Science Does Not Disprove God

[@julieelizabeth4856]

"Science is the study of the handiwork of God." - Dr. Stacy Trasancos, scientist and former atheist, now Catholic and still a scientist.

[@callmeandrew9949]

Wesley Heartland why are u angry at god what reason have u to be ? His laws are for our own good imagine a place on earth where we lived by the complete opposite of the Ten Commandments . It would be chaos. Also Richard Dawkins calls god “unjust” I thought he was a materialist , how much carbon is in the justice molecule,seems like he is judging god by an objective standard which theist mean by gods nature , that’s odd and rideculous and clearly doesn’t understand the bible he has just undermined his materlist view by using the word justice . Justice is an immaterial reality - yes u can the justice being carried out but not justice it’s self - justice is grounded in the nature of god -and the nature of god(I.e the standard of good- is what we judge by - if something is unjust then something must be just - u can sum up Richards Dawkins arguments about god in one sentence -there is no god and I hate him -frank turek - I’m not slandering you but take a moment to ponder the arguments for god existence ( seems so irrational to say he doesn’t ) “the fool says in his heart there is no god “

[@sapereaude6339]

Wesley Heartland Its funny that you quote him thinking that it’s intelligent. Dawkins isn’t a scientist, he’s a conman. He’s as much of a scientist as bill nye. It’s funny though, the immorality argument has been addressed for 2000 years, but you still think that Richard Dawkins ridiculous quote somehow “takes down” Christianity.

[@babhag5481]

Julie Elisabeth If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein) The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. (Albert Einstein, Letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946) The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. (Albert Einstein) I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Albert Einstein, The Human Side

[@stephencastro4723]

@Wesley Heartland the same Richard Dawkins who said God is unpleasant and evil is the same guy who said evil and good does not exist. Consistent isn't he?

[@stephencastro4723]

@Wesley Heartland you see how inconsistent and illogical that was? What is his standard on judging something as good or evil? And on the other hand, he also said there is no evil or good. Let us see if that really is consistent.

[@Uriel-Septim.]

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism, If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.” -Lord William Kelvin.

[@famvids9627]

This goes against everything Brian just said...

[@michaelflores9220]

Sicence was very primitive at the time, if that's even a real quote. there are MANY fake quotes attributed to Albert Einstein by theist.s

[@tradcatholic]

You are a wonderful GODLY young man. Thank you, thank you. Blessings on you.

[@sapereaude6339]

William Cloud How does that equate to disobeying the Bible?

[@johnhoelzeman6683]

I like how you slipped the jab at Sola Scriptura in there without actually naming it xD

[@BrianHoldsworth]

I thought it would be too subtle. Good eye...

[@lufayoubhopes8997]

where is the xd jo, no original bible the bible which in your own hand is man made it preposterous in addition unfounded ,in quran god had forgave adam &eve for their sins as rather we didn`t need for blood an innocent jesus let us back if u please to the core issue of catechism which is crucifixion jesus had said in the bible when he was in his way for crucifixion my god my god why do u leaving me means jesus has crucified unwillingly as per the bible itself,all the best

[@kimfleury]

@@lufayoubhopes8997 - Please read Psalm 22, which begins in verse 2 with the cry, "O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me? Far from my salvation are the words of my sins." It is a practice among Jews and Christians to recall an entire passage of Scripture by reciting the first line. Psalm 22 ends with the verse of consolation: "There shall be declared to the Lord a generation to come: and the heavens shall show forth his justice to a people that shall be born, which the Lord has made." Jesus was quoting Scripture on the Cross, showing that the prophecy of the Psalm was fulfilled.

[@allenedmon2203]

I was just watching it again to comment about that part "Sola Scriptura" and then I decided to scrolling through comments and saw yours...you beat to it

[@annewalter5024]

@@BrianHoldsworth Subtle, yes. Too subtle, no. 😉

[@Claudia-he6sj]

Thank you for making such concise videos. I can't find myself sitting through long videos and most of yours are always within 10-15 minutes. I love the way you present your points and arguments. Truly have been binging on your videos (from various topics!). Thank you for doing your work for the church too :)

[@neptasur]

Science depends on metaphysical presumptions that cannot be scientifically proven, but are knowable to be certain. For example: the principle of sufficient reason (PSR); causality; mind independent truths; that the universe is knowable, and the human mind has sufficient ability to grasp truths about it; and more. In fact, interestingly, even something like inertia is not scientifically provable because we cannot remove gravity from any test we could do. To say that science can prove (or disprove) any of these metaphysical tenets is like saying we could use a tape measure to disprove them, because science is a descriptive tool that describes the features of the material universe, it does not tell us anything about what the material universe is.

[@oambitiousone7100]

Excellent elucidation, concisely done. 👍

[@neptasur]

@@oambitiousone7100 Thank you. The Modern project did have legitimate goals: to ground our understanding in something provably certain (like mathematics). It was, I think, an understandable response to religious wars. However, in jettisoning metaphysics (particularly Aristotle) and trying to codify everything in mathematical equations (which is what physics is attempting to do), they commit a serious blunder: mathematics gives a "cardboard" (so to speak) description, but does not answer the real questions we want answers to. It tells us nothing of what IS.

[@EightNineOne]

That's a delicious word salad you've got there. To those thinking it looks like something profound being said, let me decode it for you: "Science hasn't already proven everything and the universe is complicated..." If you're looking for a conclusion to that statement, there isn't one.

[@saizer8056]

Science depends on none of the assumptions you listed.

[@neptasur]

@@EightNineOne Use science to show that mind independent truths exist. Use science to show that science has value. Go ahead.

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

As a former adherent to scientism, I’ll make two jabs at current adherents to it: • There are events in the physical universe that [A] point to the existence of God, [B] have been observed, and [C] have been found to defy the laws of the physical universe. Christians refer to those events as miracles. I’ve yet to discover a person who has offered a rational non-God explanation for any miracle. • Cold Case Christianity has a few KZbin videos that point out the physical universe’s “fine tuning” and how God must be its tuner.

[@a.i.l1074]

Can you give examples of miracles?

[@AveChristusRex]

Science is just from a Latin word for "the endeavor of gaining knowledge." Not "Confining yourself to the physical." That's an entirely arbitrary confinement to one aspect of knowledge.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Agreed. That's what I meant by saying that it was a narrow definition.

[@jonahkane7027]

I am interested in the university of Steubenville, particularly their theology degree. I want to learn my faith and know why I believe what I believe, especially as someone who is a convert from Protestantism. Can you please pray for me as I discern my college and faith journey. God bless.

[@roslicornaggia1398]

you should also consider Thomas Aquinas in Ojai cali they also just opened one in Massachusetts

[@tonystark8757]

And there's the University of Mary in Bismarck, if you don't mind north dakota.

[@jacksonhstudios4421]

God bless you, Brian. I enjoy your videos a lot.

[@amfcapone]

Thank you for this video. In support of everything you said: To point 1. Wittgenstein acknowledged that scientific evidence belongs to one language game and religon and mortality belong to another. They can't critique each other. It would be like saying a grandmaster is offside when playing chess. To point 2. Boethius presents this very point in Consolation of Philosophy where he explains that God's intelligence is superior to ours and so we cannot grasp it. To point 3. This is the position of Logical Positivism which claimed that the only statements that are meaningful are tautological or empirical. A. J. Ayer made that claim. Then be acknowledged that the very position failed back in the 60s as the claim is itself not a tautology or empirical! Great video. Keep it up.

[@carlosveritas7791]

Thanks for the video Brian! Keep up the good work! Please make a video adressing the whole Pachamama problem.

[@sgregory4623]

What is the name of the track playing in the background? It's awesome. Btw, you're awesome too, Brian. God bless you for your labour of love.

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Than you. See the link in description.

[@mirtinlovejb]

You inspire me so much, Brian. Thank you for all you do for the Church

[@MojoPin1983]

It is important to distinguish between evidence and proof; they are not interchangeable terms. Evidence points to the plausibility of something, whereas proof is incontrovertible. Proof corresponds with objective reality. Many things that we are rational to accept, cannot be strictly proven. For example, criminals often aren’t convicted based on rock solid proof - open and shut cases are rare - rather, it is the cumulative evidence that points to their guilt. One cannot prove God’s existence because - as you mentioned - if God exists, He is a disembodied spirit/mind Who transcends our space time universe, and reigns from an immaterial/spiritual realm. With that being established, it would make sense for God to reveal Himself through our conscience (imbuing each human with His moral Law), and through nature. I believe you touched on this, Brian, in your werewolf video, earlier this year. Here are just five arguments for the existence of God to consider (this is by no means a complete list). 1. The Cosmological Argument from Contingency 2. The Kalam Cosmological Argument 3. The Moral Argument Based upon Moral Values and Duties 4. The Teleological Argument from Fine-tuning 5. The Ontological Argument from the Possibility of God’s Existence to His Actuality *The New Atheism and Five Arguments for God:* www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god/ The false dichotomy that many non-theists raise between God and science is especially strange considering that the empirical method was fathered by a Christian: Bacon (Kevin, I believe). Additionally, the most pivotal scientific trailblazers were virtually all Christians: Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Darwin, Faraday, Maxwell, Mendel, etc. It was the faith of these men that was the impetus for seeking to discover the mysteries behind God’s design, which was evident to them. Lastly, you are correct re the limitations of the scientific method. Many people assume that said method is our only way of measuring and verifying information, but that is demonstrably false. *What Science Can’t Prove | William Lane Craig:* kzbin.info/www/bejne/eIKvY4x6jsR_n68&app=desktop

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Great points. I give a longer talk on this topic that makes the same point about criminal law and the concept of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

[@neptasur]

You state: "One cannot prove God’s existence . . .". I disagree. It is possible to rationally prove the existence of a necessary being. Proving revelation, is a different thing (perhaps that what you meant?). Furthermore, if you are a Catholic, you are dogmatically bound to affirm that natural reason can prove God's existence (but that's just because reason says so).

[@carolynjane8777]

Ah your explanation of categorical irrationality brings me so much clarity. The intertwining of science and philosophy is such a rich topic! Thank you for this wonderful presentation, Mr. Holdsworth!

[@moestietabarnak]

you know that philosophy is the roots of all sciences ? .. BUT Sciences is philosophies that get proven, that works, the rest is just philosophy, i.e: mind play.

[@Fiscacondaniel]

It's awesome you got a promotion from the school, I didn't know such a school existed.

[@nathanribb4771]

Great video. Thank you for putting it back up so quickly.

[@ethanf.237]

I find your points to be spot on. Bravo, and keep up the good work 👌

[@TheBenwarwa]

Just a few word to congratulate you for you choice of music.That says a lot about you. God bless you, good man.

[@combustiblecatholic6930]

The biggest reason for young people not being religious is not because of their exploration of science and religion, hence choosing logic over superstition (in their eyes). It's because young people are not being taught either and as a default our sick culture gives them science.

[@unsungdog400]

Combustible Catholic I am in a Catholic family, I have gone to Church camps before. I am an atheist.

[@oambitiousone7100]

You might appreciate Jonathan Pageau's channel, The Symbolic World. He's Eastern Orthodox and an icon carver/painter who explores the ways the religious impulse asserts itself in culture. This one is a favorite,"The Only Solution to Culture" : kzbin.info/www/bejne/poWzqqSNep2WrsU

[@aretrograde7745]

Ok, I’m currently a student at FUS. The professors are great and are largely orthodox (probably a few...outliers). However, I would not recommend going if you are invested in Tradition, but do not want to fight for it. The friars on campus do not like the Latin Mass, many will say this openly.

[@kimfleury]

Is the dislike of the Latin Mass more common in the older friars than the younger ones? Or does it seem to be a Franciscan thing? Btw, just for the sake of argument, I wonder if someone who is not willing to fight for Tradition is actually "invested" in it. As they commonly say in a certain Facebook group I'm in, "Are you even Trad if _____?"

[@aretrograde7745]

KA Fleury I think it’s a Franciscan thing. The ‘Charismatic Movement’ being very much present doesn’t help things either.

[@kimfleury]

@@aretrograde7745 - That's a shame. Maybe the students who are drawn to the TLM might gather to pray the Rosary for the intention of bringing it to Steubenville?

[@moestietabarnak]

Funny that Miracle and Vision started to get sparse and very rare when we started to get photography and other sciences to studies and document them...

[@IDMD8]

Well said - reason is on our side and yet young people think the modern church tells them to “just believe it” - while there is mystery to faith there is also mystery in science - the church needs to encourage the use of reason - through the natural world “men are without excuse”

[@cathryncavaney5070]

Barry Marshall, Australian Nobel Science Winner, is a daily communicant. He believes that science supports the existence of God.

[@jadetripp3947]

I'm so glad I found you on KZbin. Your videos make me feel so much more confident in my beliefs ^-^ and I don't feel so weird for wanting to doubt them

[@robchristopher8244]

A great video full of clarity , spoken with humility and respectful of science and what it can tell us about our universe. All of us have a unique life journey : I started off as an angry teenage athiiest soaking up all that science could teach me_ transitioned to Agnostic in my 30s and now with a head full of grey hair I firmly believe in an Omnipotent God..

[@vaticancitybride7137]

Real science Acknowledges the GOD of the Holy Bible !

[@lufayoubhopes8997]

hi haley,no original bible the bible which in your own hand is man made it is preposterous in addition unfounded ,in quran god had forgave adam &eve for their sins as rather we didn`t need for blood an innocent jesus let us back if u please to the core issue of catechism which is crucifixion jesus had said in the bible when he was in his way for crucifixion my god my god why do u leaving me means jesus has crucified unwillingly as per the bible itself,all the best

[@michaelanderson4849]

@Danny Timms "That said, as I studied science and engineering, I was repeatedly struck by the beauty and utility of a universe that is for all intents and purposes infinite in its complexity, and so obviously designed for our use, benefit, and enjoyment, that failure to see that fact requires an almost herculean exercise in denial." A conclusion based solely upon subjective emotions. Kindly present any empirical data supporting that.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@Danny Timms "Kindly provide some emperical data in opposition to what I said. If you're determined not to see something, as you obviously are, you won't see it. The conclusions you draw in that case will be based solely upon subjective emotions." If you have been trained in the scientific method you know fully well that any hypothesis that isn't supported by any empirical data at all is seen as a weak ass hypotesis not really worth discussing. You did not support your hypothesis with a single piece of data.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@Danny Timms "Here's the thing, though: emotions aren't completely subjective. They're at least in part decision-making shortcuts designed to organize thoughts and reactions as a compliment to purely rational analysis." Of course the emotions resulting from fight or flight response being triggered aren't that particularly subjective. It would not benefit us very much to pause and contemplate if what might be a big ass tiger in the bushes really is a big ass tiger in the bushes.

[@khatack]

Science does not disprove God, but science does disprove the literal interpretation of the Biblical creation myth. I seriously do not understand why so many Christians are so obsessed with clinging onto their literal interpretation of the Bible, the metaphor works, the wisdom the story teaches is sound, it was never meant to explain the mysteries of creation, but to relay how it was our pride that condemned us to live like animals despite being created in God's image. Now in our pride we like to pretend that we understand creation by simplifying it into a story about six days, and have become blind to the real teaching of the story.

[@khatack]

@Lucas De Araújo Marques You've got an interesting take there, but calling God a "Psychopath Skydaddy" is taking things quite a bit too far. Literal interpretation of the Bible doesn't get you anywhere, but that hatred of yours is even worse. A lot worse. Don't feed it. You really ought to have a healthy dose of respect and humility when talking about the almighty.

[@patriot524]

Fantastic! I was patiently waiting haha

[@khadigaali2776]

Totally appreciating your work! I think it‘s really important to adress these issues but it‘s sadly done so rarely. It‘s really an irrational claim and it shows that the one who makes it does not understand the philosophy of science. For those who want to look deeper into it, in order to understand how flawed this assumption really is, I‘d recommend some webinars on sapienceinstitute.org . There is one called „Has science disproved God? Deconstructing false assumptions“. I‘d also recommend „Self-evident: Why atheism is unnatural“ for it gives believers in god more confidence when talking to atheists. (You can find them when clicking on webinars and then just go to „watch the webinars we‘ve already delivered“) As Brian mentioned there are good philosophical arguments for god. This website provides webinars explaining some of these arguments. Also one that‘ll come out on August 15th will be about darwinian evolution. Check ‘em out guys it‘s totally free. On youtube I‘d totally recommend Hamza Tzortzis. He is just such a knowledgable person on the field of the philosophy of science and philosophy in general. There is one about so called scientific facts: kzbin.info/www/bejne/npeskItjoL5jbNU Here‘s the whole lecture „Does science lead to atheism“ : kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXjQqX6eqpmmbrM You could also read his book „The devine reality: God, islam and the mirage of atheism“ On the topic of books „The philosophy of science: A very short introduction“ is highly praised and it‘s not hard to read. For darwinian evolution i‘d recommend the channel Darwinian Delusions kzbin.info/door/RkKHyivwGmz36qGgXnZHjQ He has some great lectures on darwinian evolution I hope you guys will look into it. We as believers in god really need to understand and know these things; especially in our current climate! May god bless you and lead us to the straight path. Amen In love Khadi

[@hglundahl]

7:08 As I just mentioned to someone else, that computers don't think and brutes don't speak is scientifically very verifiable. _Both_ point to man being something special which cannot be explained as the sum of component atoms or molecules or even biological structures (mostly identic to those of brutes and largely parallel to parts of computering). This would be part of _"[t]he fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like."_ (I Q2 A3 again). It is the one thing C. S. Lewis used in Miracles.

[@hglundahl]

While all truth need not be scientifically verifiable, all _proven_ truth needs to be somehow verifiable. And God existing is in the category of proven truth, not the category of truths we have no certain knowledge of.

[@hglundahl]

As we mentioned five ways, the fifth way is very much underlined if we go from Ptolemaic to Tychonian Geocentrism. It may be noted that Democritus, Epicure and Lucrece were Geocentrics, but the Geocentrism _they_ envisaged would have been built on whirls, on vortices, and Tycho's observations make these unbelievable for an unguided movement of planets. It's much better suited for Aristotle's very simple Geocentrism even than for Ptolemy - who (Neil de Grasse Tyson noted it on a video footage) considered that Jupiter moving in regular retrogrades proved there was a will behind the movements. Heliocentrism is not evidenced physically, unless you take "absence of God" and "absence of angels" as principles of physics.

[@KarenJWhyte]

Loved this!

[@ToxicPea]

I don't understand the atheistic premise that Science disproves something it cannot detect. The mere fact that Science, in all its complexity, exists means that someone even more complex and calculated had to create it.

[@johnfournier8173]

Hey Brian Ive been watching your channel for some time and wondering if you have ever considered having a debate with Stephen Woodford (Rationality Rules)?

[@hglundahl]

5:04 Newton's first law implies either rest _or uniform motion_ is the result of non-interference. _Apart from the second part,_ I think the law is fairly well understandable by pre-schoolers. _As for the second part,_ I wonder if you can prove it? To anyone?

[@BlindGinger]

you're doing the lords work my brotha

[@hglundahl]

5:55 You have given a very great point on why God would have chosen to create a Geocentric universe, because it is one in which the physical action is apparently caused, so no angelic intelligence is needed to figure out that God is. *For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice: Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.* Geocentrism is also a description of the physical world which was understandable already in the time when St Paul wrote above, Romans 1:18-20. Cited from Douay Rheims.

[@hglundahl]

_That_ God is need not be higher than us, even if _what_ He is is infinitely higher than any creature.

[@hglundahl]

6:24 Understanding _that_ God is, is not understanding God. Some scientists have what at least they consider as valid reasons for understanding _that_ subatomic particles exist. That for instance a neutron exists. For my part, I am content that isotopes are different, neutrons could exist, but radioactivity could be tied to some other _substance_ (scholastic sense) than neutrons. But if the latest ones of them are correct in _what_ neutrons are, then the earlier ones of them knew neutrons existed even without knowing what they are. If they aren't, this is _at best_ still our position. It is this which is a "perfect" parallel to understanding _that_ God is but not _what_ God is.

[@MatejCrhak]

Science has nothing to say about God, soul, etc. They are two completely separated worlds - fenomena and noumenon.

[@hglundahl]

4:22 St. Thomas Aquinas would very much not have agreed that philosophy is logical but not depending on physical evidence!

[@hglundahl]

These are his very first words when going about proving the existence of God: _"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."_ prima via, second paragraph of corpus of I Pars, Q2, A3. newadvent.com/summa/1002.htm#article3

[@hglundahl]

Zeno would have motion an illusion, and his philosophy would have indeed been not just independent of but contrary to physical evidence. St. Thomas was not an Eleatic.

[@bojackhorsingaround]

separating non-physical from physical doesn't exempt non-physical existence free of logical existence. And, merely saying "it just is" or "always existed" is not enough explanation. BTW can anyone give an example of an evidence based/observable "absolute non-physical" phenomena!?

[@monikap8777]

Video starts at 2:41

[@abbyschubert5637]

As a “seeking” non-denominational Protestant, I laughed out loud at the subtle dig at Sola Scriptura 😉 Thanks Brian :)

[@luisaymerich9675]

Atheists: Science proves there is no God. Science is truth. Some evangelicals: The bible says God made the world in six days, and Noah put two of each animals in the ark in the flood. The bible is truth. Catholics: Excuse me, I'm in the room too. It always irks me that when religion is presented in the public arena these two arguments appear to be the only ones covered, perhaps because both sides begin with the premise that everything in the bible without exception must be taken literally. In a way I understand. Philosophical arguments require too much thinking.

[@sdjohnston67]

Outstanding.

[@michaelflores9220]

Aquinas' philosophical case for God seems basically to be "Something can't give something that it doesn't ahve, so what gave us life must also be alive'. But the Church says God created everything, including souls, from NOTHING, and that how he did this is "beyond human understanding". Aquinas case can't seem objective me without an explanation of the exact means of creating life. It'd be a lot simpler to just have someone pray and make fire come down from the sky like Elijah.

[@bnpixie1990]

Understanding faith in God, even if it is just another's faith, really does take some understanding of philosophy. Something which many atheists and wannabe science gurus dismiss. I find this funny because most biologists, let's say, wouldn't presume they know enough about physics to say which theories are 'better' or are gaining more evidence. Many people get degrees and gain lots of knoweldge in a given field. They realize how much they didn't know and how success depends on constantly learning. And really they will never know everything so they will have to delegate tasks to other people and rely on their knowledge. YET, they dismiss philosophy. They dismiss the knowledge of others because, as you say, they make a categorical error and think that if it isn't scientific or empiracally proven then it isn't knowledge. They take on a philosophical position without knowing and, I don't know if you have seen this but i have, often dismiss the idea that they have any philosophical position. Instead insisting that they take everything as it comes. (another philosophical position. HA!) It's like insisting that because you didn't vote in an election then politics doesn't affect you and you haven't taken a stance. Personally, I came to my faith by trusting in my experiences and I trust in science because for the most part, I trust in people. I believe, as the CCC states, that people are basically good. That there is a truth. So it only makes sense to me that science should present credible observation and generate valid predictions. It is operating in a world that relies on God. This does make it frustrating for me tho when believers want to throw out science because materialists insist it doesn't support or prove God. God is my linchpin and science a way to understand His creation. If you took away either, in my point of view, it would hurt the other. Whatever reason I'd have to doubt the entirety of science could easily be applied to myself and my experiences. My faith would take a hit. Take out my faith in God and suddenly i have little reason to believe anything is good or true. What would even determine what is good and true? Hope that made sense or at least, one of my points did. :P

[@lifewasgiventous1614]

The last one is especially important.

[@Grego-lego]

Also if you need physical evidence, Eucharistic Miracles are a great place to start!

[@lukercunningham]

What is the song in all your videos?

Wow, first colleges email me, now they sneak into my KZbin videos

[@chairde]

At the end of the day belief is based on faith alone.

[@faderlader]

What is the music you play in the background?

[@jenna2431]

Here's the problem: Science is man's understanding of the world around him. It's not co-equal to the Word. It's MAN-made. It's not "truth" That's the Torah (Psalm 119:142). Science is actually just now starting to catch up with the Scriptures.

[@michaelanderson4849]

Nonsense!

[@exnihilo8933]

Science does not "disprove God" - it isn't capable of that. What it can do is offer alternative explanations which render traditional religious narratives at best questionable.

[@TheCitrusdude]

Considering a religious narrative questionable is far from atheism. Besides that, the truth is the average random atheist certainly does believe that science contradicts the mere concept of God. That doesn't mean I consider their inconsistencies representative of the best atheist position, but it's worth making a video of this to address their basic inconsistencies.

[@galinor7]

Science doesn't have to disprove the existence of God. The responsibility of proof isn't that of science with this question. What science actually does is negate the requirement to believe in God because we have no other answers. Well now for many, many things, but not all, now we do have other answers and therefore the requirement deminishes.

[@PMA65537]

If science is about using experimental results and science said God does not exist you'd expect people to list the experiments proving that and how they work. Without that you'd have to conclude that when scientists say there is no God (and some do say that) they are not doing science at that moment. Then scientists speaking outside their own field may be no better informed than anyone else.

[@terrywbreedlove]

Science has always backed what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years. It has no choice but to back up the Bible because the bible is the Word. Scientist on the other hand are a different story.

[@oambitiousone7100]

Wanting there to be a God small enough to comprehend -- you got me. I realize my "prove it" bias about religion, even as I use and appreciate all manner of things that I don't comprehend (electricity, cars, water systems, et al). Accepting that He Is, and that following his precepts has created the best human networks and systems, even as I can't explain how/why.

[@iwilldi]

There are only two interesting questions: Where are you coming from? And where are you going to? Can you answer these?

[@thevagabondsgambit]

CUTE OVERLOAD ALERT :) @ 4:53... Hehehehehe! Thanks for this wonderfully ASTUTE and PARADOXICAL video, Brian. Well done!... Greetings from the Philippines! God's Blessings and our prayers to you and your loved ones, your parish and community! HOah! Deus Vult! Semper Fi! Vive, Cristo Rey et Spiritus Sanctus! Ave Maria... salve regina... Pax tribi!

[@kadeshswanson3991]

Enrolled there now!

[@michaelanderson4849]

"It's like saying the color blue doesn't exist." Colors are creations of our minds.

[@galenusv7831]

"It's like saying that the particular wavelenghts of the electromagnetic spectrum that in our mind form the color blue don't exist, because you can't hear them." Fixed that for you. The wavelenghts that form different colors in our mind do exist. But because you can't hear them, doesn't mean they don't exist. You took the idea out of the context. The idea remains the same. Listen what he's talking about in that section of the video, category mistakes.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@@galenusv7831 But one can hear the wavelengts that our CNS transform to the blue spectrum if they are converted to soundwaves. That conversion would be equal to the conversion that occurs in our eyes.

[@galenusv7831]

@@michaelanderson4849 Yet no more than a forced conversion without proper meaning for the ear.

[@michaelanderson4849]

@@galenusv7831 no more or less proper than the conversion to electric signal in the eye.

[@galenusv7831]

@@michaelanderson4849 It's still category mistakes. In the video he said: "It's like saying like the color blue doesn't exist because you can't hear it". It exists (or more properly, the wavelenghts exist). But because your ear can't hear those wavelenghts, doesn't mean they aren't there. Maybe you are proposing that we should have known how to "convert" God's manifestations into magnitudes of the physical world? The answer to that is right there. All the conversions we are able to do, are all in magnitudes of the physical world (from one magnitude of the physical world, to another one of the physical world). Just because you can't "see" the spiritual world, doesn't mean it isn't there. I think that was what he was saying regarding category mistakes.

[@exnihilo8933]

off topic but... anyone know the intro song ??

[@skypali8]

God became flesh in Jesus. How is that not phisical? I would add and other brach next to phylosophy: exegesis. We can study scripture scientifically so deep, that it will show the trueness of God, in Jesus. Thank you Brain! Appreciate your work!

[@quisutdeusmfl]

"join the Franciscan University" me, who actually wants to become a Franciscan friar: lol sure I will

[@eugenialopez7740]

I love this guy! Thx

[@dariuscolangelo1043]

Nice sola scriptura jab at the end there

[@Fiscacondaniel]

I got to ask were did you got that helm?

[@BrianHoldsworth]

I made it. :)

[@borneandayak6725]

👍👍👍

[@borneandayak6725]

@@hanskung3278 Dayak. Malaysian...

[@jeffblack2458]

"You will discover there are mountains of logical arguments for the existence of god". Too bad they are all logically flawed. lol.

[@rahulshubh8103]

GOD IS THE GREATEST

[@theace3164]

I think Science proves God's existence even more now than ever

[@erikkr.r.m7380]

Why?

[@MojoPin1983]

*Reddit thread for this video:* www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/dn6qbw/3_reasons_science_doesnt_disprove_god/

[@wherearetheturtles1408]

You seem like a good,chill bro to hang out with. Smart as well. However all of those points are very easily debated.

[@rafaelcarbone1387]

Excellent. Excellent. Excellent.

[@atzuricher6218]

Thanks for proving that FUS is producing more burger king shift chiefs and head fryolator technicians than any school on earth. I look forward to finding out how scripture tells me to order a combo meal. No doubt from a Thomism expert.

[@BarryDesborough]

Who claims it can? It can falsify the false god of the creationists, but most gods are unfalsifiable.

[@bojackhorsingaround]

I was this 🤏 close getting a brain aneurysm watching this video 😄

[@rafaburdzy449]

Great video. I read book by Father Michael Heller, he explained that theory theory of evolution does not contradict God's existence. More over the fathers of the church like SaintThomas Aquinas proves that world can be infinite and be God's creation. ( By the way this philosophical theory of infinite world is made by Aristotle). The author of" big bang" theory is Father George Lemaitre. And so on... Thank you for this explanatory

[@tesgtesg]

Hey Brian, did you see the (more than) 3 reasons why you shouldn't read Harry Potter books?

[@hglundahl]

3:18 Well, there actually are physical traces of God ... day and night, human language to name two of them. Try to explain day and night by Earth turning instead of Geocentrism in which God turns the Universe around Earth (what else could effect that?) and you run into problems for stability of many body problem in Newtonian astrophysics of gravitation - at the very least. And computers, monkeys and birds do not master language.

[@hglundahl]

3:34 You forget that things that are not physical phenomena can be causes of physical phenomena. Even among Atheists you will hear people put this or that down to neutrons in the nuclei of certain atoms - but anything smaller than atoms with "electron shells" seen as a unified outer sphere of them is whether physical or not at least not a phenomenon. What I thought about your words is not a physical phenomenon either, but it caused physical phenomena like the exact sequence of letters you see on the screen. Ergo X is not a physical phenomenon; Y is a physical phenomenon DOES NOT MEAN "X cannot be the cause of Y" and X can even be the _well known_ cause of Y.

[@hglundahl]

The colour blue as such does not result in sound and mathematics as such have no taste until it's tasty things in your mouth you count (caution, some spices had better not be 2+2=4 in your mouth!). But God not only has results in the physical world, and even nothing is there in the physical world unless God caused it directly or by permission (as anywhere else in the created world, like human minds). So, unlike sound for colour blue, physical world very truly is a result of God. Especially if you take Geocentrism into account.

[@hglundahl]

So, people who say "there is no [physical] evidence of God" are very much not making a category mistake, they are just wrong about what the physical evidence is evidence of.

[@hglundahl]

And pointing a telescope somewhere to see if you _see_ God would indeed be a category mistake, but it is definitely not the only way in which asking for physical evidence works (see for instance the evidence for subatomic particles - if really there - not being available by seeing them even in electronic microscopy).

[@michaelflores9220]

Why won't God just send down fire form the sky in response to prayer like for Elijah?

[@famvids9627]

I find it interesting that all the religious people on this thread keep insisting that the physical sciences can prove God... I think your criticism of atheists equally applies to many religious people if not most.

[@paulpoulin1200]

Thank you.

[@randycouch2769]

God creates all life and makes no mistakes whether Muslim, Hindu, Mormon, catholic, gay or straight

[@bridgefin]

Don't you get tired of saying the same incoherent thing all over the place where it is never in line with the discussion? OK, you're gay and think it's just fine. But you really don't and that is why you try to get agreement by posting all over. We get it. But why not be open about it and enter into a real discussion?

[@Beluga_groyper]

Depends what counts as “science”

[@warrenmodoono905]

There is one thing that joins at the hip human spirituality and science and that is gravity. It is held in common both spiritually and scientifically and challenges us to find a common understanding.

[@blindtruth4614]

Science does not disprove the existence of gods or a god but it sure as heck does show that the various claims and stories in various religious texts are untrue, if you disagree then please show me a scripture that disproves anything that science has revealed a natural for?

[@socratesandstorybooks1109]

Yeah i think that science cant find or understand many things like God or anything intangible because it doesnt use the right criteria to measure for those things.

[@sychaellawinger5448]

I haven’t watch the video yet, I’m already assuming it’s going to be great, you have always come out with solid videos. I have one suggestion which is just remove the part of the title that says 3 Reasons!

[@chriszablocki2460]

If God allowed you to study and document data about him, he wouldn't be God, would he?

[@j.m.w.5064]

So, not understanding something makes it more real?

[@j.m.w.5064]

@@feedthewhale4266 Seatbelts are real. So that's that. Values are a figment of my imagination and that's fine. I don't threaten people with hell for not sharing my values.

[@j.m.w.5064]

@@feedthewhale4266 Because people who wear them have a tendency not to die in crashes. We can count that. That's one of those rather superficial but helpful truths. Since you brought up crucifixes (which definitely won't help you through a crash): You realize that you are already conflating being religious and being Christian? Back to topic: That video says the sentence "truths have to be verifiable" cannot be verified. Which is bs, you define the terms "truth" and "verification" and there you go without mystification.

[@j.m.w.5064]

@@feedthewhale4266 My position is that this is merely one possible way to define a truth everybody can agree on. By that the term truth is worldly and sheds the air of mystification the video tries to evoke.

[@j.m.w.5064]

@@feedthewhale4266 So i take it you're saying that the urge to stay alive is rooted in spirituality? Fair enough. Yet, this does not lead to something highly specific as Christianity Version XY. Even above you mention the "impact of religious inclination". If any religion has a measurable impact - while you yourself do not believe in 99% of them (religions tend to be rather exclusive), where does that leave us? A crucifix becomes rather arbitrary, as everything it stands for. Back to the video: What riled me up is the statement that four year olds should blindly believe in Newton. This is vile. Blind faith doesn't get you anywhere: - Kids start to throw and catch balls (for example), that gives them a good grasp of mechanics and physics, on a gut level but sufficient to become great sportsmen - If they want to build a catapult to hurl balls exactly, it helps to utilize Newton. - If they want to hurl com satellites into orbit, it helps to understand more recent physics. - Those will be replaced in time. Nobody said there is eternal truth in Newton. Ever.

[@j.m.w.5064]

@@feedthewhale4266 Respectfully declined. #Postulating that faith is a pre-condition of being doesn't really mean anything. It's sth that some do and others don't. Just as racism, greed, empathy, helpfulness and all other impulses that we act upon. #No, basal impulses like attraction, repulse and even valueing do not need a narrative. We act on gut feeling. #When you claim that non-believe is also a form of faith, then the mentioned "impact of religious inclination" impacts atheists, too. which now renders the concept faith completely arbitrary. If everething and nothing is faith, we may forget about it. Here you are writing yourself into a dead end. #But No. Not participting in faith is not a form of faith. As not going to the pool isn't a sport of anti-swimming. And no narrative needed.

[@chriszablocki2460]

Science and math are good for dialing in lazers. Not validating human existence.

[@CatholicK5357]

I'm sorry, but the contents of this video have not been scientifically verified, so...

[@organicchemistry6357]

Will science progress more once it studies non-physical phenomena? God is non-physical and supernatural

[@iwilldi]

qoute:God is non-physical and supernatural But the believers in god are not ... and soon they are just dead.

[@KrustyKrabbz2]

"Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe."

[@jumpatube4669]

Sooooo is god white or black??

[@Vezmus1337]

Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

[@delvingeorge2807]

Do you have a breathing problem Brian?? As I hear a sound of your breadth being little concerning when you breathe in. Stay Healthy God Bless you!🙏🏻

[@BrianHoldsworth]

Thanks for the concern. I had a throat infection when I recorded this. :)

[@delvingeorge2807]

@@BrianHoldsworth Will pray for you!!😃 Stay Blessed and Humble 🙏🏻 love your talks prayers from India!

[@unsungdog400]

1. You can’t see, feel, taste, touch, or hear god. You can’t disprove one necessarily either, but you can assume one doesn’t exist. 2. One of your reasons is I wouldn’t understand the proof. So I basically just have to have faith. You are presupposing god existing, when there is no evidence to prove so aside from the bible. 3. Yes, if it is verified by science it makes you a lot more confident in believing in it. If I told you would survive jumping off a cliff would you want to verify your safety first? Btw you seem like a nice guy, but I just felt like these are the things I disagreed with.