Dr. Peter Kreeft on the Existence of God

[@ghrohrs2025]

I love Dr. Kreeft. Everything he says is Truth. He gets it!❤

[@eleazarcobre5294]

Very impressive, you taught me, a very wise lesson, thank you dr. Peter kreeft

[@truthseeker332]

Eleazar Cobre I do hope that was sarcasm.

[@feaokautai7354]

PRAISE GOD FOREVER!! DR PETER YOUR BRILLIANCE IS GIVEN TO YOU TO SPREAD JESUS CHRIST GOOD NEWS. AMEN!! HIGHLY PRIDE.

[@GeorgeAlexa]

I am so glad to see this up on the website. As the Parish Team Captain, I will now give this link to all the knights and about 60 ladies of Saint Clare of Assisi.

[@christineczyryca5820]

To all those that have difficulty with this. It isn't that. "You're crazy if you don't go along with the crowd" kind of thinking. You believe in God because he created you. He created science and all the marvels in life. We take too many things for granted...like spoiled brats always wanting more and more. Just open your eyes and look. Today was made for you.

[@rohadtanyad8908]

+Christine Czyryca are you stupid or are you kidding?

[@christineczyryca5820]

+rohadt Anyad What is wrong with you? Such a violent reaction from such a simple comment that any normal human being would agree with...unless you're an atheist! In that case that explains it.

[@MrPiragon]

Not an argument

[@christineczyryca5820]

It obviously IS an argument for some people.

[@UnaVoceMiami]

@@christineczyryca5820 Well said.

[@prabingolapi2807]

I love you sir forever.

[@veritas5078]

Amazing lecture. Read your Scripture, friends!❤️🇺🇸✝️

[@paulfeldner7893]

Excellent!

[@mmyabaki]

Very insightful

[@michaelnardini4934]

Legend.

[@mikloskinizsi5950]

There is nothing like 'disprove a negative'. He merely said (at around 5:00) there is no conflict between science and catholic religion. His arguments for the existence of God come from 10:30.

[@lizadowning4389]

He implies it throughout his "discourse". You can read it between the lines. His statement there's no conflict between science and catholicism is a joke. Throughout history and even today, it conflicts with science. His narrative on abortion with some of his students is testament to that. Conflating abortion with infanticide is an insult to the medical profession, medical ethics and the well being of women.

[@mikloskinizsi5950]

@@lizadowning4389 With due respect, what are the conflicting points of science and catholic TEACHING? I heard it a lot in the eighties when Hungary was a communist country. I've been working in the academia for about thirty years but have not seen any real conflict between science and catholic religion. 'Conflating abortion with infanticide is an insult to the medical profession, medical ethics and the well being of women.' In my opinion aborting a life is already an insult to the medical ethics.

[@simonsimon2888]

From 'Desiderata' "whatever you perceived God to be..." We are the children of the Universe no less than the trees and stars...we have the right to be here..."Be at peace with God!"

[@kuhullan]

kuhullan I like to recall the argument from "humanology". If a bug on a trash pile decided to write a book or give lectures on how & why humans do the things they do, and called it "humanology", we would be amused. In the same way, if a finite mind tries to decide how and why the Infinite Designer of the universe does what he does, I am sure God is amused. Science measures what is, it assumes the world is intelligible. It does not help us to understand Who made the universe or why it was made. Besides, God is not in the universe anymore than the architect is in the building he designed. God does not come under the scientists microscope and His existence is in the realm of ontology, logic, or philosophy. I do not argue with atheists who believe there is no God and just wish to show off their hatred of religion. It is like wrestling with pigs, you only get dirty and the pig seems to like it.

[@christianavancena7832]

This is such a good analogy! This is so late hahaha

[@jbz3]

This guy is really good at confirmation bias. "That's not a very good argument that doesn't convince anyone, so I'm just going to ignore responses as if it's still a good one"

[@triconcert]

"I do not argue with atheists who believe there is no God and just wish to show off their hatred of religion. It is like wrestling with pigs, you only get dirty and the pig seems to like it." "philosophy IS a science" and on and on…… It seems to me we must be engaged in the search for Truth. Interesting debate!

[@jacquischmitt7258]

18:00 ish (self note for class)

[@manuelpompa-u5e]

how about faith alone to illustrate the existence of our Father God Yahwey???

[@baasmans]

20:30 Yes, all our ancestors had so much chance to die out, and yet they didn't, making our existence highly improbable, if not miraculous. At the same time, they all reproduced, making our existence inevitable. The only ones capable of realizing their existence is so improbable, are those who haven't died out. 21:00 I'm not a cannibal because I don't eat my own species and not a vegetarian for the same reason. I don't think there's an objective standard for perfection. There goes your argument.

[@AetheriusLamia]

This video is quite frustrating. He's making me want God to exist, but doing very little to actually prove that He exists.

[@truthseeker332]

His arguments are just assumptions and wishful thinking.

[@blablabubles]

cloudsabove look up 'argument from desire'

[@truthseeker332]

ISIS members "desire" 72 black-eyed virgins. It doesn't mean they're going to get them.

[@AetheriusLamia]

blablabubles I'm already familiar with the argument. It's valid, but one of its premises is uncertain (namely, that we have an innate desire for "home" (i.e. heaven) that is not satisfied and is of the same kind as that for food), so isn't it unsound? For an argument to be sound, all the premises must be known to be true, right?

[@AetheriusLamia]

Truth Seeker Straw man fallacy; please spend more time with the argument.

[@jbz3]

21:34 Neither 3 nor 2 are closer to infinity because both are equally an infinite number away.

[@elizajayne2888]

They argue science ... Science argues liars ... Medical argues liars ... 2 fields of science against religious liars for profits and not prophets...

[@NilDesperandum777]

You'd think asking the question would be enough to inform the requisite amount of humility before confessed ignorance of subject rather than scorn. ?No...Apologetics isn't "sorta like a synonym for 'excuses' ". No more than lol is a synonym for confessed permanent idiocy.

[@FATjibber]

WAKE UP! You owe your existence to your Creator. Quit spending so much time playing video games and start seeking Truth. Watch the entire video to start with.

[@jbz3]

I find it odd how he starts off talking about reason and rational arguments, then the first argument he jumps to is "if there is no god, then the closest thing you get to god is yourself"

[@dhanurdhar1954]

that first cause can very well be the eternal material nature, wich moves according to herself and what must be, but if its god god decided in wich way to move it, how and when, and therefore he made a personal desition. Since thats not correct, in Vedic we say that the mover is eternal time and eternal material nature. Also existence is eternal be virtue of the soul itself, wich is not created.

[@RosstafarianBC]

There is a God. Deal with it.

[@WilliamBrownGuitar]

Hey, wait a minute (at 5:30) - Mr. Rogers did live in a neighborhood. I lived there too - Point Breeze and Squirrel Hill section of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Some of Peter's lectures can be found here.....Google "peterkreeft dotcom slash audio" They are profoundly good and useful for a large dose of moral sanity.

[@FATjibber]

WAKE UP! Your asleep. Judgement day will not be kind to those who deny their Creator.

[@baasmans]

12:55 LOL but how do I know which god to follow?!? Which religion teaches the right one? Every religious person is atheistic towards some other religion. 13:50 "Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be, not magic" - Tim Minchin. No such miracles have ever stood up to scrutiny. If you open your mind too much, your brain falls out mr Kreeft. 14:45 - consistency in being ridiculous doesn't make you less ridiculous. And the church has routinely switched sides.

[@alimehboob8908]

what is S word?

[@faith_alone]

Shit

[@baasmans]

26:50 "It looks as if..." he said it right there. "As if", no argument there. 27:35 No, turn it around. Why treat god as conscience? Conscience and morality can be distilled from (cultural) evolution; morality and a sense of fairness has been observed in animals. Moral relativism happens in religious values all the time. Still killing adulterers are we? Condoning slavery? Truly, religions have been used to make people do immoral things while believing them to be moral because their book said so.

[@elizajayne2888]

Prophets was created to hide profits. Prays and pray and prayer was created to hide preys and prey and preyer . Communion to hide cannibalism. Words to alter perceptions . Liars religions always argue against truth ...

[@baasmans]

15:20 OK, so belief makes people happy. There is something in your brain that resonates with religion. But the fact that people find happiness in all different religions makes them all equally unlikely to be the truth, no matter how much happiness people get from them. His "dilemma" isn't very strong; atheists get as much fulfillment from doing good as theists do, and as a bonus, they do it truly altruistically. 17:30 the need for a prime mover proves nothing, and leads to deism at best.

[@baasmans]

22:24 There is nothing in biology which cannot have evolved through random variation and natural selection (which is not random). The human brain is certainly a great feat of evolution, but there is no reason to assume it required any tinkering from a higher intelligence. Kreeft reasons from a lack of imagination. This is a scientific argument, even though Kreeft thinks it isn't. 24:40 we cannot understand reality and be part of it at the same time? We cannot see our eyes in the mirror?

[@dhanurdhar1954]

the falacy is that there is no description of what God is he talking about, and just an inference that it must exist, but nobody buys that even being catholic since is not their God per se. But its not correct to say that must exist because its definition, since that is not an argument, but something obvious for all believers. The falacy is that you part from the proposition that god exist, and that should be the conclusion. How come is difficult to find the falacy.??

[@jbz3]

12:00 Argumentum ad populum

[@PersonifiedMusic]

5:40 One has to assume Jesus existed to even begin answering that conundrum...

[@elizajayne2888]

Truther vs liars .... The religious wars are coming as those lies are going to fall ... Religions and false saviours and false prophets and truth profits ... The lies of wolves in sheep’s clothing.. I have no use for religions or liars . Or a liars religion.

[@muttonhammer7284]

Personally, all religion is actually heresy, as it is equally arrogant to define the nature of an unknowable being as it is to reject the idea of nature not having o do anything with a god. Atheism is also heresy as it defines the nature of reality as god whether the creator or not is a part of reality. The big question is what kind of heretic will you choose to be? All religions that have fallen into the hands of every human being to walk this earth are false and oftentimes unreliable. However, atheism is just as bad as the opinions of all atheists are nonunified and differ from one another, but whatever god might be. It or they are probably insulted that people choose not to believe or that everyone else chooses to believe ridiculous things about them

[@muttonhammer7284]

the only redeeming quality is that we are seeking to understand, (that applies to both the faithful and nonfaithful), but the reality of the situation that any faith or non-faith you choose to live by is nothing more than a gamble as if all religions and science struggle to understand how something came from nothing. I choose to gamble in the realm of believing to accept the existence of god, but I could never accept that we simply a byproduct of whatever it, they, or he/she intended to actually create. I find comfort believing that god's nature is not connected to humanity as if you look at any nation, despite their beliefs have all committed the worst human sins possible. If a god were to be responsible for humanity then that means god is evil and that there is only hell. However, I believe that an aspect or part of God sees good in some of humanity and is trimming away at the tumors of the evil that we inflict upon his/her, they, it's incorporeal being. Simply speaking we provide good, but we would only ever be tested to see if we were going to continue to persist as an evil entity. Of course, this is merely a belief and it could possibly be an insult to a higher being so I also choose to believe that even though I'm wrong, there is a shrivel of truth on my belief

[@matthewgoodsell480]

basically he is saying if we are hungry it's because food exists, therefore if we desire god god must exist. An absurd, easily refutable argument: not everyone desires god; the desire for something higher can be met in other ways - knowledge etc. Wanting something to exist does not make it real. grow up

[@matthewgoodsell480]

***** as humans we hunger for meaning and knowledge. That hunger can either be sated by reason and logic (a wholesome meal) or platitudinous fairy stories in some outdated book (fast food, which may fill you up, but is lacking in what you really need).

[@paternoaparente2196]

Matthew Goodsell Yeah you may say that not everyone desires God, but a desire for life and not only life eternal life is a universal desire.....That is why we sing "forever young!"

[@keystothebox]

Absence of evidence is not evidence Of absence is not true when it comes to God.. this is completely misused! In fact the opposite is true when it comes to theistic claims: "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." (well said in Wikipedia)

[@baasmans]

yup, and a bad one at that. As if atheists (especially in Europe) are making any sacrifices for their disbelief.

[@josedelgado4655]

so why wont they debate then?? I bet I could pry take on Harris, lolol

[@keystothebox]

4:30 I wish people would be more open to evidence that confronts their beliefs. Personally, I was a Catholic my entire childhood, but was disappointing when I went out to seek the truth to become an apologist. See the talkorgins wiki website on the thousands of major biblical claims disproved. Christianity is definitively dis-proven which unfortunately shook my world.

[@doncourtreporter]

He starts off with the phrase "supernatural" in reference to god. You can have that god, since "supernatural" means not existing in this universe. Peace.

[@elizajayne2888]

It’s funny how church people, during communion... Alter perceptions of prey and preyers and preys ..

[@defenderoftheadverb]

It's a crazy world when you can have a doctorate in nonsense.

[@MGTOWPsyche]

hahaha like humanities and social sciences!

[@defenderoftheadverb]

^ Umm no.

[@MrJohndl]

Sam Harris would own this silly old man. Seriously. What a load of religious hogwash. God? How bloody ridiculous.

[@macrominutes]

Maybe but Baron would wipe the floor with Harris.

[@eunicenally4375]

Another person too arrogant and ignorant to receive the GIFT of faith!!

[@doncourtreporter]

Hahahahaha. Funny stuff. Good stuff. Hahaha. I know Harry Potter.

[@doncourtreporter]

You're a funny guy. And yes, I can. You can't. Ha.

[@billshaw8372]

Don’t become a comedian your joke was not funny…..

[@matthewgoodsell480]

atheists are not arrogant - christians are. There is no evidence whatsoever for God. Belief in him stems from a single,, flawed book most humans don't believe in, yet christians insist he exists despite all evidence to the contrary. That is arrogance

[@danceswithbears2521]

+Matthew Goodsell - What book? Do you mean the Bible? I'm Catholic and Catholics do not rely on the Bible in order to believe in God.

[@matthewgoodsell480]

Yes you do. don't fool yourself

[@danceswithbears2521]

Matthew Goodsell No, I don't. Jesus didn't walk around with a Bible and neither did the Apostles. There was no Bible until the late fourth century A.D.

[@matthewgoodsell480]

the only 'evidence' they existed at all comes from the bible, a very flawed text indeed. Face it: you believe what are essentially fairy-tales

[@matthewgoodsell480]

Patrice what other evidence is there? Grow up and face reality; there is no god. Preachers like this pretend there is in order to control people.

[@rmcdaniel423]

Apologetics. . . isn't that sorta like a synonym for "excuses"? lol

[@MsTEXASJO]

No, it means "explaining."

[@MrJohndl]

Oh I'm awake alright. Religious people are delusional and brainwashed. There is no creator and no judgement day. Get educated. Seriously.

[@lizadowning4389]

Lol, he reverts to the scientific method to 'demand' science to disprove the existence of god, yet when it comes to his exotic claims for the existence of a god, the same standard, of course, doesn't apply. And that is not even taking into account that it's a logical impossibility to disprove a negative. You can't disprove the non existence of a god as much as the non existence of a unicorn.

[@an7440]

I dint think you have any idea what he is talking about and not enough to laugh out loud for sure …

[@lizadowning4389]

@@an7440 I do know very well what apologists are about and the "reasoning" they use. It almost always boils down to the classic "god of the gaps" argument or argument from ignorance. One can't make a case for god by stating that science can't disprove god.

[@an7440]

@@lizadowning4389 if you think this is god of Gaps, that's because of the minuscule effort you have taken to understand what is being said here.. and I dont think you have the faculties to take this seriously now that we know you can lol for these things .. lol

[@lizadowning4389]

@@an7440 I also wrote, argument from ignorance, and one might add circular reasoning as well. And yes, I laugh about it because he's just one more in the notorious line like WLC, Turek, Lennox, etc..., and they all boil down to the same memes. None of these apologists on the other hand, have ever taken the effort to apply the scientific (or rational) method to their claim, god exists. Therefore, demanding it from "us" is already ridiculous, besides the fact that a negative or imaginary thing cannot be disproved. Anyways, if you think he's got a valid argument for god, then please enlighten me.

[@an7440]

@@lizadowning4389 as I said you dont have the faculty for it I guess .