The Latest Scientific Evidence of God - Fr Robert Spitzer at the Napa Institute Summer Conference

[@pj30555]

It happened 4 decades ago in a premier research institute in India. The presentation was about the breakthrough in nuclear medicine. The speaker differentiated x-ray from nuclear medicine stating that while the former gave the structural image the later gave a functional image. I was only a student among the audience of top scientists. During the QA session I asked if it can be used to detect what happens when a person dies. The audience and the speaker brushed aside my question with a laughter. I sank in shame. After 40 years, fully detached from science, Fr.Spitzer is making me happy. Thanks.

[@chrissimmons3213]

Thank you for enduring the Shame you felt ....trust me you have no reason to be shameful ....the people who laughed at you are very similar to those who laughed at Noah

[@Catquick1957]

Consider yourself in good company. All the visionaries have been mocked and cajoled. It's part of being a Christian.

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

@@Catquick1957 Ah, here we go; the old Christian persecution complex.

[@timmoore9736]

@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Since when did facts become a complex? :)

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

@@timmoore9736 And what facts would those be?

[@garydavid177]

We consider ourselves extremely intelligent capable of incredible things. The truth is we have all we can do to get up in the morning and tie our shoes. We are weak and fallible. Thank you God for all you have ever done. All glory is yours.

[@dorka4538]

Yes. Thank you god for making us weak and fallible. On purpose. By your design. Making us get sick and hurt both mentally and physically by your design. Thank you for parasites that eat our eyes and all that nice stuff. Thank you for creating - by your design - a nature which is based on living things killing other living things from plants to animals just to survive in the world of your design. Thank you for creating us sick by your design and demanding us to heal ourselves while - by your design - we lack the ability to do so. Thank you for the Hell you created to punish us for being exactly like you designed us to be. Thank you.

[@b6175-h7o]

We suck but we’re the best gods lame

[@cnault3244]

"The truth is we have all we can do to get up in the morning and tie our shoes." Speak for yourself. "We are weak and fallible. Thank you God for all you have ever done. " All god has done? According to you he made weak and fallible humans.

[@rgvonsanktpauli6250]

Thanks, folks. It is so edifying and uplifting to listen to Father Spitzer: a wonderful voice of reason and sanity. What a brilliant witness.

[@MsDormy]

Fr Spitzer has a contagious enthusiasm! The YT logarithm kindly sent me his lecture on the Turin Shroud; I had never really doubted it - but the evidence presented so engagingly by Fr S was like music to my ears! I thank Our Lord for giving us a glimpse of His Holy Face. Makes me cry. 🙏❤️🙏

[@cnault3244]

The so-called "evidence" for the Turin shroud is only convincing for people who already believe the shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus.

[@nanananana2529]

"All you need is a neutron flux to explain that baby" Hahahahhaa

[@jamesmondok8635]

Fr. Spritzer was, is, and will continue to be Brilliant!!! Love his reasoning! God bless him…+Fr.James

[@johnhammond6423]

One should note that the magis center where this man is getting his statistics from is a highly biased Christion organization. Science does not point to God. Don't believe me? Go ask any real scientist.

[@loganblackwood2922]

@@johnhammond6423 Science points to what then?

[@johnhammond6423]

@@loganblackwood2922 To reality.

[@dragansavic39]

Let me add. I wish he is right, but he is monumentally not. He is just an unbelievable laying seller of BS..

[@strubabe]

I'm sorry for you. I myself have been in the presence of Jesus. It was unbelievable even to me. But no doubt. God is real Jesus is alive and knows you as he told me he loves you intimately. Even if you don't believe in him he knows you.

[@davidthurman3963]

cool science has proven the existence of santa claus i was concerned.

[@bigskyfinancialgroup2516]

If you are here. You are here for a reason! JESUS is king. Awesome doesn't even touch his Glory.if you seek him you will find him. He is that good. JESUS loves you! He will change your life. trust him. THANK YOU JESUS for being my SAVIOR. I LOVE YOU JESUS. you are my king❤

[@Stupidityindex]

Christians boast their lack of quality-control. The same god we know for a perfect record of doing nothing, is their servant for an unmeasurable number of prayers. Why would anyone confess Jesus Christ as Lord, when voting is a quality-control? Republicans rig the voting districts. The SCOTUS writes of its own stench. Christians are avoided like the old woman with too many cats, suggesting we travel best with one foot in fantasyland, based on butchered context in Roman propaganda. Who do you think licensed temples, controlled publication, crucified when imperial Rome created Christians? Why do you think every Alex Jones in the country, uses Jesus-lingo in the sales-pitch? The problem is; We depend on the fiction of government being better than no government, actually working, with voting as a quality-control. Christians boast having no quality-control. The same god we know for a perfect record of doing nothing, is their servant for an unmeasurable number of prayers. The only difference between a Republican & Democrat is how fast the knee hits the floor when a donor walks in the room. There is no plan, not for greenhouse gases, as long as energy is needed to keep the show on the road. Christians demand ownership of the narrative: We are all gods, children of the highest god. The ultimate vanity is declared, as they make a scene in the temple. Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, weighing in on whatnot as if Earth had gravity-free zones, would-be dictators suggesting we must all travel together, as if we all prefer leadership with one foot in fantasyland. We know a tree by the fruit. We know a man by his works. We thank God secular law & order finally ended the witch-killings & inquisitions.

[@cnault3244]

"If you are here. You are here for a reason! " The reason I am here is because the video is titled "The Latest Scientific Evidence of God". Ignoring the fact that "The Latest Scientific Evidence of God" makes no sense because so far no scientific evidence for god has been shown, I watched to see if ANY scientific evidence for god is presented here. None is.

[@Stupidityindex]

@@TdBone They think this improves God sales, having scientific evidence for characters only known from fiction, as if a deity who can't get everyone's attention, is worthy of the Divine title.

[@dannyneville1310]

​@@cnault3244 Scientism is such a drag, and completely devoid of the more appropriate philosophical treatment of God's existence. What do you want, for God to pop down and pose for a photograph? To say 'cheese' for you and your godless pals before heading back up to heaven?

[@cnault3244]

@@dannyneville1310 Why not? According to the Bible, god talks to numerous people, or pops down to see them, or wrestles with them ( god lost btw), or has them over for dinner. Let's assume the discussion was about the existence of leprechauns and rephrase your question so you can see how stupid your post was: Scientism is such a drag, and completely devoid of the more appropriate philosophical treatment of leprechauns' existence. What do you want, for a leprechaun to pop over and pose for a photograph? To say 'cheese' for you and your pals before heading back to their pot of gold? The fact is I said NOTHING about scientific evidence for god. Evidence for something does not have to be scientific. Now, what is your BEST evidence for god?

[@goaskmymom1350]

Absolutely love this man of the cloth! 🙏 God bless you father

[@goaskmymom1350]

@Tbone pretty lonely soul...huh? Stay healthy for the rest of your life. Denying God is eternity in hell, that's a long long time. Now be a good boy and take the garbage out like your mommy asked and do something constructive with yourself like, get a job.

[@SuperIliad]

Aside from everything else, Father recites all this without notes.

[@sandosham]

When priests have poor understanding of science and how to interpret data, this is the half-assed nonsense we get.

[@briandaniel5091]

A lot of fast talking mindless chatter. Kind of like my wife displays

[@barbarashen686]

Thank you Fr Spitzer . I would love 💕 for a conversation with Fr spitzer and Jordan Patterson It would be so enlightening . I am hopeful it can be arranged

[@Mimi-ip9xc]

This genius of a man , this Jesuit priest is the one who actually turned my head to pay attention to on a couch 5-6 years ago as I was laying in my misery from Cancer treatments at my home. Not the treatments but the attempt at resting or just laying in despair and depression and anxiety and PTSD unable to hardly move an inch. Because of this priest I very slowly began dragging my feet back to a semblance of Catholicism. He is blind , brilliant, I love him and pray when I remember for him that he led me back.

[@annec988]

Thank you Fr Robert for talking about NDE. Yes, things are changing, thank God.

[@sinfall5280]

You can tell how giddy and excited he gets simply talking about this stuff. He's super into it like a little kid, tripping over his words and sometimes stuttering. THIS guy BELIEVES

[@chrysrobert5026]

What an intellect this priest has.

[@Dipsomaniac]

Christopher Hitches would've destroyed this BS

[@NorgeDude]

You cannot prove god exists.

[@Anon.5216]

Clearly Fr Spitzer was a scientist before God called him to the Priesthood. A wonderful talk. Thank u Fr.

[@cnault3244]

He wasn't ever a scientist.

[@michaelabbott9080]

Firstly..Ad Popularum isnt evidence.The fact that lots of people believe something to be true has no bearing at all on it actually being true..Its a fallacious position.

[@saints51]

Why isn't Thomas's first proof sufficient? Has anyone EVER experienced something causing itself? Putting experience aside, does logic allow the assertion that a thing can cause itself? How? For a thing to cause itself means the causal thing precedes itself in time. That's an absurdity.

[@paulr9470]

My Lord My God !

[@mikestamilmovies]

This priest is outstanding. My fear is who will succeed him. Father please pass on your brilliant intellect to someone else too.

[@docsspellingcontest592]

The audience is just loving the huge numbers this guy is throwing out for his fine tuning argument. I thought he was actually going to present real science, not made up numbers. Surprise! Another apologist using the word science incorrectly.

[@sxt4447]

I’ve always believed that science was proof of God’s brilliance and that the beauty of the cosmos and everything within it was an expression of God’s perfect love. I’m glad Father Spitzer provided the evidence to back it up. The truth shall prevail!

[@johnhammond6423]

The magis center where this man is getting his statistics from is a highly biased Christion organization. Science does not point to God. Don't believe me? Go ask any real scientist.

[@johnhammond6423]

@Caleb OKAY What's a scientific ideal?

[@kalords5967]

Sorry, but science has nothing to do with God. Science has nothing to do with miracles or the supernatural. It only deals with information data.

[@sxt4447]

@@kalords5967 “There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” - Albert Einstein

[@kalords5967]

@@sxt4447 Albert Einstein did not believe in the personal God who rewards and punishes people based on their actions.

[@garyfrancis6193]

So your scientific evidence is preaching to the choir and convincing yourself you’re right.

[@chriscote9054]

Holy logical fallacies, Batman!

[@rogermills2467]

Universe friendly to life? God did it. I've never understood this answer.

[@user-qr9uh1fd8g]

Seen and experienced Miracles from prayers to Jesus Christ!

[@HeliSimDriver]

What about calculating the odds of an everlasting diety who suddenly decides it is lonely, who creates a universe specifically designed to enable life with all its complexity, and wait for billions of years to send his son to experience a miserable humanoid death, so that his son can prove his existence. I would think the odds of that happening are much lower than 10 x 10 to the power of 125. Why not just prove his existence by parting one of the oceans now that we can observe and record the splitting of the ocean? Much more effective than splitting the Red Sea without being able to record and broadcast the evidence for the entire world to see? But if somehow, this is still more likely than a natural beginning of life, it begs the question of why go through all that trouble and all that waiting? Why not just create the sun and the earth in 7 days or less, and forget about all the galaxies and everything else? I guess god works in ‘mysterious’ ways 🙄 After all, with all that godly power, apparently everything is possible. Why beat around the bush if all you want are humans who will worship your monumental non godly ego, and torture them for eternity if they don’t? A loving god? I think not.

[@wakeuppeople7180]

I don't know how this priest got his statistics on scientists and their beliefs, but I guess the statistical data he references here has been collected (and selected) by very biased statisticians. No wonder that a priest would see a majority of scientists as "believers" (even if many of those believers don't believe in the biblical God) while a secular person would see the opposite in the same very statistical population of scientists (but from data collected with a different bias). Confirmation bias never fails to reinforce what one desperately wants to be true even when the available data can't support it... and no, the alternate answer to "we don't know" is not "God did it"!

[@keithwright1090]

Did he actually say anything that wasn’t complete BS?

[@maxbaba1000]

He has actually Said NOTHING if you ask me and those statistics are CLEARLY wrong! Anybody provide verifiable links as sources for those statistics? I remain AGNOSTIC

[@theshadow5800]

Sorry, I need something a bit more than “pointing to” for me to abandon science and relinquish my free will to invisible fairies.

[@dalex60]

Nothing proves a god exists. Nothing proves Jesus’ divinity or that he performed any miracles or actually resurrected… Nothing!

[@rl7012]

Nothing does not exist except as a concept. Nothing cannot prove anything.

[@ecysmith6652]

Fantastic! It is fulfilling for me to hear that, before his death, Dr. Hawkins was able to see the glory of God in His infinite creation of the Universe that He, Himself created by His supreme intelligence and flawless architecture. And praise God for humans to have a soul and that is manifested in Science at the moment of death, and in life, by Jesus Christ.

[@juliusk2933]

He seen that it was the only choice to explain the miraculous universe.

[@espojespo5]

Unfortunately that's not true...I'll I say is that the truth regarding that is easily obtainable out there.

[@ecysmith6652]

@@espojespo5 I am not going to argue with you. Your religion is atheism, mine is Christianity. Think how you like but allow me to think like great minds such as Isaac Newton, Hobble, Boyle, Lavoisier, to cite just a few. So, I am in good company.

[@ecysmith6652]

@@TdBone That’s your opinion and I am not going to argue with you. I just feel sad that you think this way.

[@cnault3244]

Did you mean Fr. Stephen Hawking ( not Hawkins)? Why are you bearing false witness against Stephen Hawking?

[@billjohnson9472]

7:29 - a profound misunderstanding of statistics. The odds of the universe being able to sustain life are exactly 1 in 1, because we observe life. Of the billions of possible genetic codes possible the chance that yours exists is also 1 in 1 if you are reading this. They really should teach science in the seminaries.

[@awreckingball]

The flying spaghetti monster did it. It's conclusive.

[@truthseeker7867]

How can he say our universe is friendly to life? If there was a field where rice could only grow on .00000000000001% of the field, would you say that field is friendly to rice? It’s a very strange comment.

[@majmage]

Yeah I saw one person's estimate of the Earth's volume being 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of the universe. Well that's the _entire_ Earth, but only 1% is crust, and only 29% of _that_ is land, and only a portion of the land is suitable to human life. So the idea of "fine tuning" with respect to humans is ridiculous.

[@briandaniel5091]

Our universe has a unique way of thinning the inhabitants off the map. Simply defined

[@tonyfrost6348]

There is no “latest scientific evidence” for the existence of God or the Soul. Indeed, there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever for either of these. It always astonishes me that grown adults believe such supernatural tosh. I would have found such beliefs ludicrous even as an eleven-year-old.

[@bluenose8442]

There is zero scientific evidence to prove the existence of God and the soul, nor is there life after death.

[@anthonywhelan5419]

They are the same odds as a hurricane smashing through a junk yard and at the end, a perfectly working 747 Boeing Jet is created with engineering all ready for take off.

[@baptistoriginals]

So the first 5 min are him using fallacious reasoning... that does not bode well for the rest....

[@alinachoboter8828]

THANK YOU! I'm glad someone mentioned this!! The whole time he was talking about that so many alarm bells were going off.

[@evans8245]

Today is the first time seeing Robert Spitzer. He's so funny XD, NOT ONCE, DID I LOSE INTEREST IN THE TALK OR GET DISTRACTED, Furthest being from boring i've ever heard

[@irishmclass2042]

Praise God there are younger scientists that believe in God! Hopefully that will continue to grow and spread to the general population! Love Fr. Spitzer, and have enjoyed my first Majis Center Catholic Women’s Bible study!

[@roscius6204]

trouble is they'll be mostly Hindu.... you're cool with that. or do you assume they'll become Christian .... for some reason...

[@ecysmith6652]

@irishmclass2042, Unfortunately, the world media is totally against God. They withhold gems of information of discoveries about the most astonishing facts already in the Bible. We can only rely on experts like Fr. Spitzer to spread the newfound realities of the Holy Book in Archeology , Science, and with the help of technology. As you say, our hope for the future lies in young scientists-to-be and a revival.

[@roscius6204]

@@ecysmith6652 If only there were organizations with billions of dollars in assets that would stand up for the bible....

[@YeshuaisnotJesus]

Everyone has evidence of god but no one has ever won any of the world's prizes, no Noble prize.

[@Strive1974]

My 6 year old son can tell you God exists by just looking at the night sky

[@loganblackwood2922]

There's too many conflation of different ideas here. Where did you even get the mathematics on all of this? It's virtually impossible to draw numbers without knowing the exacts.

[@tomb9420]

I enjoyed watching this.

[@davidquatermass789]

Superb!

[@Stupidityindex]

Christians have no quality-control. Christians boast their lack of quality-control. The same god we know for a perfect record of doing nothing, is their servant for an unmeasurable number of prayers. Why would anyone confess Jesus Christ as Lord, when voting is a quality-control? Republicans rig the voting districts. The SCOTUS writes of its own stench. Christians are avoided like the old woman with too many cats, suggesting we travel best with one foot in fantasyland, based on butchered context in Roman propaganda. Who do you think licensed temples, controlled publication, crucified when imperial Rome created Christians? Why do you think every Alex Jones in the country, uses Jesus-lingo in the sales-pitch? The problem is; We depend on the fiction of government being better than no government, actually working, with voting as a quality-control. Christians boast having no quality-control. The same god we know for a perfect record of doing nothing, is their servant for an unmeasurable number of prayers. The only difference between a Republican & Democrat is how fast the knee hits the floor when a donor walks in the room. There is no plan, not for greenhouse gases, as long as energy is needed to keep the show on the road. Christians demand ownership of the narrative: We are all gods, children of the highest god. The ultimate vanity is declared, as they make a scene in the temple. Christians are the wolves in sheep's clothing, weighing in on whatnot as if Earth had gravity-free zones, would-be dictators suggesting we must all travel together, as if we all prefer leadership with one foot in fantasyland. We know a tree by the fruit. We know a man by his works. We thank God secular law & order finally ended the witch-killings & inquisitions.

[@garywatson5617]

Ecclesiastes 9:5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten. 6 also their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished. John 5:28. All those in their memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out. If everyone is in Heaven or hell, who are those in their memorial tombs.

[@CortxVortx]

Jeez, the special pleading. And, basically, still trying to argue God into existence.

[@firstaparamythist2028]

A perfect example of an ignorant dispensing ignorance to other ignorants🙄

[@Alkes777]

The essence of religious dogma

[@pfpvilano]

I just started listening and already there is a serious flaw. It's important to keep these discussions intellectually honest. The point being there is a vast cataclysmic difference between "God" and "a higher transcendent power." The God of the Bible was petty and vengeful. As for humanity, there is random beauty and suffering so the nature of this higher power remains a mystery. Anyway my main point here is that the scientists who are theists are likely not referring to the God of the Bible in their belief systems.

[@kathytucker1472]

One set at a time - you have to believe there is a God to make you decide to read the Bible- and be open to the LESSONS of the Bible (I never liked when my parents punished me when I made a bad decision, but I don’t call them petty and vengeful

[@garethwhite8770]

Pulled these stat's from his bum he did.

[@petersanders2815]

Ah……so no evidence. Lots of possibilities and probabilities and maybe’s but no evidence.

[@marcobiagini1878]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini

[@rl7012]

@@lalmuanpuiamizo No he made a sound scientific and rational argument. Read it again.

[@rl7012]

@@lalmuanpuiamizo You said the argument was from incredulity, when it wasn't. That is what I was addressing.

[@BCSTS]

WELL DONE FATHER......Thank you so much for this! God bless you for this scientific perspective!😂

[@yeshuagl6922]

He keeps on mentioning science but wont give evidences suupporting science. All he provides are claims, claims and claims. Why can't he prepare a scientific paper and have it peer reviewed. I am sure he has not done so.

[@wleibsr]

Father Spitzer always strengthens two things in me. My faith in God...and that I'm dumber than a box of rocks when it comes to anything beyond basic physics. Love his lectures!

[@bondjamesbondsandiego0075]

Me too

[@stevenmorgan3849]

Haha amen

[@diedertspijkerboer]

I've just listened to part of his talk and I am actually a scientist. He has the complete opposite effect on me, because I can easily identify bad logic and misunderstood science in his talk. My other comments here explain what I mean with examples in the talk.

[@Steven_Rowe]

You're not dumber than rocks,. I th8nk I know less now as a percentage than when I was young and only one year younger than Fr Spitzer. You ask 9ne question, then you find an answer, that leads to two more questions, then those answers lead to four ans so it goes on.

[@nookymonster1]

Amazing how smart you seem to a room full of people that know less than you. Now, try that in a room full of people that are more educated than you.

[@naphtaliliverpool882]

Thought there wouldve been actual evidence and not the god of the gaps

[@pictlandpickers1171]

Question, why would jesus resurrect Lazarus if he'd achieved some higher level of existence?

[@martinwilliams9866]

AMERICAN Scientists, not Scientists, so you start off this talk with a lie!

[@johnfrancis4809]

Fr Spitzer gives Glory to God. May my life do so in some way. Thank you Dr Spitzer

[@Catquick1957]

Myself as well.

[@krishna-dasa7256]

Thank you Fr Spitzer for a very interesting presentation. We now know that atheism is based purely on faith. A blind belief that God does not exist, for which there is absolutely no evidence. We can safely deduct that if there was any proof that God does not exist it would have been shoved up our throats in every school for decades! Around 16min 50sec you showed us a slide ''Peer-reviewed medical studies of a transcendent soul'' stating, ''that peer-reviewed studies show the high likelihood that we have a transcendent soul capable of surviving bodily death.'' A question: Who is the ''we'' (that has/possesses the soul) that the slide/research refers to? Am I the body that has a transcendent soul? Or, maybe, I am the eternal, transcendent soul? A particle of undying spirit in a temporary body? My material body is subject to death, that's obvious, but once the body is gone (buried, eaten by worms, cremated etc) who owns the soul? Maybe a different question: Who am I? Am I the body or am I the soul? Logic points to the latter, I think. We commonly say: my legs, my hands & my body. I cannot be my body having an eternal soul inside because during an NDE, when my soul gets out of my body and then I look at my body.... Who is doing the looking? My soul, my body... but who owns my soul and my body? Using logic I conclude that I AM the soul and I have a body. I, the soul, am looking at my body during an NDE, I think. But please feel free to accept the version that fits you. Thank you for your attention. God bless you. Salaam Aleikum. Sat Sri Akaal. Hare Krishna. Namaskar.

[@larrybuckner8619]

That was a whole lot of assumptions from a really biased person. Try to remember that the Bible does not prove the Bible.

[@cartesiancircle]

It's always the same with these priests,pastors etc. They proclaim their god is undetectable,beyond human comprehension, mysterious, unprovable etc then make half assed lame attempt to detect, comprehend,demystify and prove which if successful would render faith moot. Whatever happened to their faith being the (substance, confidence, certainty, assurance) of things hoped for the (evidence, conviction,proof) of things unseen, etc.

[@BenLapke]

When reading comments like yours, I’m always amazed how many people lack comprehension and analytical skills, and are completely bereft of the ability to make a case in support of their position.

[@allenivey7131]

Lies on the lips of the priest.. this guys has no clue what he’s talking about just blabbering.

[@carolewalker4587]

Of course he’s one of the good priests. May God bless him. I was feeling very low today but his lecture has lifted me up. Praise the Lord.

[@downenout8705]

Fairytales can be comforting.

[@hoponpop3330]

@@downenout8705 Okay Thomas

[@torpenhigalak5909]

@@hoponpop3330 "One of" as if the existence of your mythagog did anything done make another evidential excuses for your tyrannical deity, mythelot. Watch it again on a lense of a outsider of such faith and you'll see how deceptive it is...

[@downenout8705]

@@hoponpop3330 Yep, but the problem with that story is that when Thomas asked for empirical evidence he was provided it. Today however when an atheist asks for empirical evidence of the truth of 1 Corinthians 15: 14 all you get is apologetic excuses.

[@roscius6204]

@@hoponpop3330 Should we start a Church of Later Day Thomas's

[@tongakhan230]

There is life and the opposite death. In life, beings eat drink and work and sleep. In death all that ceases as the living person no longer exists. Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going.

[@LuzianaLady]

Genesis, Quantum Physics and Reality by Peter Zoeller-Greer. How Quantum Physics proves the existence of God. ‘…leads to a new Anthropic principle - the Divine.”

[@bobmoore7481]

Any scientist who believes in a God, like after death and or a Devine Jesus has not used the scientific process to reach that decision.

[@johnmeyer3163]

Man I had a car salesman who sounds exactly like him.

[@910iva]

Yes but what about all the peer reviews. They have to count. He's just say the findings lol

[@monkeyman193]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[@larrypicard8802]

So all he did was throw out some statistics with no actual proof of anything.

[@alphatucana]

You would need to dig out the studies he referred to for the evidence. The talk was only a swift overview. Maybe his books include decent bibliographies, but I would have liked to have seen some links in the description.

[@allenhanks7719]

When I think that there is a god, I think of the children’s cancer center and realize there is no god.

[@darrenthomson1930]

hahahahahhahahhahahahahhahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahah scientific evidence hahhahahahahhahhahahah I love the comedy on YT hilarious! keep em coming hahahhahhahahhahahhaahah religion cracks me up hahahahahahahahahhahahha

[@Wolly735]

“And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come. (MTHW 24:14).”

[@bitmasricco5699]

A question to all?? I’m Looking forward to an intelligent reply.?? Moved by lust at the sight of her, King David called for Bathsheba to be brought to him and slept with her. David committed adultery with a married woman called Bathsheba, wife of Uriah. what's more, David murdered Uriah by proxy by ordering all of Uriah's comrades to abandon him in the midst of battle, so that he ended up getting killed by an opposing army. The Prophet Nathan was sent by God and warned King David. well, Torah verses clearly say that both URIAH and DAVID Blessed by GOD. Well, the question is, if Uriah, David and Bathsheba go to heaven. To whom will Bathsheba be given? This question is ready to test the wisdom of all of you: The Bible [ Torah]: God promised that God had already chosen all three humans for heaven: David, Uriah and Bathsheba. I’m Looking forward to an intelligent reply. Note: God said through Nathan the prophet that King David was rich. Uriah was poor and had nothing but Bathsheba, a little lamb. Therefore, God here assured that the couple was chosen through the parable. David's prayer sought forgiveness and Later King David has been forgiven too. no doubt all three will go to heaven. If So, to whom will Bathsheba be given? Note: Matthew 22/23-30: There will be no right answer. The question raised by the Sadducees was about the impossible situation of a widow having seven husbands, all brothers. If Abraham goes to heaven, Sarah will be his wife in heaven. just as Mary will be Joseph's wife. Matthew 22:23-33/ It has a different meaning. You and your spouse love each other, live together on earth, and are true believers in Christ. If they go to heaven, they don't need to remarry. They don't need to create new babies.

[@chase6579]

@@bitmasricco5699 Jesus answers this very question in the gospels when it is given to him by the Sadducees.

[@njhoepner]

@@bitmasricco5699 I think a much bigger question is this: according to God's supposedly perfect law, David was guilty of two capital crimes. Bathsheba is either rape victim or guilty of one capital crime (adultery) - we don't know since, like most women in the bible, her views don't matter. The only certainly innocent party is the baby she gives birth to. The outcome? David goes on to be Israel's great king and the model for the coming messiah. Bathsheba goes on to be queen mother. The baby gets executed by slow torture. The question is: what does this say about the justice of God?

[@bitmasricco5699]

@@njhoepner well said, Ok! come to the question is: if Uriah, David and Bathsheba go to heaven. To whom will Bathsheba be given? Note : Every reference to angels in Scripture is in the masculine gender. Angels are never referred to in any gender other than masculine. • In Matthew 22:30 Jesus says that there will be no marriage in heaven because we “will be like the angels in heaven.” This verse states that angels do not marry, but it stops short of commenting on their “gender.” Nothing in Jesus’ statement can be taken to imply that angels are masculine, feminine, or neuter.

[@njhoepner]

@@bitmasricco5699 Well, if one presumes such things as the existence of heaven, and presumes as well that Jesus is in fact god, then one has to go with what he says as ultimate authority, since nothing in the Hebrew bible answers the question. The Hebrew Bible and its marriage laws were written without belief in resurrection and afterlife, so the premise of laws is purely about family continuity and procreation in this world, for the purpose of maintaining family lines and therefore property claims. The ONLY pronouncement in scripture on the subject of marriage laws and resurrection, therefore, is that of Jesus. Under the above premises, that means in heaven marriage is irrelevant. Going further would be speculation, but my speculation would be that even those married for a lifetime on earth are not married in heaven, because it is pointless.

[@blueboi5140]

Was really expecting something better and different. Same old stuff apologists have been trotting out since forever.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

The fact that young scientists are more commonly theists than older ones could mean many things: 1, as suggested here, scientists are becoming more religious 2: scientists lose their faith over the course of their career 3: young scientists are more likely to come from more theistic countries than older ones. So, basically, you can't draw a conclusion from this statistic.

[@marcosgonzalez4525]

We like the numbers.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

@@marcosgonzalez4525 What do you like about them?

[@BenLapke]

It could also be that the current and/or newly considered evidence - as Father Spitzer laid out - when considered makes it more difficult to not believe in God for individuals open to considering evidence. In the past there were potential explanations other than God for the existence of the Universe, but these potential explanations are falling by the wayside. I would be curious to see what is considered a “scientist” in the polling. In past studies individuals in the hard sciences (chemistry, physics and medicine) had a higher level of believers than those in the soft sciences (psychology, sociology, etc.). One study I read found that 3% of psychologists believed in God, whereas more than 50% of physicians believed. I say all this because the percentage of people in the hard sciences may actually believe at a higher level.

[@moredac2881]

I like your third explanation. Because he doesn't say they are dominantly Christian at all. More and more scientists are coming out of strongly religious societies like India, which would explain why more scientists are religious. Ofc, what scientists think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is the evidence and logical arguments that scientists create.

[@friedricengravy6646]

They r attempting to claim a statistic (that we cannot verify) as evidence, but its barely anecdotal. This man provides no real evidence. That should tell u something. If there was evidence of God, there would b no shortage of churches blasting it from every available platform.

[@garywatson5617]

How do they calculate the odds. Just pluck them out of the air. I would like to see the figures and the formula.

[@steenrasmussen5280]

One can believe in God without believing in religion

[@Asmodius2014]

This guy doesn't know what he's talking about

[@doggods]

all irrational, not to call him naïve, no rational person now days carries that absude lie anymore.

[@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone]

“As Terence McKenna observed, “Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” ― Rupert Sheldrake, 'Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation'

[@russellmiles2861]

We have mathematical constructs that explain a universes creation. Of course hard to run an experiment. But we don't have to retort to miracles.

[@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone]

@@russellmiles2861 So what created the laws of physics?

[@russellmiles2861]

@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone that is a fascinating question. I guess wed have to start we the use of the term laws regarding natural philosophy is not the same as the term when referring to, say road traffic management. You assuming agency in something you observe. This would be like wondering why a golf ball landed on a particular turf of grass. We don't assume the golf ball was guided. And we don't assume mathematics is more than some phenomenon we observe. I would stress: as I said: we can't conduct an experiment. So who knows the Universe may have been created by a God. That presents a more interesting question as why would a God bother?

[@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone]

​@@russellmiles2861 From Wikipedia: "Scientific laws are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.". I'm sure you're familiar with the laws of physics - gravity for example. They are "constants" in nature and they describe certain limits of physical reality. I didn't assume agency, I simply asked if you had a better explanation for what created these laws? You said "We have mathematical constructs that explain a universes creation." and I'm arguing that you don't have a mathematical construct for the *first cause* We know that golf balls are guided by golf players and both road traffic management and golf ball striking are conscious, deliberate actions of human beings. Why do you think the laws of physics are perfectly expressed through the language of mathematics? Eugene Paul Wigner once said "The unreasonable efficiency of mathematics in science is a gift we neither understand nor deserve." This is a scientist making a mystical statement about how we are able to understand creation through rational thought. You can't conduct a physical experiment on the creation of the universe but you can conduct thought experiments and there are many hypotheses such as M-theory. When you find a plausible explanation, you can either take a leap of faith that there is some high power/intelligence behind everything (theist), suspend judgement, remain skeptical and live in ignorance (agnostic) or deny any/all supernatural intervention and rely on a materialist, anthropocentric explanation (atheist). As to why God would bother - are you aware that in the Bible it states that "man is created in the likeness and image of God"? I would argue that God bothered so that you and I could experience the gift of life.

[@russellmiles2861]

@@yourkingdomcomeyourwillbedone thank you for your considered reply. Although I couldn't help feel we are in agreement; ie, laws of physics are observations and as you state repeatable and verifiable. We don't set them. They even change or can be fluid. Eg, you mention Gravity. This is a most useful law for predicting movement of planets, space craft, footballs, etc. It doesn't matter that a subatomic level it doesn't work. We also don't really know what Gravity is: a strange weak force that is intentions across the universe. Much more work to be done there Re: first cause latter

[@paulmathis3232]

Sounds like "old wine in a new bottle ".

[@secondgrace]

Can you provide links to the sources you cite? In particular, what is the source of the Pew research data on belief in God among scientists? I could not find that online. Thank you and God bless!

[@ezbody]

You won't find anything, because "father" is lying.

[@krishna-dasa7256]

Thank you Fr Spitzer for a very interesting presentation. We now know that atheism is based purely on faith. A blind belief that God does not exist, for which there is absolutely no evidence. We can safely deduct that if there was any proof that God does not exist it would have been shoved up our throats in every school for decades! Around 16min 50sec you showed us a slide ''Peer-reviewed medical studies of a transcendent soul'' stating, ''that peer-reviewed studies show the high likelihood that we have a transcendent soul capable of surviving bodily death.'' A question: Who is the ''we'' (that has/possesses the soul) that the slide/research refers to? Am I the body that has a transcendent soul? Or, maybe, I am the eternal, transcendent soul? A particle of undying spirit in a temporary body? My material body is subject to death, that's obvious, but once the body is gone (buried, eaten by worms, cremated etc) who owns the soul? Maybe a different question: Who am I? Am I the body or am I the soul? Logic points to the latter, I think. We commonly say: my legs, my hands & my body. I cannot be my body having an eternal soul inside because during an NDE, when my soul gets out of my body and then I look at my body.... Who is doing the looking? My soul, my body... but who owns my soul and my body? Using logic I conclude that I AM the soul and I have a body. I, the soul, am looking at my body during an NDE, I think. But please feel free to accept the version that fits you. Thank you for your attention. God bless you. Salaam Aleikum. Sat Sri Akaal. Hare Krishna. Namaskar.

[@DavidFlockhart]

There is no scientific evidence of God and soul.

[@jamesmondok8635]

Fr. Spitzer also quoted the scientific organizations giving out the statistics!

[@wcsxwcsx]

I couldn't keep up with all the b.s.

[@arthurmaglieri1824]

Thank you Fr Spitzer I love listening to you and enjoy your books!! God bless you

[@hemadayal7815]

given the evidence of Quantum Physics and Science in general..."the fool hath said in his heart there is no God."

[@bbelindamorris6384]

hemadayal7815 Well, if even the fool gets it, what taking the rest of you so long?

[@bigal3248]

It’s always inspirational, enlightening, and educational to listen to Father Spitzer. And he’s also an exorcist!

[@salsuginusrex5196]

All priests are exorcists, technically speaking. But I've never heard that Fr. Spitzer ever delved into that. I'll have to ask some search algorithms now.

[@Bugsy0333]

If God exists then please let all i ask is for you to show him/her to me ? This is not rocket science.Can you do that for me please ?

[@user-pegasus11]

You have to sincerely pray to God yourself and wait for the answer. You have to be open to how the answer comes through to you. Good luck, I will pray for you to hear from God 😊

[@pdworld3421]

As I understand the poll in question 33% are theists and another 18 percent believe in a higher power. Saying 51% are theists is a little misleading.

[@chadpilled7913]

I think it means that they aren't staunch materialists. Higher power implies some kind of divinity, but fair point

[@roscius6204]

Also importantly for the purpose of misrepresenting the data, it doesn't break it down into gods.. I'd be surprised if a good % of the theistic science students weren't Hindu.

[@benoitboucher626]

@@roscius6204 pl

[@pdworld3421]

@@roscius6204 still, only 17% are atheists, do when atheists try to make it sound like most scientists are atheists, that's not even close

[@roscius6204]

@@pdworld3421 So considering they represent only 7% of the worlds population that's pretty good. You'd have to agree by your own criteria. Last time I looked 100 - 51 = 49 too but spin however it suits you....

[@janetmilan4698]

A Gish-gallop of complete bunk.

[@josephk7954]

You'd need to have the brain of a chicken to take this guy seriously.

[@pdworld3421]

I looked for this pew research survey for hours and have not been able to find it. I trust someone will be able to supply a link or at least the title of the survey

[@friedricengravy6646]

There is no evidence of God. If there was, there would b no shortage of churches blasting it from their platforms. This fella wouldnt talk for 5+ minutes saying nothing if he had any evidence at all.

[@pdworld3421]

@@friedricengravy6646 there's a ton of evidence. Everything is evidence fir God. And most of the world sees it. There's onky a small, tiny, insignificant number of people who think they know better.

[@friedricengravy6646]

@@pdworld3421 So u think that how many people believe something is an indication of truth?? That is completely unsound. Second, u r implying that its arrogant to think we ‘know better’. When a person or institution makes a supernatural claim, its they who claim to know better. As well, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders. Lets look at the question ‘What comes before the Big Bang?’. Science is ok with saying ‘We dont know.’ They only speak on what we know based on what the evidence presents, nothing more….nothing less. Yet, its u & other followers of, lets say in this case, the Christian Bible who say that u know better than science. U know what ever came before was brought by a God of ur description. Science is humbled by nature. U have it all backwards. Ur Bible & ur holy men claim to know more & they demand that u believe this as fact without any evidence.

[@roscius6204]

@@pdworld3421 Awesome answer.... just awesome.

[@pdworld3421]

@friedricengravy I think that when there is a vast majority of people that believe something is true, that one should consider that they could be correct. Why do you think a tiny minority, and I mean tiny, are correct and everyone else is wrong?

[@daffidavit]

The problem I have wtih Ray Rogers conclusion that the cotton was from a later dated sewn on side-strip by nuns is that Rogers was not the first person to discover that cotton was in the Shroud. Nor did Rogers have the ability to compare the Shroud sample with a non-controversial area. Professer Gilbert Raes, the same person named for the adjacent Raes sample confirmed years earlier that there also was cotton in his sample. Rogers apparently didn't know this because he seemed surprised to find cotten after Barrie Schowrtz challenged Rogers to take another look at the fibers. Professer Raes speculated that the loom used for the Shroud was previously used to make cotton fabrics. Hence the cotton became mixed with the linen Shroud. Which theory is correct? Did the cotton come from a side-strip sewn by the Poor Clare Nuns in the 15th century or was the cotton mixed from a loom previously used to make cotten fabric? This is uncertain. However, some argue that the early Jews were not allowed to mix different fabrics on their looms as it was against their laws. On the other hand, how reliable is the proof that the Poor Clare Nuns actually used Frence re-weaving to sew on a side-strip? Source: "Verdict on the Shroud" by Stevenson and Habermas (1981).

[@johnbrown6189]

If there was any scientific evidence for God then you wouldn't need this video would you? But keep propping your imaginary friend up as your beliefs tear the world apart.

[@patjohnson742]

If God was real or a decent God, he, she, or it would reveal itself to the world and present its case for humans to love and worship it if that is indeed what it desires. It's unfair to burn good people in hell for not believing in God, Santa Clause, Frosty the Snowman, etc. Most intelligent people need evidence before they believe in something. There is no evidence or proof of God's existence in the bible.

[@thereaction18]

Your statements are utterly absurd. Did you create the universe? What gives you the right to decide what is fair? You certainly have no sense or intellect if you think the bible does not recount God's revelation in the Great Theophany and in the person of his son. Your wickedness provokes the depravity of your mind, a fact which itself confirms the word of God.

[@nelsonfernandes5729]

John 1:1 ► In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

[@briandaniel5091]

That would make too much sense

[@bbelindamorris6384]

nelsonfernandes5729 Those are assertions, not proof 🙄.