Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire.org
Oy vey... I'm not "calling the universe god." Just the contrary. "The universe" is a catch-all term for the sum total of contingent things. I'm arguing that a radically contingent universe requires, finally, a non-contingent explanation.
Father Barron, I am an atheist, but I love your videos. You explain Catholicism with such logic and clarity that it allows me to understand why someone believes and to be more accepting of them. Thank you.
I'm a former atheist myself, and I've ended up a Catholic. I understand that you can't just begin to believe without any reason. If you don't want to believe, then all these respondents encouraging you to believe are wasting their time. I came to believe by going to mass with my wife who was a Catholic convert. I fell in love with the mass and was moved by what I feel is the Holy Spirit. I then read a lot of material by authors like David Bentley Hart, who wrote another book called Atheist Delusions. That book exorcised me of my atheism. I sometimes have doubts about the Catholic Church, but never about the existence of God any more. I won't encourage you to believe, because you can only believe what you find plausible. But I do encourage you to read the works of intelligent theists like Hart and Bishop Barron. Also Kenneth Miller, a biology professor and expert on evolution who is also a devout Catholic.
They're all equivocating on the word "nothing." They mean the fluctuating quantum vacuum, which is certainly not "nothing" in the philosophical sense of the term.
As I'm using the term, "contingency" means ontological dependency. To say that God is the non-contingent (or unconditioned) ground of contingency is to say that he is that reality upon which everything else depends, even as he himself depends on nothing. How this is in any sense "self-negating" you'll have to explain to me. In answer to your colleague's question: Yes, I listen to myself; she might benefit from listening to me a bit more carefully.
“God is not a Being” is perhaps the most profound understanding of God ignored by believers and non-believers alike. God is not A Being! He is Being. Itself.
I didn't realize how philosophical being catholic could be...for a while I saw it as an institution that controlled people's thoughts and limiting the scope of their wonders...Thank you for your videos they're really enlightening.
Many great thinkers were very religious and back then The Roman Catholic Church ran all universities (science, art, philosophy you name it) in the Western World. Many modern people don’t know that. Why do you think Universities like Harvard, Oxford etc look like religious churches or castles.
Matt Blaise 🤔 there has never been, according to the Big Bang model that there was never no matter. The singularity was all the matter in the universe as a singularity, a giant fusion ball of energy, aka a super sun so dense that there is no external space, external time or external gravitational systems of accretion. The cosmos seems eternal, since there was no known time that that all the matter in the universe did not exist. Matter cannot be destroyed and is constantly changing form and density. Therefore, the Big Bang was an event in the cosmos. Is there Big Bang repeatable? Yes. The singularity is nothing more than a star 🌟 exploding, of countless other stars that have exploded in history of the cosmos, that will eventually form other fusion stars aka suns that will explode.
GeorgeBecky Dragan 🤔 energy aka matter cannot be destroyed or created, first law of thermodynamics. Just because matter is contingent does not mean it is not necessary. The cosmos is necessary for matter to have an origin point, and the big bang is just an event of matter changing into something else. Matter is not dependent on the fallacy of ex-nihilo 😮. Ex-nihilo is a biased personal incredulity assertion.
@@chosenskeptic5319 Good point, although the eternal existence of matter doesn't invalidate the argument from contingency. In declaring matter eternal, you've only explained how the building material exists without referring to a prior/external agent. You must also explain what caused things to exist in their particular configurations and forms. Matter is only the "material cause" but is not the "efficient cause" as Aristotle would have said. The existence of inert "matter-as-such" doesn't explain the universe and all the distinct beings within it in the same way that the existence of inert "sand-as-such" doesn't explain a sand-castle-a prior/external agent is necessary for explaining how it came to be in that particular form. Also, this discovery wouldn't have tripped Aquinas up either. Aquinas didn't consider "matter-as-such" (prime matter) to exist in itself, but only to exist virtually within things as their constituent building-material. That's how he (sort of) reconciled creation "ex-nihilo" with reason.
The sneering doesn't help, friend. Whatever the fluctuating quantum vacuum is, it is not absolute non-being. And precisely as fluctuating and determined by quantum laws, it is contingent. Therefore, it requires an explanation. No infinite regress of contingent causes is possible. Thus...
Fr. Barron I find your videos so instructive and constructive. You have such a gift for synthesizing theological information, from so many resources, and presenting it in such a way that I can walk out tomorrow, have a conversation with someone on the subjects that you cover and sound like I have studied it for years. BTW, we use a number of your materials in our faith sharing group that meets weekly in our home. Thanks so much.
I actually have answered this question many times. The unconditioned ground of existence is that whose very nature is to be. This implies that its existence is properly unlimited, for any limit would constitute a condition. Therefore, the unconditioned ground of contingency must possess any and all ontological perfection.
Thank you Fr. Barron. As always, you've given me something more to think about as I continue to seek out fuller understanding of the Catholic Faith. I will defiantly be buying this book and you're new series as well. God Bless you in all that you continue to do for The Church.
David Bentley Hart is brilliant. As an Orthodox, I love having him as a face of the faith--so to speak. I was hoping to find a video of you speaking on the Orthodox Church or Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. I can't find anything. Would you consider doing a video on such a topic? I would love to hear what you have to say, and I have a few close Catholic friends who would love it as well. Hopefully not a discussion of why you're a Catholic and not an Orthodox, but what we can learn from one another. Etc. Just a thought! In Christ, Nathan
Also, I was just reading comments that people have left on here. None of them possess the great rhetoric or logical tact that the great atheist philosophers of the past have possessed. They call you out on logical fallacies while making fallacious arguments themselves. The fact that you respond to such comments means you must possess a great deal of patience. TH-cam is not the place for serious philosophical discussion--whether atheist or theist--and yet you respond to them as best as you can. That is wonderful. God bless you, father--and may He continue to give you patience in face of such absurdities.
***** he put away Adam&Eve from the earthly paradise in respect of their belief to be independent, knowing that we would have the possibility to sin, and gave us rules for not get engaged from sin in itself and proceed to our santifications, such as instruments to be closer to this path: prayer, the mass, the Church...the problem is not the sin in itself but the lack of repentance about the sin and the firm conclusion not to sin anymore, that's why confession exists...actually you aren't punished until you die and even souls in hell can be recieved by God if just they would ask to, they don't want to ask it and that is what continues their damnation. All what I said is better comprehensible if you put at the basis the statement that life is in itself suffering and what you can do is just alleviate the sufferings...."in hac lacrimarum valle..." In this valley of tears..."
David Bentley Hart is one of the most important theologians writing in English today. His book "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" is a must read for anyone who's followed the rise of the new atheists. Even more worthwhile, though, is his "The Beauty of the Infinite: the Aesthetics of Christian Truth." As for the atheists typical reply to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" -- they often appeal to Bertrand Russell. Russell was a clever man and a brilliant analytic philosopher and mathematician, but his brute assertion that "the universe is just there, and that is all," is rather embarrassingly uncurious and evasive. It's a refusal to even entertain the question since the obvious logical answer point to the transcendent. Modern atheists have inherited this lack of curiosity and evasiveness, or been reduced to even baser irrationalities -- like asserting the universe created itself out of nothing, as does Lawrence Krauss.
I don't give a fuck how it has "always" been defined, moran. I care about the intelligent, well-reasoned definition. And nobody who gives two fucks about "panentheism" and "theism" has any access to anything well reasoned or intelligent, precisely because they are still under-evolved enough to care about crap like that.
I'm not a troll dipshit. I'm above each and every person here who does not understand the things I've posted about -- including the evolutionary throwback in this video. People like this belong in zoos and asylums, bottom line.
Very well, :) I'll bite. Only an eternal unchanging standard of perfection can be that from which a person may correctly judge. That standard must be good, it must be whole, it must be true, it must not be lacking in anything to be a proper standard of goodness. In other words that standard must not be physical and not just another part of the universe which changes, or else it is a changing, fallible, and utterly meaningless standard. If the standard is the laws which govern nature, then why is one thing better than another thing? There is no difference in goodness between a fish and a sun from a law's perspective. A law isn't a judging thing, a law isn't a thinking thing. Gravity doesn't care, nor is evolution a means to know a monkey is better than a tortoise. Only a mind can do that. In what way is a mind physical? Synapses firing doesn't explain emotions, they react to sensory experience but can't tell us why such emotions exist in the first place. The relationship between the experience I have of myself, and synapses firing doesn't make sense of why I am either good or bad, above or below. For you sir, being a material reductionist is silly because you lack any power to explain you're own position, the belief that you're better than everyone here. If that statement has any weight at all, it must come from an objective standard, but neither evolution, the laws of physics, nor the universe are that means of knowing that's true. Therefore sir, in order for you to be right an objective standard must exist outside of this universe by which you attempt to judge creatures in it. But that contradicts your earlier statement that the universe is all in all. So you're wrong either way, mostly likely on both accounts because you failed to spell moron properly.
Greetings from Canada, sure, all things in existence depend on other things to function, all things change and pass away, but God is the foundation of all of these things, the ground upon which all of these things occur, from which all things gain their existence, power, etc. He is unchanging source of all things.
Matthew D, thanks again. Yes, my understanding from the Old Testament as well as the writing of St Thomas Acquinas is that God IS. In other words, he is not some higher being above us, but the act of existence in itself. God is eternal, and IS. God has brought everything else into existence for no need of his own, but for the purpose of sharing his love. For God is IS; God is Love; God is faithfulness; God is Mercy; God is righteousness.
Bishop Barron in this video: 'Atheists mislabel Christianity's concept as a supreme instance of a category being(...) Well that is exactly who god is not.' Bishop Barron in another video: th-cam.com/video/m_4PSgFjtvI/w-d-xo.html#t=0h6m53s 'One of the deepest truths about god is that god is a person. He is a person.He is the supreme person' Christian doublethink at its best...all these semantic exercises and willful ambiguities just to dodge arround the point, that there is no evidence for god and not a logical reason to believe in him, especially not in the way organized religions do.
Scipionyxsam Not at all! To say that God is not a being is to say that he is the sheer act of to be itself. To say he is a person is to say he has the ontological perfections of freedom, Intelligence, and will. The first statement implies the truth of the second.
Either you clearly did not understand what that quote meant, or you're just intentionally putting the quote out of context. I hope it's the former. It means this: the reason why atheists DON'T believe in God is that atheist think that by "God", theists mean a certain being in this universe which happens to be supreme. Fr. Barron DID NOT mean atheists believe in God insofar as it means a certain reality in the world; rather he meant that such an idea is the reason why atheists DON'T believe so.
Great video! DNA science ought to convert atheists since vast areas of the genome are still unknown to scientists despite knowing the entire sequence and the location/function of a many genes. Who could study DNA without marveling at its wonderful creator, our Almighty God?
The more responses I read here the more I realize nobody really studies the bible and its history. Go watch a Gary Habermas video. Go pick up study Bible, study archaeology and learn what a myth really is. The NT can be backed more today than ever before with archaeological finds plus so much more. Just take a look.
I believe the words of God conteyned in the 1611 King James Bible , is God . The Old Testament is the Father , and the New is the Son , and the Son is in the Father , and the Father is in the Son...I can't separate my King James Bible from Jesus Christ , they are one.
A 3 year old would have thought it nonsense also because s/he does not understand what Fr Barron is saying. Perhaps that is the case with you? Maybe? BTW, Fr Barron is right on in agreement with the Bible and too, a life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - has no point! :) :) Just sayin....
Ugh. This awful existence. This terrible world. I despise it. If there is anything afterwards other than total non existence. Or "real peace". I'm going to be the next rebel on the block.
God is beyond any human finite comprehension. Not even a supreme being, but beyond any being that exist even in imagination. Yet men's finite mind inescapably pursue the infinite God, that ultimately ends in Faith....
Every single theist has a different interpretation of what is meant by "God." Every single one. Of course, there are similarities and differences, but no two interpretations of "God" are exactly alike. This is why in any discussion of "God," the term "God" must be defined explicitly. For example, in the call-in show The Atheist Experience, the hosts will always ask theists, "What do you believe and why?" It's important because "God" is a malleable term.
You admit you have no way to detect a god so how do you know there is a god? Most of all there are over 25 million gods how did you come up with it is the Christian God?
663 comments... I wonder if you'll even notice mine... I was shown this video in a college philosophy course two years or so ago, and I fell in love with your description and definition of God. Nothing else I know of actually addresses this question in an easy to understand, coherent manner; and the whole world argues about theories of what God is, but your explanation here, I feel, knocks many of the arguments out of the water. I have referenced this video many times in discussions with atheists and agnostics across the internet. I know this is you describing the meaning of a book, but even so, your description of who/what God is and isn't can stand alone; and, more importantly, it really gets people thinking about the nature of God. This argument has become a tool in the arsenal of people who go around inspiring belief in God in people. I remember when I first saw this, and was amazed that a bishop would be taking a view that seems to deviate from the common Christian view of God being a "male being" watching over us (the all-powerful "He"), and, instead, delves into an awe-inspiring concept of God's "being" as "to be," instead of as a solid entity. I wonder if I'm being (ha ha) too narrow in my thinking, and if God is both this non-conditional source of all conditional things, AND this entity of goodwill and care for what has been created? Biblically, it seems so, but I still struggle with finding truth. Many of us are. I try to make sense of this in the relation to Christ. How can God be a supernatural force on which all of reality exists as contingent things, and Christ still be the son of God? I do wish we could actually have a conversation, because I'd love to ask you about 200 questions, ha ha... Anyhow, I just wanted to say thank you for making this video and inspiring a level of contemplation of God that I believe is deeper than many people go on their own, and which is eye-opening and thought-provoking.
Lorraina Art If you are still searching for the answer to the concept of an embodies God in Jesus, and the metaphysical God of Aquinas, I would recommend looking into how early Catholicism incorporated stoic metaphysics. The Creative Fire, or Logos, and culmination of this in the Christ figure. Think of the event acting as a resolution between metaphysical and physical forms. Fascinating.
Bonjour father Barron and thank you for your ministry. It helps me a great deal to deepen my understanding of catholicism and my relationship with Him and with my fellow human beings. God isn't a being or someone? Then how can we talk about one God in three Persons? This is a genuine question. I get the part that HE IS and that everything stems from that ultimate reality. The part I don't get is that he isn't someone because to me Jesus-Christ is someone, He is my Lord and my God as Thomas said. I am catholic and sincerly trying to understand. Have a nice day!
Father Barron again offers us the real insight of a questioning or critical thinking viewpoint on God and the challenges that flow from this analysis. When my brother went to Jesuit high school and I to Christian Brothers high school, the sin was not asking the necessary questions to make for a lively discussion. Actually, even from grade school to the sisters, "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" "Yes He can." "Then He can't do everything." While that question usually got you an appointment in the principal's office, the questioning of Baltimore Catechism and all of its Q&A is what Father Barron does here on a larger scale. Father, you have my vote for making things clear and avoiding no question!!!
For me this is probably Bishop Barron's most memorable and thought-provoking small video. A classic. A slight criticism: He mentions the “Russian cosmonaut” who went into space and saw no God there. For his info and yours, Yuri Gagarin never said this. First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev did so, rhetorically, in a speech. It may be understandable that Gagarin, an Air Force officer, refrained from commenting on his words. Gagarin was baptized, he and his wife had their daughter baptized, and they used to celebrate Christmas and Easter and keep icons in their home (Wikipedia).
Fr Barron, I love your commentaries. Thank you so much for producing then continuously and excellently. I know you love to read, I do so as well, and feel safe reading books you recommend or comment on. I wonder if you could comment on a book which I found at first interesting, but after finding out the author is an atheist, I wondered if it would be beneficial to actually read it or would I be at risk of being confused? The book is called Lying by Sam Harris. Would you mind commenting on it if you've read it, or commenting on reading books by atheists or Protestants? Would it be a threat to my understanding of our Catholic faith? God bless you Sir.
I Love The Eternal Father of Fr. Bishop Robert Barron ... He's My Eternal Father Too Whom Christ Our Lord Adores and Directs all ... so should all do as Christ Does. Eternal
I'm at 0:20 and I had to pause the video because I still have a feeling this video is some sort of trick question I'm missing. This is becaue all I can think is: God is Jesus and God isn't anyone else. [1st edit] I'm at 4:19 and paused again. So we're talking metaphysics and the existence of God. Well, I'm still thinking the answer is: God is Jesus and isn't anyone else.
Very good lectures should be shared in every school in the USA. Using the internet to the max like this is helping us all and lifting us up from this consumer society run by large corporations.
No where in the video did you make the connection between your conception of God (as the first cause) and the God Christians follow. From a philosophical stand point I can say "sure, all that Is was created by something, presumably something powerful, like a God"...I'm not sure how I travel from there to the God as described in the Bible.
Once again, the quote was perfectly within context (see my response below). Mr. Barron is wrong because typically, atheists explicitly ask what is meant by "God" before the conversation can continue. Either Mr. Barron doesn't understand this, or he is intentionally lying.
We cannot measure what God is. With the finite we try to understand the infinite. Supernatural cannot be limited, nor ever completely understood by natural. I guess, that's where Faith comes in. Yet, our faith is not unfounded. That's the whole essence and fire why we seek to understand!
Faith is never in opposition to truth either. Correspondence is asserted when one argues for ultimate truth or even argues against ultimate truth. If ultimate truth is unassailable, then it stands as one of our most solid evidences of a disembodied reality. If the disembodied reality of truth cannot be disproven without asserting it, then we have a powerful basis to assert other disembodied realities. One of these is God. This does not mean we equivocate God as truth itself, but rather we accept that realities without material body or substance can exist. To argue against this is difficult unless you deny correspondence. Then we start over again.
One more point - if truth exists as a disembodied reality, believing in truth or having faith in truth is not contrary to reason. It is an example of faith and reason in harmony.
As a new Catholic, I only say that your intellectual integrity and respectful, witty responses only help me fall deeper in love with the Church and the wisdom of the Magisterium.
This is the most fundamental concept in religion and it’s explained beautifully here. Thank you Bishop for showing how faith and reason work to strengthen each other!
It is written somewhere I can't remember where. "That when man finally peers his head over the mountain of what will be called knowledge he will find that religion has been sitting there all along."
The highest way to speak about God is simply removing all the idea about Him, removing any inadequate concept about God as you can never perceive who really God is, it exceeds man's perception.
So your your opening statement is that Aquinas uses the word "God" in a way that is totally foreign to how virtually every modern Christian imagines God? What kind of ludicrous argument is that? You might as well just wave a giant flag that says "Fallacy of Equivocation" and stop talking.
I love that fact that my favorite Catholic apologists and my favorite Orthodox apologists are in basic agreement on the most basic theological issues. Catholicism is not exclusively "Western." The East has no monopoly on "Orthodoxy."
It is special pleading to say the universe came from nothing. Or that virtual particles do. Or however you wish. Absolutely nothing else comes from nothing.Why only virtual particles?
"Out of the thousands of gods only one seems to shed light on absolute moral truth and perfection which is what any good and honest person strives for." That sounds like you are talking more about Plato, as opposed to what is written in the Bible. There are some moral lessons, taught by God. There are also many immoral, jealous, and violent lessons, taught by God, within the Bible. I would argue that morals come more from our nature, our parents, and socialization, not religion.
This very question will be much better answered for those who watch the Yale lectures on the Hebrew Bible. I don't find much honesty in Baron or his "universal church" cronies. But what do I know? I've only been studying the early church fathers and Christian history for seven years.
I really find it not helpful when he visualizes God, 'creator of the heavens and the earth', as a robed muscular old man with a beard. That undermines his point about God being the self-subsistent act of being itself and instead reinforces the misguided atheist's idea of God being a being within the world, that he'd just spent some five minutes refuting. Please, Bishop Barron, stop using religious artwork simply because it's famous and artistic.
Oh yes! After going to the excruciating experience of hearing atheist's argumentation that what they come down to "is just happens". With that mentality, science would have never been born!
Except for the fact that Fr. Barron is right - You obviously DON'T understand what he said in the video when he said "modern science has indeed eliminated the gods" (that's a lowercase 'g' by the way). You're cherry picking this video and taking Fr. Barron's words completely out of context so you can appear to point out some non-existent contradictions in his argument. Who is really being the "con man" here...?
He bishop robert barron. Thanks for your comments. I'm muslim. Although our beliefs may differ but we must form an intellectual front against atheists. Saint Thomas aquinas very close to this verse in Quran. In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. 1. Say, “He is God, the One. 2. God, the Absolute. 3. He begets not, nor was He begotten. 4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.”
Rare Footage!!! Richard Dawkins being polite to a Christian! Search for: Richard Dawkins interview Fr George Coyne Had to share this with you, Fr. Barron.
But in so far as God is a person, is He not a being? You wouldn't simply call God "personhood." Thus, as I understand it, He is both "a being" AND "being itself". He is a Being that is Being. Or, as God puts it, "I Am Who Am." I'm not really disagreeing. It's just that I don't think this is an either-or scenario. In this case, God is both-and.
But that's the implicit assumption whenever an atheist demands empirical evidence for God. You can only find empirical evidence for some reality in the natural world.
Examining the existence of God, either from either a scientific or a philosophical perspective, is not easy work. For example, understanding the theory that the universe arose by gravitational implosion requires a grasp of advanced physics. Likewise, Thomas Aquinas is not readily accessible. In my city, 74% of adults are functionally illiterate. Of the 26% who aren't, how many can grasp Aquinas? Its really too bad that direct communion with God has fallen so far out of favor.
God is the biblical and Holy God of the Word of God. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness 1 Corinthians 1:18. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1 For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Ecclesiastes 7:20 "What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" Romans 3:9-19 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Psalm 9:17 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:14 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. Luke 23:41 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:5 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:11-13 I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15:1,3-4 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Acts 16:31
Fascinating exposition. I was reading in the comments under one of your other TH-cams that Jesus Christ is a being, in fact, a human being, the equivalent of God the Father, but that God the Father is not a being, as you define God. Could you explain to me how this is? And could you help me understand whether the Holy Spirit is a being? It's very difficult for me to read the New Testament and not think that Jesus was a being, but if He is God, and God is not a being, this is very mysterious. Help!
Father, There are books out there that cover this issue of something from nothing, such as by Stephen Hawkings, or this other book, "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, which get thrown around when discussing all of this. Can you comment on this "something from nothing" without a primal cause? Or does the situation solve itself logically?
God is an "ocean of being"? WL Craig´s Kalam Cosmological argument helps with the philosophical metaphysical clarity there. The Bible also with Moses report that God said, "I am that I am." That "ocean of being" is a metaphor for a little different treatment, I think. As you say, the most interesting question of all...
Father Barron, would you consider debating Stefan Molyneux? Whenever he talks about political or economic philosophy, he's almost always right on the nose, but when he delves into religious matters, I'm often left simply shaking my head in frustration.
"None of which is in your bible": There's a lot in Macbeth that is not directly reffered to in it. The same with any other piece of literature. Depending on explicit evidence is a limited way of considering anything worth studying. Assumptions and Implications are all over the place. Read into these and you'll find them in the Bible. "the most evil organisation": 1) What is your concept of evil and from where do you derive it?
Psalm 139: 6 is interesting; it goes something like: "Such knowledge is to wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it." Contemporaries to the Bible didn't claim to have all the answers about creation. In regards to your second point, Paul was a preacher trying to share radical concepts with a people foreign to the God of the Jews. It would make sense that he would use cultural references that contemporaries would have know to draw comparisons or in explaining God to them. (Part 2)
God is more than a God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Because of His love, He is our Heavenly Parent. That's because Jesus was the first person to announce that God was our Heavenly Father! We must also know that after the Fall, He worked continuously throughout history to prepare His people and the world to welcome the Messiah, and thus build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Because of the reasons was killed on the Cross, God has to send the Lord of the Second Advent to complete God's will on the earth.
Fr Barron, your lectures & sermons are so uplifting! Whenever I get discouraged about anything, I find my heart forever-lifted out of itself w/ all things true & beautiful & good. You have spoken many times (often implicitly) on how we internalize knowledge as truth within a scientific framework. But I don’t think I have ever heard you lecture on how we knows things to be true that are not necessarily reducible to scientific methods. I am thinking of the field of phenomenology. Would you please teach us? :)
To me, God is Infinite Knowledge in Infinite Possibilities. In every deep breath I take, I feel God. When look around the Universe, you find God. God is everywhere; humans have to develop the right senses to see and feel God.
I agree that there are some things science will probably never know and probably cannot know. So my question is, if science is ignorant in matters concerning God then what does that make theologians? Do theologians possess some sort of sense or apparatus which science does not? Isn't science essentially the best thing we have to go on as far as apprehending the world around us? Science concerns itself with pretty much everything that can be known or experienced. If something can't be answered by science then is pure speculation any better? It seems perhaps we humans can't stand mysteries in life. "How did the universe arise?" "God made it." Maybe the answer should really be, "I just don't know". But then whoever achieved any kind of tangible power over others proclaiming they just don't know?
If this planet is so spectacularly unique and is the only place within the universe from which life can spring, wouldn't it be safe to assume that life, where it to appear anywhere, would have to be contained within this planet? How does that make it special? That's like saying, "America is the only place that has the ability to produce blowpops." Then when blowpops are made, "hey its a miracle, this earth was specifically design with blowpops in mind." Magical thinking bud.
The volition for being is love. It is the "why" for all being. This is what everyone misses and is the final dot you all need to connect, and it's time. If the Prince of Peace isn't you ,who is it? The "how" is easy and there are a million big answers. Love is the VOLITION.
Yes and let me quote him from his own video: 4:43 If he had changed the capital G to a lowercase G, fair enough. I see you lost attention at four minutes. Ah, so this is the depth of the intelligence I will receive when I'm freed from religion. I think everyone should have shorter attention spans, don't you?
God doesn't do "medicine". Medicine is part of mans limited attempts to somewhat better understand a part of the natural order. God is not part of, nor is He bound by the natural order - that's what makes Him "God"! God, I AM, simply "does" and the outcome is the Will of the One! Three cheers for medical science, sure, but it ain't gonna keep you from meeting your Maker! ;)
Oy vey... I'm not "calling the universe god." Just the contrary. "The universe" is a catch-all term for the sum total of contingent things. I'm arguing that a radically contingent universe requires, finally, a non-contingent explanation.
Do you still believe we were created in his image then?
lol yeah we were made in his image becuase we live within him.
Father Barron, I am an atheist, but I love your videos. You explain Catholicism with such logic and clarity that it allows me to understand why someone believes and to be more accepting of them. Thank you.
I'm wondering if after an entire year you're still an atheist?
Awesome! Convert to Catholicism! We'd love to have you on our side! :D
@@elspethsilverstar6136 sides? .....
Bless Pascal theists atheists
I'm a former atheist myself, and I've ended up a Catholic. I understand that you can't just begin to believe without any reason. If you don't want to believe, then all these respondents encouraging you to believe are wasting their time. I came to believe by going to mass with my wife who was a Catholic convert. I fell in love with the mass and was moved by what I feel is the Holy Spirit. I then read a lot of material by authors like David Bentley Hart, who wrote another book called Atheist Delusions. That book exorcised me of my atheism. I sometimes have doubts about the Catholic Church, but never about the existence of God any more. I won't encourage you to believe, because you can only believe what you find plausible. But I do encourage you to read the works of intelligent theists like Hart and Bishop Barron. Also Kenneth Miller, a biology professor and expert on evolution who is also a devout Catholic.
They're all equivocating on the word "nothing." They mean the fluctuating quantum vacuum, which is certainly not "nothing" in the philosophical sense of the term.
As I'm using the term, "contingency" means ontological dependency. To say that God is the non-contingent (or unconditioned) ground of contingency is to say that he is that reality upon which everything else depends, even as he himself depends on nothing. How this is in any sense "self-negating" you'll have to explain to me. In answer to your colleague's question: Yes, I listen to myself; she might benefit from listening to me a bit more carefully.
cool.
“God is not a Being” is perhaps the most profound understanding of God ignored by believers and non-believers alike. God is not A Being! He is Being. Itself.
The last, thinnest, emptiest - Nietzsche
@@TheGuiltsOfUs NEETsche was a loser
OminousImpression Nietzsche is dead. God is eternal.
"God is not A Being! He is Being." What are the implications of this. What does this imply / mean?
Then who hears our prayers? If God is not a being, then how can he love us, judge us, etc.
I didn't realize how philosophical being catholic could be...for a while I saw it as an institution that controlled people's thoughts and limiting the scope of their wonders...Thank you for your videos they're really enlightening.
Many great thinkers were very religious and back then The Roman Catholic Church ran all universities (science, art, philosophy you name it) in the Western World. Many modern people don’t know that. Why do you think Universities like Harvard, Oxford etc look like religious churches or castles.
Knowledge is precious, offered only to the needy. this is why we pay school fees to get it.
"'It popped out of nothing!' And I'm the one being accused of magical thinking."
Perfect.
Straw man, lol. Why is there something than nothing, because there’s matter.
Matt Blaise 🤔 there has never been, according to the Big Bang model that there was never no matter. The singularity was all the matter in the universe as a singularity, a giant fusion ball of energy, aka a super sun so dense that there is no external space, external time or external gravitational systems of accretion. The cosmos seems eternal, since there was no known time that that all the matter in the universe did not exist. Matter cannot be destroyed and is constantly changing form and density. Therefore, the Big Bang was an event in the cosmos. Is there Big Bang repeatable? Yes. The singularity is nothing more than a star 🌟 exploding, of countless other stars that have exploded in history of the cosmos, that will eventually form other fusion stars aka suns that will explode.
@Matt Blaise
You suddenly went blank with skeptoid here.
GeorgeBecky Dragan 🤔 energy aka matter cannot be destroyed or created, first law of thermodynamics. Just because matter is contingent does not mean it is not necessary. The cosmos is necessary for matter to have an origin point, and the big bang is just an event of matter changing into something else. Matter is not dependent on the fallacy of ex-nihilo 😮. Ex-nihilo is a biased personal incredulity assertion.
@@chosenskeptic5319 Good point, although the eternal existence of matter doesn't invalidate the argument from contingency. In declaring matter eternal, you've only explained how the building material exists without referring to a prior/external agent. You must also explain what caused things to exist in their particular configurations and forms. Matter is only the "material cause" but is not the "efficient cause" as Aristotle would have said. The existence of inert "matter-as-such" doesn't explain the universe and all the distinct beings within it in the same way that the existence of inert "sand-as-such" doesn't explain a sand-castle-a prior/external agent is necessary for explaining how it came to be in that particular form.
Also, this discovery wouldn't have tripped Aquinas up either. Aquinas didn't consider "matter-as-such" (prime matter) to exist in itself, but only to exist virtually within things as their constituent building-material. That's how he (sort of) reconciled creation "ex-nihilo" with reason.
The sneering doesn't help, friend. Whatever the fluctuating quantum vacuum is, it is not absolute non-being. And precisely as fluctuating and determined by quantum laws, it is contingent. Therefore, it requires an explanation. No infinite regress of contingent causes is possible. Thus...
Fr. Barron I find your videos so instructive and constructive. You have such a gift for synthesizing theological information, from so many resources, and presenting it in such a way that I can walk out tomorrow, have a conversation with someone on the subjects that you cover and sound like I have studied it for years. BTW, we use a number of your materials in our faith sharing group that meets weekly in our home. Thanks so much.
Hey Scott, thanks!
I actually have answered this question many times. The unconditioned ground of existence is that whose very nature is to be. This implies that its existence is properly unlimited, for any limit would constitute a condition. Therefore, the unconditioned ground of contingency must possess any and all ontological perfection.
Hey Mark, thanks for that even-handed and reasonable reply!
Thank you Fr. Barron. As always, you've given me something more to think about as I continue to seek out fuller understanding of the Catholic Faith. I will defiantly be buying this book and you're new series as well. God Bless you in all that you continue to do for The Church.
David Bentley Hart is brilliant. As an Orthodox, I love having him as a face of the faith--so to speak.
I was hoping to find a video of you speaking on the Orthodox Church or Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. I can't find anything. Would you consider doing a video on such a topic? I would love to hear what you have to say, and I have a few close Catholic friends who would love it as well. Hopefully not a discussion of why you're a Catholic and not an Orthodox, but what we can learn from one another. Etc.
Just a thought!
In Christ,
Nathan
🤜 🦛
Also, I was just reading comments that people have left on here. None of them possess the great rhetoric or logical tact that the great atheist philosophers of the past have possessed. They call you out on logical fallacies while making fallacious arguments themselves. The fact that you respond to such comments means you must possess a great deal of patience. TH-cam is not the place for serious philosophical discussion--whether atheist or theist--and yet you respond to them as best as you can. That is wonderful.
God bless you, father--and may He continue to give you patience in face of such absurdities.
***** he put away Adam&Eve from the earthly paradise in respect of their belief to be independent, knowing that we would have the possibility to sin, and gave us rules for not get engaged from sin in itself and proceed to our santifications, such as instruments to be closer to this path: prayer, the mass, the Church...the problem is not the sin in itself but the lack of repentance about the sin and the firm conclusion not to sin anymore, that's why confession exists...actually you aren't punished until you die and even souls in hell can be recieved by God if just they would ask to, they don't want to ask it and that is what continues their damnation. All what I said is better comprehensible if you put at the basis the statement that life is in itself suffering and what you can do is just alleviate the sufferings...."in hac lacrimarum valle..." In this valley of tears..."
*The Intellectual Life*
th-cam.com/video/NfMgKp2WQKQ/w-d-xo.html
Saint Bishop Barron: Patron saint of Apologetics to Catholics
First multi- media apologist?
David Bentley Hart is one of the most important theologians writing in English today. His book "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" is a must read for anyone who's followed the rise of the new atheists. Even more worthwhile, though, is his "The Beauty of the Infinite: the Aesthetics of Christian Truth."
As for the atheists typical reply to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" -- they often appeal to Bertrand Russell. Russell was a clever man and a brilliant analytic philosopher and mathematician, but his brute assertion that "the universe is just there, and that is all," is rather embarrassingly uncurious and evasive. It's a refusal to even entertain the question since the obvious logical answer point to the transcendent. Modern atheists have inherited this lack of curiosity and evasiveness, or been reduced to even baser irrationalities -- like asserting the universe created itself out of nothing, as does Lawrence Krauss.
420bluntsmokerxXx That's not how the universe has always been defined. There's always been two schools, one of panentheism and the other of theism.
I don't give a fuck how it has "always" been defined, moran. I care about the intelligent, well-reasoned definition. And nobody who gives two fucks about "panentheism" and "theism" has any access to anything well reasoned or intelligent, precisely because they are still under-evolved enough to care about crap like that.
You're the first troll I've fed in a long time.
I'm not a troll dipshit. I'm above each and every person here who does not understand the things I've posted about -- including the evolutionary throwback in this video. People like this belong in zoos and asylums, bottom line.
Very well, :) I'll bite. Only an eternal unchanging standard of perfection can be that from which a person may correctly judge. That standard must be good, it must be whole, it must be true, it must not be lacking in anything to be a proper standard of goodness. In other words that standard must not be physical and not just another part of the universe which changes, or else it is a changing, fallible, and utterly meaningless standard. If the standard is the laws which govern nature, then why is one thing better than another thing? There is no difference in goodness between a fish and a sun from a law's perspective. A law isn't a judging thing, a law isn't a thinking thing. Gravity doesn't care, nor is evolution a means to know a monkey is better than a tortoise. Only a mind can do that. In what way is a mind physical? Synapses firing doesn't explain emotions, they react to sensory experience but can't tell us why such emotions exist in the first place. The relationship between the experience I have of myself, and synapses firing doesn't make sense of why I am either good or bad, above or below. For you sir, being a material reductionist is silly because you lack any power to explain you're own position, the belief that you're better than everyone here. If that statement has any weight at all, it must come from an objective standard, but neither evolution, the laws of physics, nor the universe are that means of knowing that's true. Therefore sir, in order for you to be right an objective standard must exist outside of this universe by which you attempt to judge creatures in it. But that contradicts your earlier statement that the universe is all in all. So you're wrong either way, mostly likely on both accounts because you failed to spell moron properly.
'the non-contingent ground of contingency', that is excellent, thank you, Bishop Barron, once again, and a Happy New Year!!
+Matthew D I loved this video, but my head is spinning from that line. Could you translate for me, please? :-)
Greetings from Canada, sure, all things in existence depend on other things to function, all things change and pass away, but God is the foundation of all of these things, the ground upon which all of these things occur, from which all things gain their existence, power, etc. He is unchanging source of all things.
Matthew D, thanks again. Yes, my understanding from the Old Testament as well as the writing of St Thomas Acquinas is that God IS. In other words, he is not some higher being above us, but the act of existence in itself. God is eternal, and IS. God has brought everything else into existence for no need of his own, but for the purpose of sharing his love. For God is IS; God is Love; God is faithfulness; God is Mercy; God is righteousness.
Easily one of the best explanations of God I have heard. I see God in everything and everything in God. I believe that is what you said. Great video!
*The Intellectual Life*
th-cam.com/video/NfMgKp2WQKQ/w-d-xo.html
Finding God inside nature is like finding JK Rowling inside the Harry Potter series.
I watched this video many years ago and I remember having a deep sense of.....oh, God is real. For real.
Bishop Barron in this video: 'Atheists mislabel Christianity's concept as a supreme instance of a category being(...) Well that is exactly who god is not.'
Bishop Barron in another video:
th-cam.com/video/m_4PSgFjtvI/w-d-xo.html#t=0h6m53s
'One of the deepest truths about god is that god is a person. He is a person.He is the supreme person'
Christian doublethink at its best...all these semantic exercises and willful ambiguities just to dodge arround the point, that there is no evidence for god and not a logical reason to believe in him, especially not in the way organized religions do.
Scipionyxsam Not at all! To say that God is not a being is to say that he is the sheer act of to be itself. To say he is a person is to say he has the ontological perfections of freedom, Intelligence, and will. The first statement implies the truth of the second.
Greatest line: "...and I'm getting accused of irrational thinking?!?" Love it Father!
Agree! Agree!! The non-believers have no logical argument, whatsoever, for their non-belief in the existence of God.
I have nothing but pity for them.
I love it! My favorite part is how you nearly come out of your seat exclaiming: "And I'm getting accused of magical thinking?!?!"
Either you clearly did not understand what that quote meant, or you're just intentionally putting the quote out of context. I hope it's the former.
It means this: the reason why atheists DON'T believe in God is that atheist think that by "God", theists mean a certain being in this universe which happens to be supreme. Fr. Barron DID NOT mean atheists believe in God insofar as it means a certain reality in the world; rather he meant that such an idea is the reason why atheists DON'T believe so.
Great video! DNA science ought to convert atheists since vast areas of the genome are still unknown to scientists despite knowing the entire sequence and the location/function of a many genes. Who could study DNA without marveling at its wonderful creator, our Almighty God?
The more responses I read here the more I realize nobody really studies the bible and its history. Go watch a Gary Habermas video. Go pick up study Bible, study archaeology and learn what a myth really is. The NT can be backed more today than ever before with archaeological finds plus so much more. Just take a look.
I love Father Barron!!
I believe the words of God conteyned in the 1611 King James Bible , is God . The Old Testament is the Father , and the New is the Son , and the Son is in the Father , and the Father is in the Son...I can't separate my King James Bible from Jesus Christ , they are one.
He is faithful ever! 😇😇😇And beloved!
A 3 year old would have thought it nonsense also because s/he does not understand what Fr Barron is saying. Perhaps that is the case with you? Maybe? BTW, Fr Barron is right on in agreement with the Bible and too, a life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - has no point! :) :) Just sayin....
Absolutly. God in him self containt us all Universe exist cause He is. Without existence of God. Can't be an Universe.😇😇😇👼☄️🕊️💗💐
Ugh. This awful existence. This terrible world. I despise it. If there is anything afterwards other than total non existence. Or "real peace". I'm going to be the next rebel on the block.
God is beyond any human finite comprehension. Not even a supreme being, but beyond any being that exist even in imagination. Yet men's finite mind inescapably pursue the infinite God, that ultimately ends in Faith....
Every single theist has a different interpretation of what is meant by "God." Every single one. Of course, there are similarities and differences, but no two interpretations of "God" are exactly alike.
This is why in any discussion of "God," the term "God" must be defined explicitly. For example, in the call-in show The Atheist Experience, the hosts will always ask theists, "What do you believe and why?"
It's important because "God" is a malleable term.
David Bentley Hart is a great writer. His book "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" is also fantastic.
You admit you have no way to detect a god so how do you know there is a god?
Most of all there are over 25 million gods how did you come up with it is the Christian God?
The God he speaks is really close to Indian philosophy of Brahman which is existence consiousness and bliss
Exactly! There's nothing like Sat, Chit, Ananda in the Xtian tradition
663 comments... I wonder if you'll even notice mine... I was shown this video in a college philosophy course two years or so ago, and I fell in love with your description and definition of God. Nothing else I know of actually addresses this question in an easy to understand, coherent manner; and the whole world argues about theories of what God is, but your explanation here, I feel, knocks many of the arguments out of the water. I have referenced this video many times in discussions with atheists and agnostics across the internet. I know this is you describing the meaning of a book, but even so, your description of who/what God is and isn't can stand alone; and, more importantly, it really gets people thinking about the nature of God. This argument has become a tool in the arsenal of people who go around inspiring belief in God in people.
I remember when I first saw this, and was amazed that a bishop would be taking a view that seems to deviate from the common Christian view of God being a "male being" watching over us (the all-powerful "He"), and, instead, delves into an awe-inspiring concept of God's "being" as "to be," instead of as a solid entity. I wonder if I'm being (ha ha) too narrow in my thinking, and if God is both this non-conditional source of all conditional things, AND this entity of goodwill and care for what has been created? Biblically, it seems so, but I still struggle with finding truth. Many of us are. I try to make sense of this in the relation to Christ. How can God be a supernatural force on which all of reality exists as contingent things, and Christ still be the son of God? I do wish we could actually have a conversation, because I'd love to ask you about 200 questions, ha ha... Anyhow, I just wanted to say thank you for making this video and inspiring a level of contemplation of God that I believe is deeper than many people go on their own, and which is eye-opening and thought-provoking.
Lorraina Art If you are still searching for the answer to the concept of an embodies God in Jesus, and the metaphysical God of Aquinas, I would recommend looking into how early Catholicism incorporated stoic metaphysics. The Creative Fire, or Logos, and culmination of this in the Christ figure. Think of the event acting as a resolution between metaphysical and physical forms. Fascinating.
Bonjour father Barron and thank you for your ministry. It helps me a great deal to deepen my understanding of catholicism and my relationship with Him and with my fellow human beings. God isn't a being or someone? Then how can we talk about one God in three Persons? This is a genuine question. I get the part that HE IS and that everything stems from that ultimate reality. The part I don't get is that he isn't someone because to me Jesus-Christ is someone, He is my Lord and my God as Thomas said. I am catholic and sincerly trying to understand. Have a nice day!
Thanks Fr. Barron for your explanation.
I learn so much listening to Father Barron. Thank you for these videos.
Lol, Father Barron you are so funny towards the end of this video! I love your work Father!
Friend, this response proves only that you haven't grasped a thing I said in the video.
Father Barron again offers us the real insight of a questioning or critical thinking viewpoint on God and the challenges that flow from this analysis. When my brother went to Jesuit high school and I to Christian Brothers high school, the sin was not asking the necessary questions to make for a lively discussion. Actually, even from grade school to the sisters, "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" "Yes He can." "Then He can't do everything." While that question usually got you an appointment in the principal's office, the questioning of Baltimore Catechism and all of its Q&A is what Father Barron does here on a larger scale. Father, you have my vote for making things clear and avoiding no question!!!
It's not an honest answer. We can know some things, including the fact that an infinite regress of contingent causes is incoherent.
For me this is probably Bishop Barron's most memorable and thought-provoking small video. A classic.
A slight criticism: He mentions the “Russian cosmonaut” who went into space and saw no God there. For his info and yours, Yuri Gagarin never said this. First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev did so, rhetorically, in a speech. It may be understandable that Gagarin, an Air Force officer, refrained from commenting on his words. Gagarin was baptized, he and his wife had their daughter baptized, and they used to celebrate Christmas and Easter and keep icons in their home (Wikipedia).
Fr Barron, I love your commentaries. Thank you so much for producing then continuously and excellently.
I know you love to read, I do so as well, and feel safe reading books you recommend or comment on. I wonder if you could comment on a book which I found at first interesting, but after finding out the author is an atheist, I wondered if it would be beneficial to actually read it or would I be at risk of being confused? The book is called Lying by Sam Harris.
Would you mind commenting on it if you've read it, or commenting on reading books by atheists or Protestants? Would it be a threat to my understanding of our Catholic faith? God bless you Sir.
esse ipsum subsistens! This goes hard in the paint, SON!!! God's blessings To all who view this and God be with you, Father Barron!
I Love The Eternal Father of Fr. Bishop Robert Barron ... He's My Eternal Father Too Whom Christ Our Lord Adores and Directs all ... so should all do as Christ Does. Eternal
i love your video Bishop. praying that God will continue to strengthen u
I'm at 0:20 and I had to pause the video because I still have a feeling this video is some sort of trick question I'm missing.
This is becaue all I can think is: God is Jesus and God isn't anyone else.
[1st edit] I'm at 4:19 and paused again. So we're talking metaphysics and the existence of God. Well, I'm still thinking the answer is: God is Jesus and isn't anyone else.
God is actually three persons. The father, the son, and the Holy Spirit. They make up the trinity
Excellent explanation.
Very good lectures should be shared in every school in the USA. Using the internet to the max like this is helping us all and lifting us up from this consumer society run by large corporations.
No where in the video did you make the connection between your conception of God (as the first cause) and the God Christians follow.
From a philosophical stand point I can say "sure, all that Is was created by something, presumably something powerful, like a God"...I'm not sure how I travel from there to the God as described in the Bible.
Bishop Barron, your words always quiet my soul. Whenever I find myself in a unpleasant place I come to your videos. Thanks, man!
Once again, the quote was perfectly within context (see my response below).
Mr. Barron is wrong because typically, atheists explicitly ask what is meant by "God" before the conversation can continue. Either Mr. Barron doesn't understand this, or he is intentionally lying.
Amen. 😇 🌟
We cannot measure what God is. With the finite we try to understand the infinite. Supernatural cannot be limited, nor ever completely understood by natural. I guess, that's where Faith comes in. Yet, our faith is not unfounded. That's the whole essence and fire why we seek to understand!
Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith provides no evidence. Faith is gullibility.
We all have faith in something. Even you have faith in what you said...or, you would not have stated it in the way you did.
JeffersonDinedAlone No. What you're describing is superstition. Authentic faith is never in opposition to reason or the canons of reasonableness.
Faith is never in opposition to truth either. Correspondence is asserted when one argues for ultimate truth or even argues against ultimate truth. If ultimate truth is unassailable, then it stands as one of our most solid evidences of a disembodied reality. If the disembodied reality of truth cannot be disproven without asserting it, then we have a powerful basis to assert other disembodied realities. One of these is God. This does not mean we equivocate God as truth itself, but rather we accept that realities without material body or substance can exist. To argue against this is difficult unless you deny correspondence. Then we start over again.
One more point - if truth exists as a disembodied reality, believing in truth or having faith in truth is not contrary to reason. It is an example of faith and reason in harmony.
Really appreciate this video.
As a new Catholic, I only say that your intellectual integrity and respectful, witty responses only help me fall deeper in love with the Church and the wisdom of the Magisterium.
This is the most fundamental concept in religion and it’s explained beautifully here. Thank you Bishop for showing how faith and reason work to strengthen each other!
It is written somewhere I can't remember where. "That when man finally peers his head over the mountain of what will be called knowledge he will find that religion has been sitting there all along."
Bishop Barron with another Grand Slam! Love the baseball analogies too, by the way.
great video as always
Thank You Bishop Barron...helping greatly listening to the eloquent way you have addressed the great question.
The highest way to speak about God is simply removing all the idea about Him, removing any inadequate concept about God as you can never perceive who really God is, it exceeds man's perception.
So your your opening statement is that Aquinas uses the word "God" in a way that is totally foreign to how virtually every modern Christian imagines God? What kind of ludicrous argument is that? You might as well just wave a giant flag that says "Fallacy of Equivocation" and stop talking.
Well informed Christians understand God as Aquinas does.
I love that fact that my favorite Catholic apologists and my favorite Orthodox apologists are in basic agreement on the most basic theological issues. Catholicism is not exclusively "Western." The East has no monopoly on "Orthodoxy."
It is special pleading to say the universe came from nothing. Or that virtual particles do. Or however you wish. Absolutely nothing else comes from nothing.Why only virtual particles?
You ask the right questions but you assert an extraordinary answer without tangible justification.
"Out of the thousands of gods only one seems to shed light on absolute moral truth and perfection which is what any good and honest person strives for."
That sounds like you are talking more about Plato, as opposed to what is written in the Bible. There are some moral lessons, taught by God. There are also many immoral, jealous, and violent lessons, taught by God, within the Bible.
I would argue that morals come more from our nature, our parents, and socialization, not religion.
Great book. It changed the direction I was heading in life.
This very question will be much better answered for those who watch the Yale lectures on the Hebrew Bible.
I don't find much honesty in Baron or his "universal church" cronies.
But what do I know? I've only been studying the early church fathers and Christian history for seven years.
I really find it not helpful when he visualizes God, 'creator of the heavens and the earth', as a robed muscular old man with a beard. That undermines his point about God being the self-subsistent act of being itself and instead reinforces the misguided atheist's idea of God being a being within the world, that he'd just spent some five minutes refuting.
Please, Bishop Barron, stop using religious artwork simply because it's famous and artistic.
Wonderful as ever, thanks once again!
Oh yes! After going to the excruciating experience of hearing atheist's argumentation that what they come down to "is just happens". With that mentality, science would have never been born!
Except for the fact that Fr. Barron is right - You obviously DON'T understand what he said in the video when he said "modern science has indeed eliminated the gods" (that's a lowercase 'g' by the way). You're cherry picking this video and taking Fr. Barron's words completely out of context so you can appear to point out some non-existent contradictions in his argument. Who is really being the "con man" here...?
He bishop robert barron. Thanks for your comments. I'm muslim. Although our beliefs may differ but we must form an intellectual front against atheists.
Saint Thomas aquinas very close to this verse in Quran.
In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.
1. Say, “He is God, the One.
2. God, the Absolute.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.”
“Being, Consciousness, Bliss” as in SatChitAnanda? 😂 never thought my Vedantic past would tie into my Catholic present through Bishop Barron
Rare Footage!!! Richard Dawkins being polite to a Christian!
Search for: Richard Dawkins interview Fr George Coyne
Had to share this with you, Fr. Barron.
But in so far as God is a person, is He not a being? You wouldn't simply call God "personhood." Thus, as I understand it, He is both "a being" AND "being itself". He is a Being that is Being. Or, as God puts it, "I Am Who Am."
I'm not really disagreeing. It's just that I don't think this is an either-or scenario. In this case, God is both-and.
But that's the implicit assumption whenever an atheist demands empirical evidence for God. You can only find empirical evidence for some reality in the natural world.
Examining the existence of God, either from either a scientific or a philosophical perspective, is not easy work. For example, understanding the theory that the universe arose by gravitational implosion requires a grasp of advanced physics. Likewise, Thomas Aquinas is not readily accessible. In my city, 74% of adults are functionally illiterate. Of the 26% who aren't, how many can grasp Aquinas? Its really too bad that direct communion with God has fallen so far out of favor.
God is the biblical and Holy God of the Word of God.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness 1 Corinthians 1:18.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Ecclesiastes 7:20
"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one
They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:
Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:
Their feet are swift to shed blood:
Destruction and misery are in their ways:
And the way of peace have they not known:
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God" Romans 3:9-19
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment. Hebrews 9:27
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. Psalm 9:17
Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it. Isaiah 5:14
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. Luke 23:41
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:5
He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:11-13
I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.
1 Corinthians 15:1,3-4
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Romans 10:9-10
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. Acts 16:31
Fascinating exposition. I was reading in the comments under one of your other TH-cams that Jesus Christ is a being, in fact, a human being, the equivalent of God the Father, but that God the Father is not a being, as you define God. Could you explain to me how this is? And could you help me understand whether the Holy Spirit is a being? It's very difficult for me to read the New Testament and not think that Jesus was a being, but if He is God, and God is not a being, this is very mysterious. Help!
Father,
There are books out there that cover this issue of something from nothing, such as by Stephen Hawkings, or this other book, "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss, which get thrown around when discussing all of this. Can you comment on this "something from nothing" without a primal cause? Or does the situation solve itself logically?
God is an "ocean of being"? WL Craig´s Kalam Cosmological argument helps with the philosophical metaphysical clarity there. The Bible also with Moses report that God said, "I am that I am." That "ocean of being" is a metaphor for a little different treatment, I think. As you say, the most interesting question of all...
*Science can purify religion from error and superstition*
*but religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.*
_-- John Paul II_
Father Barron, would you consider debating Stefan Molyneux? Whenever he talks about political or economic philosophy, he's almost always right on the nose, but when he delves into religious matters, I'm often left simply shaking my head in frustration.
"None of which is in your bible": There's a lot in Macbeth that is not directly reffered to in it. The same with any other piece of literature. Depending on explicit evidence is a limited way of considering anything worth studying. Assumptions and Implications are all over the place. Read into these and you'll find them in the Bible.
"the most evil organisation": 1) What is your concept of evil and from where do you derive it?
Psalm 139: 6 is interesting; it goes something like: "Such knowledge is to wonderful for me; it is too high, I cannot attain to it." Contemporaries to the Bible didn't claim to have all the answers about creation.
In regards to your second point, Paul was a preacher trying to share radical concepts with a people foreign to the God of the Jews. It would make sense that he would use cultural references that contemporaries would have know to draw comparisons or in explaining God to them. (Part 2)
God is more than a God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Because of His love, He is our Heavenly Parent. That's because Jesus was the first person to announce that God was our Heavenly Father! We must also know that after the Fall, He worked continuously throughout history to prepare His people and the world to welcome the Messiah, and thus build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Because of the reasons was killed on the Cross, God has to send the Lord of the Second Advent to complete God's will on the earth.
Fr Barron, your lectures & sermons are so uplifting! Whenever I get discouraged about anything, I find my heart forever-lifted out of itself w/ all things true & beautiful & good. You have spoken many times (often implicitly) on how we internalize knowledge as truth within a scientific framework. But I don’t think I have ever heard you lecture on how we knows things to be true that are not necessarily reducible to scientific methods. I am thinking of the field of phenomenology. Would you please teach us? :)
To me, God is Infinite Knowledge in Infinite Possibilities.
In every deep breath I take, I feel God. When look around the Universe, you find God. God is everywhere; humans have to develop the right senses to see and feel God.
I agree that there are some things science will probably never know and probably cannot know. So my question is, if science is ignorant in matters concerning God then what does that make theologians? Do theologians possess some sort of sense or apparatus which science does not? Isn't science essentially the best thing we have to go on as far as apprehending the world around us? Science concerns itself with pretty much everything that can be known or experienced. If something can't be answered by science then is pure speculation any better? It seems perhaps we humans can't stand mysteries in life. "How did the universe arise?" "God made it." Maybe the answer should really be, "I just don't know". But then whoever achieved any kind of tangible power over others proclaiming they just don't know?
God Is who Is.
If this planet is so spectacularly unique and is the only place within the universe from which life can spring, wouldn't it be safe to assume that life, where it to appear anywhere, would have to be contained within this planet? How does that make it special? That's like saying, "America is the only place that has the ability to produce blowpops." Then when blowpops are made, "hey its a miracle, this earth was specifically design with blowpops in mind."
Magical thinking bud.
The volition for being is love. It is the "why" for all being. This is what everyone misses and is the final dot you all need to connect, and it's time. If the Prince of Peace isn't you ,who is it? The "how" is easy and there are a million big answers. Love is the VOLITION.
Yes and let me quote him from his own video:
4:43 If he had changed the capital G to a lowercase G, fair enough.
I see you lost attention at four minutes. Ah, so this is the depth of the intelligence I will receive when I'm freed from religion. I think everyone should have shorter attention spans, don't you?
God doesn't do "medicine". Medicine is part of mans limited attempts to somewhat better understand a part of the natural order. God is not part of, nor is He bound by the natural order - that's what makes Him "God"! God, I AM, simply "does" and the outcome is the Will of the One! Three cheers for medical science, sure, but it ain't gonna keep you from meeting your Maker! ;)