The Sophomoric Atheism of the Enlightenment vs. the Actual God of the Catholic Church (EATWW p. 3)

[@ZaShiesty]

Your channel should have way more views thank you!

[@markscannell865]

Unfortunately it is difficult to have more subscribers without going into outrage and click-bait. This channel is a gold mine and I wouldn't recommend changing.

[@oratefratres1976]

Excellent talk as always, and I'm glad to see you improving your Latin. If you'd ever like some help with pronunciation of ecclesiastical Latin, I'd be happy to help; Just respond to this comment, I'll post a link to my Latin rosary discord, and delete the link once you're in. I haven't done much work on this channel, but I've been teaching it informally to others for about 5 years. I don't charge or anything, it's just a pleasure to teach other Catholics to pray in our church's sacred language.

[@voicesofantiquity]

Here's a better Voltaire quote you can use, "Doubt is an unpleasant condition but certainty is a ridiculous one"

[@stephanottawa7890]

Speaking of nuns, have you heard of the Holy Carmelite Martyrs of Compiegne? They were all guillotined during the Reign of Terror.

[@WTR91]

Love the videos, thanks for all the work you put in. One small correction: when reading a quote around the 13 min mark you said cosmetologists instead of cosmologists. I don't really care if you correct that, mind you, I just found it hilarious. 😂

[@jacobrownak326]

Informative and interesting, glad I found this channel on topics I'm interested in

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@thelostcreole]

I always pointed to the invention of electricity as the nail in the coffin on western civilización....then I Heard your quote from Thomas Edison and that opinión was confirmed! Was not Ben Franklin and atheist as well? Or at least a Masón? Definately an Enlightenment thinker!

[@TheIntrinsicReport]

About the opening prayer. What’s the difference between the pagan worship of ancestral spirits and the Roman Catholic supplication to deified saints? “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” That's who Jesus taught us to pray to. By whose authority do you invoke the name of the dead?

[@LibertysetsquareJack]

I think this channel has a couple of videos pertaining to this topic. You may also enjoy querying the Catholic Encyclopedia.

[@donshotland2503]

@@TheIntrinsicReport Jesus was right. We ask of these saints to intercede to Christ on our behalf. Christ did miracles to prove his teachings were true. He passed this power to those who He wished

[@SteveKarpali]

​@@donshotland2503so you have intercessors for Christ the intercessor? So now two middle men are needed between a man and God?

[@kyleelsbernd7566]

@@SteveKarpaliwe are finite creatures with the gift of logic. Our understanding is necessarily limited so we recognize the power of culture and tradition in understanding and harnessing the metaphysical underpinnings of this dualistic universe. This transcendent understanding has been codified and mythologized as religion.

[@pj_ytmt-123]

The response to the question of evil was very well done, though the part about theology of the Name was a snore. 😅

[@ephraimduke]

Dude your stuff is amazing. Are you on spoitify? Would be awesome if you were. God bless

[@hannahhale2815]

I think he is he mentioned this as a podcast as well being on multiple platforms

[@williammcenaney1331]

I don't meant to split hairs. But Stravinsky's title is "The Rite of Spring." Please say "Dee-der-oh" instead of "Did-ur-ott."

[@lowersaxon]

Hopeless.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@lowersaxon Maybe I should resist the urge to nitpick, but I proofread professionally. I'm also learning how to speak Japanese. Sadly, I still need to find a way to fave a Japanese accent.

[@davidfenton3910]

Hi and thank you for sharing, very much appreciated. Regarding the _where does theism come from_ section of the video In short the video presents the Genesis garden story which has 2 witnesses to pure communion with The One True God. It argues this knowledge of God was possibly passed on for Millennia, particularly according to one Saint Ephrem the Syrian. So one branch of the argument is that theism’s knowledge of god comes from the witnesses Adam and Eve. *secondly* The other branch of the argument is that knowledge of God comes from those who *intuit* The One True God even though hindered by original and personal sin. A Point: Explaining the 2 points above required the use of at least 50, often highly complex and detailed notions and concepts, many of which are necessary for the 2 points to hold, but highly suspect without circular reference to the story, to make the story true. The theistic foundation of knowledge of God tracing from *2 witnesses* and *individuals that intuit* The One True God - looks extremely thin to me. The thought that plastic spinning toys fall to ground when the spin stops, comes to mind. In my assessment, this argument for theism relies on lots (and lots) of circular spin to stay up. Also note a source of authority in this argument is stated as "this is a dogma of the faith." Thank you again for sharing. I enjoyed going through this section of your thinking and presentation, seeing what you think and reflecting on it. sincerely d Some mundane details supporting the above follow: So where does theism come from? The vid starts off answering - Originally, ‘One God’ belief came from - the *Garden of Eden.* Humanity was created in a state of perfect communion with God, which was ruptured with the original sin of our first parents, Adam and Eve. *This is a dogma of the faith.* _So: Originally, knowledge of The One True God stems from Adam and Eve’s perfect communion with God in the Garden of Eden, but this was stuffed up by original sin. After original sin The One True God *is intuited* or known from Adam and Eve’s experience of perfect communion. Dan’s story has many notions and concepts as pre-requisite for understanding the story. i.e. comprehension is only possible to those taught the dogma. A list of notions and concepts used in the where does theism come from part of the vid. Note some explanation of some the notions and concepts is done along the way. 1. God 2. Creation 3. Garden of Eden 4. Adam and Eve 5. Perfect communion 6. The One True God 7. Sin 8. Original sin 9. Worship 10. The Ultimate Good 11. Human Soul 12. Religious faculty 13. Heaven 14. The Objective Divine Being 15 Transcends Creation by desiring: a. The *Truth,* b. The *Beauty* and c. The *Goodness* 18. Which lead us to _The God who stands beyond the material Universe._ 19. worship the One True God and offer Him sacrifice. 20. The Tower of Babel language confusion and dispersion 21. Sin clouding souls and minds. 22. Life of purity 23. The ultimate foundation of all being and the source of their own being. 24. In a state of personal sin 25. Worship of false gods and idols. 26. Worship of nature 27. The sense of God fades 28. Throughout the History of mankind, certain *just souls* _intuited_ the folly of polytheistic idolatry and they were able to _intuit_ The One True God. 29. Spiritual perception of God 30. Abraham 31. Abraham would seem like he was one of those individuals, that he was able to intuit the existence of The One True God. 32. Sumerian Gods of the Chaldeans 33. The tradition of the worship of The One True God. (going back to Adam and Eve in the Garden) 34. A bloodline that had remained pure to that worship. 35. Intuit the existence of the monotheistic God. 36. Classical literature ... references made to God by Plato & Historians *they intuit* in their grammar the existence of One True God. 37. Story of when Abraham freed Lot … he then met Melchizedek the king-priest of Salem and Melchizedek offered a sacrifice to The One True God. 38. Have to make the link from Adam - to Noah - to Shem as Melchizedek - to Abraham as an unbroken family line preserved by God that kept the knowledge of God from the garden and so this family didn’t have to *intuit* the existence of God. 39. Life spans of hundreds of years - Shem. 40. The sense of The One True God 41. Pagan pantheons 42. Deification of natural forces 43. Angels 44. Demons 45. Angels becoming demons 46. Demonic spirits directly influencing nations and giving them power/protection for worship. 47. High ranking angels 48. Nine choirs of angels 49. Angels possibly having authority over things like the Mediterranean sea. 50. The origin of different pantheons possibly being Angels of God that fell and became demons. 51. Bronze age States in covenant relationship with fallen angel demon false gods or is it just fiction? 52. Pious monotheists like Muhammad.

[@masscreationbroadcasts]

This. Was. Beautiful.

[@cfroi08]

It is extremely justified. It is by far the most defining moment of when Western civilization went into decline.

[@robertword1357]

First you state that Eisenhower was a freemason and then when you list all freemason presidents, you don’t include Eisenhower.

[@williammcenaney1331]

"Contained in" could suggest that God has parts. Be careful. If you say "being is a person" when you describe three person, that's self-contradictiory because it implies that one person is also three persons. In the Trinity, the three persons have the same divine nature. We need to be careful when we call God a person because theistic personalists talk as though God and hums belong to the same class. Theistic personalists believe that God is a person like a human on, though he has omniproperties and we don't William Lane Craig's theistic personal suggests a vivious infinite regress because he thinks God can change. Anyone who can change needs a cause since he has parts. If God has parts, he needs a cause. If his cause has parts, he or it needs a causee, and so forth. Our Lord, the Trinity's second person, is uncaused, but his human nature has one. He's a divine person with a human nature. There aren't two persons sharing his body.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Hawking should have known two thing. First, since God creates time his question was absurd when he asked what God did before creation. Second, God can't change, and time measures change,

[@salmansheikh4377]

Why is it absurd ? God must have existed and done things and felt things and that takes time, a before and after. Besides angels presumably existed before time. So were they timeless as well ? In the bible god has regrets, and God lies and God has a body and God definitely changes his mind. Otherwise what would be the point of prayer ?

[@LibertysetsquareJack]

​@@salmansheikh4377You're dealing with the Almighty Straw God that the video warned of. For example, if you think the essence and/or purpose of prayer is to get god to 'change his mind," you need to look up what the Catholic Church defines prayer as, and the actual Catholic theology as to what prayer entails.

[@TODORPAUNOV-bg7bz]

Really? Then how did gawd think before or without time? A mind thinking requires time to think - thinking is CHANGE. A mind without time is pure nonsense.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@TODORPAUNOV-bg7bz Suppose you marvel at Mount Fuji in Japan. You see a gorgeous body of water, blossoming cherry trees, some animals, and people walking. You don't need to reason to see it all. You don't tell yourself, "There's Mount Fuji. Since the cherry trees are in bloom, it's spring. A deer just walked about 15 feet." You. You look at all. That's like thinking a thought instead of, say, reasoning when you prove a theorem. You experience the landscape with what at least seems to be only one mental event. It's like that for God. He doesn't need to reason. He knows things by causing them. Just as you don't have to draw conclusions from premises when you enjoy the the scenery, God can cause cause things without reasoning. Here's an example of how someone can cause something without changing. Say you want to study in a classroom where I'm sleeping. You see me through the door's built-in window and walk away because you don't want to wake me up. I don't do anything you can watch. So, I don't ask you to leave. But you still go because I'm in the room.

[@TODORPAUNOV-bg7bz]

@@williammcenaney1331 Your example doesn't work mate. Receiving input from the environment ALSO requires time and change. It doesn't matter if you are consciously doing it. Again - a mind with ANY kind of thought - input or output is not possible without a temporal setting. Can god make choices without time? Can he make decisions without time. The majority of Christians and Muslims that I have heard describe god talk about him as if he is timeless, spaceless and immaterial - which means he exists nowhere and never and has no discernable properties. It's just an appeal to this grand mystery that no one understands.

[@valuedCustomer2929]

🇻🇦

[@williammcenaney1331]

I know some Bibles say "I am who I am" in Exodus 3:14. But anyone is right when he is who he is. So, "I am who am" and "I am he who exists" because God in that verse, "I am" means "I exist." The dogma about divine simplicity tells us that God has no parts. "All-good," "all-powerful," "all-knowing. . ." denote God. But since we need to analyze, we talk as though God has distinct properties." If "they were actually distinct in God, those properties would be parts of him, and he wouldn't be utterly simple. We need to be careful when we call God the Father "a person" because "a" suggests that he in a group with human persons and angels. Your podcast excellent. But please speak more precisely. It's one thing say God is a person. It's another thing to sa he's personal. If you tell me God is a person when you're talking about the Holy Trinity, I may think you believe that God is a person and three persons when that idea is self-contradictory. Most Protestants seem to mean the Father when they say "God." They'll even assure that since Christ is God's Son, Christ isn't God. I've never heard a Protestant use the phrase "God the Son" A Protestant acquaintance thought the Blessed Virgin Mary couldn't be God's mother since that would make her older than him.

[@mikejames303]

If Mary's title as Mother of God makes her older than God,wouldn't that mean protestants who hold this view also believe God the Father is older than God the Son? I don't see how someone who refuses to refer to Mary by her title as Mother of God can hold that position without holding that the Son was created as well.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@mikejames303 That sounds right to me. But "theotokos," the Greek word Catholics translate into "Mother of God" also means "God bearer." Mary gave birth to God the Son who grew in her womb. He's only one person, a divine one who took on a humanness. There aren't two persons sharing his body. No Christian I know of believes Mary gestated God the Father. I wish more Catholics would say "Jesus is God the Son" instead of "Jesus is God." "Jesus is God" could suggest that Jesus is God the Father. We need precise language and sharp distinctions.

[@JarekKrawczyk]

Modernism is necessary to bring the church to reality.

[@SoldadoCatolico]

... reality of HELL

[@JarekKrawczyk]

@@SoldadoCatolico Why hell? I understand that you Christians want to feel persecuted to write yourself into the Bible as people right before the Apocalypse, but the truth is that the world in comparison with the past, enjoys an unprecedented period of peace, lowest degree of hunger, powerty, highest degree of equality, education, enancipation of women, etc. There are ways to go still, but from the long term historical perspective things keep getting better.

[@davidfenton3910]

Hi Jarek Modernism is a planned overhaul and upgrade to the original goal of a society that puts and maintains the 'religious sense' in the population. The original religious genre for the "Universal History" was an unfortunate foundational mistake. It was decided to rectify it by a transplanting of the 'religious sense, especially' through a new education. (Source Fichte and observation) A stupendous idea in Fichte for the transplanting of the religious sense to found afresh an ongoing belief system is to *do it for real.* This is a key difference because the religious tale could not be done for real it had to be made up. The upgrade to the planning in Plato was to stage some things and tell the story as if it was organic history as opposed to planned and staged philosophical History, to construct a new "Universal History." The genre of false History was changed from religious to natural but the core ideas of salvation and covenant relationship of submission to a supreme authority remain, just in different stories, very powerfully scripted and enacted ones. A sub-genre chosen for to re-house much of the new foundation story is, in a word, Science with a capital S. Think of Spinoza's discussion pointing out how natural knowledge is no less certain than divine revelation, the unspoken point that philosophical readers would see, is that true science and philosophical Science could all be seen as just science by the general population. What better place to hide and propagate the lies than the institutions seen as unable to propagate major falsehoods. A lot of this has now been done. We now have new "Universal Histories" for many things. We have been saved from evil racist dictatorship world rule by the selfless sacrifice of hundreds of millions buying social freedom. The covenant relationship with God through Moses and Jesus is *replaced by social contract* _that requires the same societal submission to a supreme authority - the state._ Belief in laws established from religious precedent has been maintained through the transition. The transplanting of the 'religious sense' and the core of a society living by blind faith and unquestioning obedience has taken root. Some discussion of the above, though not so explicit, is in 17 lectures given by Fichte in Berlin's winter of 1804/5. And much of the original planning to create the secular and religious "Universal History" is in Plato. The bottom line is religious and atheistic beliefs both induce essentially the same 'religious sense' and mode of thinking and living, just in different genre's of social story generated from planning stemming back to Plato. Cheers sincerely d

[@briankenome]

Modernism is the sewer of all heresies!

[@JarekKrawczyk]

@@briankenome It is necessity. The faith can't not disagree with the science.