the Catholic institution does not listen to the Word of God but the word of men?* We don't. It's merely that you lie. *why does the Catholic institution teach the doctrines of men and not scripture?* We don't. It's just that you lie. *why does the Catholic institution avoid Daniels prophecy's?* We don't. It's just that you lie.
@benjaminfalzon462211 ай бұрын
Presumptions are not an option: Words have meanings" Jesus said. "No one has ascended to heaven except the one who came from heaven" John 3:13. On the Other hand, the catholic church says Mary is in heaven. In John 3:13, Jesus didn't say, No one else has ascended to heaven except Me and Mary. So where does the Catholic Church get its information from about Mary in heaven? The Catholic Church boasts of numerous apparitions of Mary. Did Mary tell the Catholic church in any of those apparitions that she is in heaven? Are any of those apparitions ever really taken place? The closest I got for an answer about Mary in heaven was, "We assume that Mary is in heaven" If any of those Mary appartitions are real then why assume that Mary is in heaven?. Assume is not an inspired word. If it's not revealed in the Bible, it's not coming from God.
@jayschwartz613111 ай бұрын
Before answering any of your concerns please show where in the Bible it is stated that if something is not in the Bible then that something is not from God.
@benjaminfalzon462211 ай бұрын
@@jayschwartz6131 If it's not from God, it will contradict the holy scriptures. Example. Jesus said."No one has ascended to heaven except the one who came from heaven." John 3:13."KJV" The Catholic Church says that Mary is in heaven". Who is lying, Jesus, or the Catholic Church? If Jesus is lying, then show me what evidence you have that Mary is in heaven! Words have meanings. When Jesus said no one has ascended into heaven, he meant no one, literally, and that includes Mary and all of those imaginary Catholic Saints.
@jayschwartz613111 ай бұрын
@@benjaminfalzon4622 that is the point. The Catholic Church teachings agree completely with the Bible. Jesus is indeed the only one who has Ascended to Heaven by His own power. Anybody else has been taken to Heaven bodily, such as the Virgin Mary, Enoch, Moses? and Elijah have been taken to Heaven by God, not by their own power nor will. Only Jesus did it by His own power. Show the verse that says God cannot take anybody's body to Heaven if He wills so. It appears to me that the one adding things to the Bible is you. First you claimed that for something to be true in must be in the Bible where the Bible does not say so anywhere. And now you are claiming that nobody else could have been taken by God to Heaven whereas the Bible does not say so either and actually shows examples to the contrary. Who is the one contradicting Scripture here?
@benjaminfalzon462211 ай бұрын
@@jayschwartz6131 Jesus ascended to heaven. John 3:13. Enoch was taken by God, Gen 5:24. Elijah was taken on a chariot of fire, 2 Kings 2:11. But where does it say that the Virgin Mary was taken bodily to heaven? Or Moses.? "Moses died and his body was never found, Deut 34:5-6. Moses was buried in the land of Moab {by the Lord} Deut 34:5-6. Moses isn't in heaves. Mary's death isn't even mentioned. "So why do you think that Elijah and Enoch didn't suffer death? Just Yet! Angels can ascend to heaven because they're spiritual beings, and so is Jesus. Lucifer ascended to heaven. Isaiah 14:13. Satan can even access heaven Job 1:7 and Job 2:2. But there's nothing about Mary taken to heaven. The only two men that were taken bodily to heaven were Enoch and Elijah. That's because God is preserving them as his two end-time witnesses as in Revelation 11. The two Witnesses will be Enoch and Elijah.
@jayschwartz613111 ай бұрын
@@benjaminfalzon4622 where does it say in the Bible that they (Moses, Mary, other unknown righteous people beloved by God) were not or could not have been taken to Heaven by God. Were Enoch and Elijah more righteous that the human being who spent more than anybody else in History in the presence of Jesus? Who did the Angel of the Lord called Kecharitomene (Full or perfected in the reception/imbuing of God's Grace/Favor) even before Jesus had yet been conceived? Were Enoch and Elijah ever greeted in such a way by an Angel? Did they spent as much time in the physical presence of God as the Virgin Mother? Did they risk being stoned to death by obeying God? Are they more deserving than Jesus' mother? On the other hand, John was shown the Ark in Heaven (Rev 11:19) and in the verse immediately after it he describes such Ark as a crowned woman clothed with the sun who gave birth to the child who ruled all the nations and who was taken God's throne. Who is that child who rules all the nations and sits in God's throne? Who gave birth to Him? You might say she is not the Ark. You might believe that the Ark was just a man-made Holy gold-lined wooden chest, most revered and sacred to the Israelites. Why was it so? What made it Holy and sacred if it was just a man-made object? When did it become Holy, Revered and Untouchable? What did it contain to make it so Holy? Why did the Ark and the building that contained the Ark remained Holy and Sacred even after the departure of God's presence from it (Ezekiel 10:1:22 and )?. Going back to Revelations, did John see a man-made chest or a God-made woman? Would that man-made chest be more worthy to be in Heaven than Jesus' mother? Why? Is Jesus less worthy and Holy that what was contained in the Ark? Would Jesus' mother be less deserving to be seen in Heaven than the Ark of the Old Covenant? Elijah and Enoch would be there but Jesus' mother would not? Did they do something greater than containing God within their bodies? Again I ask you, did they spend more time in God's presence than Jesus' mother in order to be more deserving than her to be taken to Heaven?