Please everyone pray for my friend Bahrez he comes from a Muslim family but he wants to become a baptised Christian it’s very hard for him to worship Jesus while in a Muslim family please pray for God to guide him and assist him in his conversion
@@julianpauls98 Ask anytime! It's awesome reading good friends. It's a reminder that, to quote the, imo, good fictional friend Samwise Gamgee, "That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
I'm in college and come from a Mormon family. I left the church last year and considered myself protestant. Trent your videos along with Joe Heshmeyer on shameless popery have convinced me to convert to Catholicism. I think I will contact my local Catholic Church to begin RCIA soon
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 ATHEIST’S BIGGEST FALLACY >>> ……………… EVERYTHING (in the Universe) JUST SO HAPPENS !!! ……………… NO. NO. NOHHHHHHHHHH !!! ………………….. Proof #1: An Atheist puts ten coins labeled 1 to 10 in an opaque container in PERFECTLY ASCENDING order. Were shaken and mixed very well ……………… Now, he/she wants to FISH THEM OUT in PERFECTLY DESCENDING order. Does he/she know the CHANCE those ten coins would come out as he/she wishes ??? …………….. According to Ai Bing: 1 in 3,628,800 (one in three million, six hundred twenty eight thousand eight hundred) !!! …………………….. Proof #2: Our planet Earth ROTATES AROUND TWO AXES at the SAME TIME … Around its OWN @ over 1,000 miles per hour and around the SUN at an average of about 67,000 miles per hour -- WITHOUTTTTTTTTTTTTT going CLOSER to the Sun (humans would BURN to their deaths) and WITHOUT going AWAY from it (humans would FREEZE to their deaths) !!! …………………….. Atheist, UNDERSTAND THIS NOWWWWWWWWWWW: The Earth does NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT do those things ON ITS OWN !!! … THE LORD GOD JESUS DOESSSSSSSSSS IT !!! ………………….. The Bible says in Colossians 1:17 >>> “He is before all things, and in Him all things HOLD TOGETHER (caps mine) … Amen.
Hi Trent! I just wanted to thank you for your videos and share with you that through your instructions my husband and I have been sharing the Catholic faith with many of our Protestant relatives and friends. My brother in law is currently doing Catechism in a Year with Father Mike Schmitz and my friend is looking into attending OCIA at her local Catholic Church. Thank you so much!! Your ministry is reaching many for the fullness of the faith! 🙏🙏
Fond of sloppy intellectually idle drivel are you? What do you suppose the babbling incoherent as to being trying to say, apart from that he is entirely innocenr of any kind intellectual ability or accomplishment?
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish." Oops, Hume. That's what we think about the resurrection.
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
Trust in and rely on our blessed Lord Jesus Christ to rescue you from this trial! “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ. We do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death so that we would rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. He who rescued us from so deadly a peril will continue to rescue us; on him we have set our hope that he will rescue us again, as you also join in helping us by your prayers, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many. Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God-and all the more toward you.” 2 Corinthians 1:3-5, 8-12 NRSV bible.com/bible/2016/2co.1.3-11.NRSV Hold up the shield of faith!
Hi Trent, I have a request. Could you please do a video debunking the lies about Mother Theresa. People are saying all kinds of ugly things about her and I wish there were more informative videos disproving that.
@@Regular_Pigeon It's a great book that has no footnotes and lists almost no sources. I don't think you realize that the majority of why people think Mother Theresa is 'Evil" is because Chris Hitchens smeared her name with nothing but lies.
@@Regular_PigeonChristopher Hitchens had a personal vendetta against Mother Teresa. That book is filled with misrepresentation and is a big reason why people still hate her today without good reason.
@@wilhelmvonn9619Because people will legitimately say that she prevented sick people from getting medicine so that they would suffer like some sort of sadist. Primarily she founded hospices (not hospitals) and she did offer them the painkillers they had available, but her mission was to give dying homeless people a place to spend their last days, not treat them.
@@davidcampbell7440 Yes, you ARE to do that. Pray means request. That’s all. You can pray and worship at the same time, but prayer is NOT bound to worship. That’s why it is good and holy to pray to (request of) God’s holiest sainted creatures for their help, as you would request of (pray to) your friends for their help in petitioning God. Going to God in a unified group to seek help is the best way to get evidence of his attention. Even better if one of those seeking obvious evidence of his attention is his own Blessed Mother, Mary. How can he deny the holy pleas of his mother??
My favorite part of the Catholic Mass on this topic is the opening prayer to ask Mary, the angels, the saints, and our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for us to the Lord our God. If mass is the joining of Christs' people to worship God - so too prayer should be under this structure! "Direct access" to God *includes* those who are in Christ's presence. When Jesus promised the thief he would be with him in "paradise", what was that paradise? Not heaven quite yet, but union with believers in Abraham's Bosom - where Heaven was opened up for the dead for the first time. Again... it's the union of believers (in Christ) which is paradise! Not some perfect fancy new creation. Though Heaven is definitely more perfect than such "paradise". Anyways, *this* is what prayer is, involving those in Christ's presence - not a primitive "direct" relationship with God that is void of incorporating those close to Him. TLDR: People get hanged up on interaction with the saints, saying it's not necessary... but what *is* a relationship with God? It's also relationship with whom are *in* him.
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
As a Neoplatonist I would actually agree with Oppy about that actually there are these singular causes of various things. However I would add that one absolutely first cause is needed. Which preceeds ( in eternity ) the henads ( the first unified group after the One )
Yes sir, I get so happy when mister trent makes a new video. i get so excited i want to run around the street shout HEY EVERYBODY, little trenton has made a new video..wooo hooo, he is such a clever little boy. good boy mister trent, take a bow.
I love you Trent! And everybody here! Hope you and your family had a light-filled peaceful joyful Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary! Prayed for you and everybody here at Mass yesterday and in my Rosary! Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, Our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us. And after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement O loving O sweet Virgin Mary. Pray for us oh holy mother of God. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen. Hope you enjoy Mary's song! Luke 1:46-56 The Canticle of Mary. And Mary said: “My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord; my spirit rejoices in God my savior. For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed. The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name. His mercy is from age to age those who fear him. He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart. He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly. The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy, according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever.” Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. This comes after one of my favorite Bible verses bringing to mind the dignity of life- When Mother Mary was pregnant with Jesus, she went on an about eighty mile joyous journey to visit her cousin Saint Elizabeth (patron saint of expectant mothers and pregnant women) in her hour of need, Elizabeth said referencing her tiny child in her womb John the Baptist who was conceived when she was in old age: Luke 1:41-45 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.” Hope you all have a blessed week!
@johnHenrysaysHi Why do you not obey Jesus when he said, " I Am the Way the Truth and the Life nobody comes to the Father except through Me " " When you pray, pray to the Father in my name. " Go into your room and pray so God the Father hears your prayers" " When you pray, don't use repetition as pagans do " None are good only God, for all have sinned! Praying to saints and Mary is not Biblical. We are supposed to pray FOR the saints. All who believe in the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ are saints and need prayers to help them stay faithful. Think about what Jesus said and ask yourself why should you listen to men instead. Maranatha
Fine tuning always makes me think of Nassim Taleb's concept of the "ludic fallacy" and the the "suspicious coin" thought experiment. You say to a mathematician or scientist, "Imagine a fair coin comes up heads 99 times in a row. What is the probability it will come up heads on the next toss?" The answer they give will be, "Fifty percent. The past outcomes do not affect the outcome of the next toss." But if you ask streetwise Fat Tony the same question, he will say, "Fair coin my ass. The game is rigged."
@hamobu i grew up atheist with an atheist father and agnostic/non practicing Christian mother. i had a hatred for Christianity, Catholicism in particular
@@hamobu this verse was the first Gospel I heard. I was raised muslim but this verse gave me hope for His love then I proved it for myself. I always feel it whenever I pray and worship.
@@FilipinaVeganaMost Atheist academics hold the Kalam argument in high regard, and Flew even cited it in his book as one of the reasons he became a theist. Not sure why you feel it is laughable.
🐟 03. WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, & TRUTH: PHILOSOPHY DEFINED: Philosophy is the predilection for WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision, with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. Furthermore, each of these two kingdoms can be crudely divided into lesser branches of philosophy, such as the Continental-analytical division of Western philosophy, and the various schools of epistemology of India, China, and Middle-East Asia, some of which are outlined below. GENUINE WISDOM: Unfortunately, in most cases in which the term “philosophy” is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and/or ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma (lawlessness), which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth. An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality. THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM: One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture, in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact. POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS: At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web. ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS: To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom. The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or a single country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory). To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, since he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, as well as adhering to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur! Cont...
The time which includes the past, the now and the future (from our perspective) is part of creation. The time was created together with the everything, but the "everlasting" or eternity that God was talking about is outside of this created time. So when God mentions "eternity", he doesn't mean the created time that we're able to experience.
@@kevinkelly2162 According to you who hasn't experienced other dimensions, then maybe you are right. But according to Spiritual, supernatural beings, THERE IS "eternity" (no beginning, no end) - no measuring of time
@@ryan-smith And you are neither spiritual or supernatural and have no contact with anything spiritual or supernatural. Eternity is a mathematical concept, nothing more and nothing less.
@@kevinkelly2162 That's why there were eye witnesses to the miracles and acts of God, and they have been written. If I believe, and I have faith, what are you gonna do about it, burn me?
In the contingency argument, the "not" modifier is in the wrong place. The opposite of "it's possible God exists" is "it is not possible that God exists." Things either do exist, or can exist, or cannot exist. Given His status as "the greatest possible being," God is the only entity that can't fit in the second category.
But the argument doesn't work that way. The argument is that if it's possible God doesn't exist then God isn't necessary and God cannot exist. The point is that "It is possible God exists" leads to "God exists" and "It is possible God does not exist" leafs to "God does not exist" which means one of the two premises must be false which really just kicks the can down the road
Btw: you don't need time for the notion of a beginning, you just need ordinality and sequence. You need prior and posterior only. It can still all happen at the same moment in time. Time is just the extension or space between two events, but you can get rid of time and still have a sequence of events. About the infinite future: It's not a problem to have eternal life, while having a finite future of the universe, because the current trajectory of this universe can still be finite. The coming and going of universes can be embedded in a timeless infinite existence. So the particular physical universe can be like a person's life - coming to an end. Universes can potentially be resurrected also. The potential end of the universe can also be an expression of death caused by the fall etc.
@@cristianguerra1617 Sure look at cause and effect. Between cause and effect, no time passes. If it wasn't so, the cause and the effect would not be connected anymore. Once the cause is there the effect also arises. But still, sequentially cause must precede the effect. We have sequences without time in all kinds of things. Look at the number line - the numbers are ordered. It's only when you place them on a number line and introduce distance to visualize them, that now the numbers are extended. Time is like that - it's like placing events on the number line. But you see how for the sequence itself you don't need any extension. Christians usually believe that from God's perspective everything happens in one eternal moment. I think from the theory of relativity time is part of space time. Both are movements, when you stand still, only time passes, when you move, less time passes, as part of the space-time movement happened in space and thus less time. The passing of time is nothing but movement. Time is not the background in which events happen, time is movement itself. There is no objective time outside of movement. So only from the perspective within the universe - from the perspective of a particular point in space-time, did time pass since the big bang. But there is no relative position, and thus no time for the entire universe. But I don't think that sequence or order of events is compromised in any way. I think from the perspective of a photon no time passes at all from its being emitted from the source and its contact with the eye. Still being emitted happened sequentially prior to it reaching the eye - thus no time passed, but sequence is preserved.
@@cristianguerra1617 If you want a quick and dirty example, God exists outside of time. If you mean the actual philosophy, not all sequences are chronological. For example, alphabetization. If Bob enters a room, then Carol enters a room, and finally Alice enters a room, the chronological sequence is BCA, (some arguments would also make ACB chronological,) but the alphabetical sequence is ABC. Both of those sequences are true, but one requires time and space while the other doesn't. You could also have some purely spatial sequences that are independent of time; a reasonable analogy is a family portrait. Alice and Bob's children Carol and Dan stand with them in their family portrait; the contents of the family portrait don't involve time, but there is still a spatial sequence of the parents and children spanning the picture frame. That sequence is spatial, but not chronological, and probably not alphabetical. There are ways to sequence things that are independent from time. The comment that the concept of a beginning requires ordinality and sequence, but not time, is discussing this. It's not commenting on our universe specifically, which is understood to include time, so the beginning of the universe regards time, but a more generic idea of beginning doesn't. That's what I believe Cromi is saying.
@@461weavile Time is within the universe, like space. Thus, the creation of the universe was not temporarily before the events of today, but it was sequentially before them. No time passes from a perspective outside of the universe. The passing of time happens only to objects within the universe as they move relative to each other.
@@cromi4194 THE ONTOLOGY OF TIME: One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - space and TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his or her own timeless nature. This usually occurs during a deep meditation practice, or during an awakening experience (see Chapter 17 to understand the notion of spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time, is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained in the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older media, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all, for to measure a period of time requires a time-based metric! To use movie industry jargon, the story of this cosmos is already “in the can” (i.e. in the canister of film). This so-called “block theory” of time (otherwise known as “eternalism”) is often contrasted with philosophical presentism, in which the present moment alone exists. In practical terms, time is the perception of a succession of physical or mental events (that is to say, time corresponds to phenomenal change). So, to succinctly summarize the philosophy of time, from the viewpoint of The Absolute, all time is contained within a pinpoint of eternity, yet from the perspective of conscious agents, there are no wholly past or merely future entities whatsoever. Read Chapters 08 & 11 to learn of causality and predestination.
My Good brother, you are clearly a blessed man. Thank you for this video and the information you shared in it. However, there are a few things that you are off about. First is the imagination thing. It is our primary command to use our imagination to think of those glorious mysteries. Every mystery is supposed to be thought upon and contemplated. That's meant to help us grow in spirituality. The next thing is that we don't pray 150 beads. Just 50 a day is all that is needed.
Hilbert's hotel isn't a contradiction. It's merely a demonstration of why the arithmetic we use breaks down when talking about infinites. Simply put, infinity minus infinity is indeterminate - you could take the relative complement of two infinite sets and, depending on what the sets had in common, end up with a set of any size. This isn't a contradiction because there's nothing that logically guarantees subtraction has to work the way you expect with infinites.
Yeah good point. Im still studying mathematics in college, I have abandoned the kalam argument for years, I like other arguments like the argument from motion, although this whole existential inertia thing is super confusing.
Aquinas Based agreed, I think the existence of God follows from reason whether time is infinite or not. The distinction is in per se ordered causality vs per accidens ordered causality, the classical theism podcast has some good eps on that. The paper passer argument is a bit more convincing, but Jimmy Akin did a good rebuttal of it. Basically the paper can't be blank but just had some random thing written on it from all infinite past.
What is your point? Hilbert Hotel is not a mathematical contradiction (the sort you’d find in proofs by contradiction), but it demonstrates how infinite sets lead to contradictions when you try to apply their behavior to the physical world, which is what Trent is arguing here. He doesn’t even say much about the hotel, its mention is just a point about the impossibility of an infinite past.
@michaelsokolnicki7028 none of that is a contradiction. If Bob could be in the hotel and not in the hotel at the same time, that would be a contradiction, but that's not a contradiction the Hilbert hotel would lead to. There is simply no reason why you would expect to take a countably infinite number of people from a countably infinite number of people and get a determinate number of people left over. You can't use simple subtraction to calculate that. You have to know who was taken and who was left. There's nothing contradictory about that.
Trent, the Summa Theologica proofs are not notes. They are formal demonstrations. They stand or fall as presented. It is Feser who is sloppy and in error.
The summa theologica is not aquinas going deep into the argument, he assumes the reader is aware of certain background metaphysics. Aquinas, however treats without assuming the reader is aware in summa contra gentiles. Furthermore, there are different interpretations of aquinas arguments in Summa Theologica, given by different thomists.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clear seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Creation proclaims the glory, majesty, power and Divine nature of the Creator, Romans 1:20
It's really kinda sad how people like Trent keep using the same weak arguments over and over again, hoping they mean something. They all have the same basic weakness, which he admits in the first few minutes of his talk: they cannot be verified. What good, I ask you is a theory that cannot be verified? Take Plantinga's philosophy, based on "properly basic beliefs" requiring no proof. Seriously? Or the model argument, which depends entirely on the definition of "maximal greatness" which is impossible to define. But that's OK because the concepts of "definitions" and "verification" are just silly. Hard to take any of this seriously, Trent.
Why is the moral argument still being held in high regard? It still just boils down to i FEEL like theres a right and wrong and i FEEL like humans are special, therefore god.
TAG is essentially a fallacious argument with no value whatsoever. That's assuming you can even form an argument which many presuppers can't or won't simply because it's a form of rhetoric to try to "shut the mouths of unbelievers".
The universe can't be infinitely old because something infinitely old can't get any older. The universe gets older. Therefore the universe must be a finite age.
@@sivad1025 I think the language of infinity is wrong. Infinity must mean infinity. There can be no limit to infinity therefore you cannot have an infinite past because that's limiting infinity to past time, but infinite time must contain all possible time past present and future.
@brendanbutler1238 Infinity is by definition an unbounded limit. Infinity is not an element of any number set since it's not a number itself. Your language is backwards here. An infinite past would be a past without a limit to its length. But a number without a limit can still increase, it just increases without limit
@@sivad1025 There cannot be an unbounded limit, that's self contradictory. Infinity is unbounded, and has no limits. I agree infinity is not any number, because all numbers are necessarily finite. But then you say, a number without a limit can still increase ? But you just said infinity is not an element of any number set, so there cannot be a number without a limit, ie infinite. This is what I mean when I said infinity is infinity. You can't keep changing its meaning. One moment it has no boundaries and then it has a boundary that can be added to ? The universe is passing through boundaries, it is changing, therefore it cannot be infinite in time or in any other way.
@@brendanbutler1238you haven't demonstrated a contradiction here. It's hard to get your head around but essentially we just do maths differently with infinite numbers. The other poster hasn't changed the meaning of an infinite, just describing how it operates.
Which of course doesn’t work as because god wouldn’t have to fine tune anything because if a all powerful god wants something he will just do it No need to adhere to any fine tuning
@vibetech89 Well, what standard of proof are you seeking to “prove” about God? :) I go with the most plausible explanation for my beliefs. For, I can’t have 100% certainty on anything, so I don’t ask for it. Otherwise, I’d have to empirically verify all my wife’s actions to love her and I hope we’d both agree requesting my wife “prove” she loves me is a toxic mindset for a marriage. :P
@@vibetech89 Highest standard for what? Beliefs, habits, criminal Justice? :P For, the burden changes per the issue. This is why in criminal cases, the burden is beyond reasonable doubt because the risk of punishing an innocent person ought be mitigated as much as possible (even if some guilty people get off as not guilty). However, in civil cases, the burden is only a preponderance of the evidence since the risk of punishing the innocent is much lower. :) So, for beliefs, I rather go with what is the most plausible explanation given the totality of circumstances. Since I answered your question, would you be up for answering the one I asked you for your standard of proof on God? :)
Regarding the infinite, does the argument that denies an infinite future matter if our infinite existence is outside of this time? If God exists outside of time and the past, present, and future exist at once for Him, then the promise of an infinite future could really just have been a reference to an existence with Him with no restriction of Time? It also would support how the death of Christ on the cross paid for the sins of those already dead as Christ's sacrifice can apply to Past, Present, and future all at once since they exist simultaneously for God.
The new earth is created and thus has time But it's not an issue since the contradictions happen within actualized infinites not potential infinites. The future infinite is never actualized so it never leads to contradiction
Did you watch the video? :/ Trent’s opening is about a Protestant philosopher from the 20th century and gushing over his impact. Seems like Catholics are beyond the 14th century to me. :)
Yes, we still read Aquinas. We also read all of the authors before and after him, as Trent shows by referencing a number of 20th and 21st century books. Try watching the video again with a somewhat more open mind.
@@topogigio6490 Yes, this was not my most brilliant comment ever. My real point of contention is how can Catholics still be so enamored of the argument from motion, as though it were a profoundly sophisticated and compelling argument. It is formally no different from an indigenous person's argument that the world is held up by a giant elephant, which is in turn sustained by a giant turtle, which is in turn sustained by some other mythical animal. That Catholics continue to find this sort of argument compelling, as opposed to, e.g., QED, is astounding to me. Apologies, but Trent lost my attention when he went on for more than 30 seconds about the argument from motion. Life's too short.
@@bens4446 "...Apologies, but Trent lost my attention when he went on for more than 30 seconds about the argument from motion. Life's too short." You spent more time justifying your position than said 30 seconds you spent giving Trent a chance when you know he goes into multiple different types of argumentation. Why not skip said argument, which is conveniently marked in YT chapters, and go from there? Why dismiss an entire series of introductory arguments over 1 you find unpersuasive? I don't get your logic here. :/
@@bens4446I see that you’ve read (or listened to) Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian.” You are correct- these arguments are remarkably similar. Does that point to a flaw in the indigenous argument, though? Is there a reason why indigenous people cannot form good arguments? Perhaps our shared understanding of the need for a universal cause is, in fact, indicative of truth (great minds think alike, hmm?). That said, the only real problem with the indigenous argument is that they deal with animals, a posteriori items that we observe in the world. It is a little bit silly to imagine such items as the primary forms upon which all other things of the universe rest. The Christian conception of God, however, is no turtle or mythical animal- God is, rather, the source of everything, and we don’t try to paint an actual physical picture of a bodily form.
If God is defined as a personal, conscious being, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and who is solely responsible for designing and creating literally _everything_ that exists (other than himself), then I think that God should have the unrestrained power and knowledge to convince everyone of his existence, all on his own. The fact that theists are still trying to argue on behalf of their supposedly all powerful deity, rather than God just showing up and plainly demonstrating his own existence, is exactly what you’d expect to see if God’s existence is conceptual, rather than actual.
Well said my friend. Have you noticed that for being an omnipotent being god is quiet incapable of raising money, constructing churches or spreading his own word! When you think about god is impotent in this regard!
@@n1njachikin "it’s not well said at all" Of course it is and I can say the same thing about your comment. the only difference is I raise credible concerns about your faith which you can not answer. Or can you? (I bet you can't. And won't! Or both, right?) Good luck my friend.
@@n1njachikin I made my point. I said that human beings doing “God’s work” for him is exactly what you’d expect to see, if God himself is conceptual rather than actual. Of course, theists have a plethora of excuses for why their all powerful God who supposedly wants to have personal relationships with us is also so hidden from us, but they’re just excuses nonetheless.
if you have such an issue with logical argument from simple premises like "nothing causes itself", why do you accept maths? Maths is a disciplines where we discover previously unknown truths from simple premises.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Because mathematics does not posit the existence of something and then set out to find it. It starts from axioms and then arrives at conclusions based on those axioms. By trying to prove the existence of God, you are starting from your conclusion (motivated by religious doctrine, which is hardly consistent) and then trying to construct arguments to arrive at a particular conclusion. And if your argument turns out to be logically fallacious, you invent new arguments that further obfuscate the problems.
The logos of gospel of John is it same as the Greek logos. Explain what is logos of God. Philosophical kind or extreme mystical beliefs day like the Kabbalah.
WLC’s argument does not disprove a future eternity. His entire point is that the future infinite is not really an infinite since it’s simply a continuous succession of days. You never reach the endpoint, so there’s always a finite set. Unlike the past, which would represent an actual infinity and is incomprehensible outside of math paradoxes.
The present is derivative from the past in a way that the future is not. For instance, it's a fact about me right now that I have a certain number of grandfathers, who had certain names and so forth. It's also the case that things in the past are facts "written in stone" and cannot be changed, whereas the future is yet to be determined because they will result from things that have not happened yet. Causes and effects may be accidentally ordered in time, but the state of affairs at each moment in time nevertheless depends on and is derivative from the states of affairs at every moment in time preceding it. It's also the case that given any moment in time, there will never be a time in the future at which that moment will be infinitely far in the past. Yet, if the universe is infinitely old, that means that states of affairs now derive from and are in fact dependent upon states of affairs at moments infinitely far in the past. But since you can never get infinitely far away in time from any real moment, the idea of a moment infinitely far in the past does not appear to be an intelligible concept. An infinitely old moment does not seem to refer to the same thing that we are talking about when we refer to moments in time, since you cannot get infinitely far from moments in time. It would seem that the idea of an infinitely old moment must necessarily be referring to a cause OUTSIDE of time, if indeed it refers to anything intelligible at all.
If your conclusion is that the future is finite, I don't think it's that big of a problem. We don't know that the New Jerusalem, New Heavens, and New Earth will be in this universe. We don't know if causation will work the same way. We don't know the nature of what time will be like.
(1)Fine tuning argument Min 30:20 ish... (2) You could argue alot of things are improbable (3) How just because they are improbable does not mean they do not happen (4) Meta AI calculated the probability of rolling all 6s with 100 dice (5) Any set to be honest (6) Here are the numbers (7) When rolling 100 dice, each possible outcome has the same probability, which is: 1 / 6485183463413514231596672000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 This is because each die has 6 possible outcomes, and when rolling 100 dice, the total number of possible outcomes is 6^100, which equals the enormous number mentioned earlier. Since each outcome is equally likely, the probability of getting any specific combination of numbers on the 100 dice is the same. This is known as a uniform probability distribution. For example, the probability of getting 100 sixes is the same as getting 50 sixes and 50 ones, or any other specific combination of numbers. Each outcome has the same incredibly small probability, but they are all equal. Brings a new meaning to yahtzee in human perception. (8) The argument that a universe without a hyper dimensional deity seems difficult (9) However just because it difficult to conceive of... because of probability does not its incorrect (10) That not to say there is not a deity (11) But I think its an incorrect argument.
So if you were playing a game or dice with a friend and he rolled a 6 100 times in a row, would you suspect him of cheating, or would you say “that the likelihood of that happening is the same as any other outcome”?
@@Deuterocomical (1) I might suspect a human being cheated (2) But not if I was their with them... Or viewed it on camera (3) However we do not know how long time has been around (4) I'm not talking the observable universe (5) I'm not talking the matter you an I know of as elements (6) But virtual time as a concept. (7) Prototype universes might have had a Google amount of universes... (8) Before it got to our universe... (9) As I said not ruling out a deity... But the argument.
Do we see evidence of the universe resetting itself with different variables? Multi-verse doesn't make sense as it would imply infinity and therefore not a strong foundation for an argument
This video references William Lane Craig, who holds heterodox ideas-including a big bang cosmology of an initial singularity. Why does this video mention William Lane Craig without a warning about his heterodoxy and “mythology”?
1. Big bang is not heterodox because it has nothing to do with faith. Science is not Faith and faith is not science. It’s a scientific discovery. In fact it proves the universe came from nothing. Which is what is divinely revealed. 2. Take the Good. Discard the bad. Just because Craig has heterodox ideas regarding certain aspects of the faith, does not mean we shouldn’t take the good from him.
Even if you accept that there must be a locomotive instead of unlimited line of cars (because your brain can't comprehend infinites) there's no reason why that locomotive should be intelligent or timeless.
It's not a matter of comprehension, an infinite row of cars can't move itself period. As for the attributes of God, that's another argument, so if you're going there, can we assume you've ceded the point that He at least must exist?
@@GeneralSeptem I quoted your salient points to answer them. If I missed something let me know " an infinite row of cars can't move itself period." That's the limitation of the analogy but not of the chain of actualities that we are trying to model. A better analogy would be a row of dominoes where each domino is pushed by a preceding one and will push the next one. The argument is that you cannot have an infinite row of dominoes (I don't see why not), that there must have been a first one, and that it must have been pushed by God. Even if we agree that there was a first domino, all we can say is that it fell. "As for the attributes of God, that's another argument, so if you're going there, can we assume you've ceded the point that He at least must exist?" It's the attributes, and not the label that make God, God. If we assume your argument then all we can say is that everything started somehow.
@@hamobu well here’s what we can know from reason alone, is unless something caused the domino to fall, it’s natural state would be to stand unmoved, and here your critique has reached the intellectual bedrock.
Actually, they're kind of opposites since the motion argument doesn't assume a finite past and the cosmological argument doesn't assume the nature of motion I'm not a fan of the motion argument since it presupposes that the universal forces are naturally constant and it doesn't address the infinite past The cosmological argument says ignore motion, existence itself had a starting point which indicates a non-contingent creator
Hi Trent and team, on this subject, i would highly recommend the book Science Before Science by the world-renowned physicist Dr. Anthony Rizzi yo reall ground these ideas.
I think I got it down. When Jenny Craig and Grim Reaper Sly Stallone go into Gilbert's motel..This will cause a pair of ducks. The couple then will go into an infinite depression ( oh that's sad) Don't worry Trent I will tell everyone you taught me this FILOFOSSICAL AGUMENT.
If you’re a reasonable person you would agree that you cannot prove God’s existence and I can’t disprove it. God requires a belief, while everything we currently know about the world, does not require any miracles or creator. So far 0 scientific evidence points to a God. Be reasonable…
If you believingly say that God is the creator of reality while simultaneously being real then that is a contradiction itself because how can you be both real while creating reality as whole. Reality is all that is real so if you say God is real then he cannot exist prior to reality to create it as he is a part of it. Here goes a question what if reality just simply is with no beginning or end?
Dear Trent, I appreciate your apologetics work but please consider this out of Catholic Christian Charity. Dr Sungenis has sent you information on his side of the argument of several issues, he also is a fellow apologist. Would you not want to at the very least reply to him or better yet why not have him on your channel to debate him. By just avoiding any contact with him after he has taken the time and energy to share his opinions with you, do you think that is right? as a Catholic? as a Christian?...hey just asking!
Your deity is from the bronze and iron age, developed from more ancient deities. Mankind existed millions of years without the idea of an all seeing but invisible being in the clouds. Develop your humanism instead, the world is moving forward!
Please everyone pray for my friend Bahrez he comes from a Muslim family but he wants to become a baptised Christian it’s very hard for him to worship Jesus while in a Muslim family please pray for God to guide him and assist him in his conversion
Thank you for loving your friend so much, sending prayers from Italy 🙏
@@franzkafkalover911 thank you so much I pray he comes to the Catholic Church 🙏
Thank you for caring so much for your friend. Praying for him. And for you! Hope you and yours have a blessed week!
@@JohnHenrysaysHi thank you so much for your prayers I appreciate it a lot!
@@julianpauls98 Ask anytime! It's awesome reading good friends. It's a reminder that, to quote the, imo, good fictional friend Samwise Gamgee, "That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it's worth fighting for."
I'm in college and come from a Mormon family. I left the church last year and considered myself protestant. Trent your videos along with Joe Heshmeyer on shameless popery have convinced me to convert to Catholicism. I think I will contact my local Catholic Church to begin RCIA soon
Just started rcia this year, it’s been great!
Babe wake up a new proof of Gods existence just dropped
*The same proof of God's existence just dropped
Not really, still no proof.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575Proof does not mean “concrete guarantee”
GOD doesn't exist.... God Is.
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 ATHEIST’S BIGGEST FALLACY >>> ……………… EVERYTHING (in the Universe) JUST SO HAPPENS !!! ……………… NO. NO. NOHHHHHHHHHH !!! ………………….. Proof #1: An Atheist puts ten coins labeled 1 to 10 in an opaque container in PERFECTLY ASCENDING order. Were shaken and mixed very well ……………… Now, he/she wants to FISH THEM OUT in PERFECTLY DESCENDING order. Does he/she know the CHANCE those ten coins would come out as he/she wishes ??? …………….. According to Ai Bing: 1 in 3,628,800 (one in three million, six hundred twenty eight thousand eight hundred) !!! …………………….. Proof #2: Our planet Earth ROTATES AROUND TWO AXES at the SAME TIME … Around its OWN @ over 1,000 miles per hour and around the SUN at an average of about 67,000 miles per hour -- WITHOUTTTTTTTTTTTTT going CLOSER to the Sun (humans would BURN to their deaths) and WITHOUT going AWAY from it (humans would FREEZE to their deaths) !!! …………………….. Atheist, UNDERSTAND THIS NOWWWWWWWWWWW: The Earth does NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT do those things ON ITS OWN !!! … THE LORD GOD JESUS DOESSSSSSSSSS IT !!! ………………….. The Bible says in Colossians 1:17 >>> “He is before all things, and in Him all things HOLD TOGETHER (caps mine) … Amen.
Hi Trent! I just wanted to thank you for your videos and share with you that through your instructions my husband and I have been sharing the Catholic faith with many of our Protestant relatives and friends. My brother in law is currently doing Catechism in a Year with Father Mike Schmitz and my friend is looking into attending OCIA at her local Catholic Church. Thank you so much!! Your ministry is reaching many for the fullness of the faith! 🙏🙏
Mike believes that, if one is hiding Jews in one's attic, that one should tell the Nazis where are the Jews located, if asked.
Enough said.
Two things have happened by the end of this video.
1. My ironing is done.
2. The realisation that I am to dumb for this.
Don't cut yourself short, you might have understood a little better if you weren't doing something else at the same time.
I like the way you spelled 'too' wrong when you said '.... I am to dumb for this...' on purpose to add to the humor. On purpose right? 🙂
@@39knights Don't be rude... but that was on purpose right?
I can relate 😂
To be fair, Trent isn't great at explaining the arguments
Now one of my favorite videos. Nothing I haven't heard before but I love that it's all in one place.
Fond of sloppy intellectually idle drivel are you?
What do you suppose the babbling incoherent as to being trying to say, apart from that he is entirely innocenr of any kind intellectual ability or accomplishment?
I can't believe my first love of epistemology came from a guy who couldn't figure out his aircon.
😆 brah
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish." Oops, Hume. That's what we think about the resurrection.
2:52 These two images seem like a summary of the death and resurrection of Christ
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)
God bless you friend. Pray for me, I'm going through hell right now.
@@bronsonf1will do!
I was just trying to remember the full verse a few hours ago. Thank you!
Trust in and rely on our blessed Lord Jesus Christ to rescue you from this trial! “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant through Christ. We do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, of the affliction we experienced in Asia; for we were so utterly, unbearably crushed that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death so that we would rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead. He who rescued us from so deadly a peril will continue to rescue us; on him we have set our hope that he will rescue us again, as you also join in helping us by your prayers, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many. Indeed, this is our boast, the testimony of our conscience: we have behaved in the world with frankness and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God-and all the more toward you.”
2 Corinthians 1:3-5, 8-12 NRSV
bible.com/bible/2016/2co.1.3-11.NRSV
Hold up the shield of faith!
Looking forward to the new book on this subject!
Glory To The Triune GOD
Hi Trent, I have a request. Could you please do a video debunking the lies about Mother Theresa. People are saying all kinds of ugly things about her and I wish there were more informative videos disproving that.
Check out "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens. Great book about her.
@@Regular_Pigeon It's a great book that has no footnotes and lists almost no sources.
I don't think you realize that the majority of why people think Mother Theresa is 'Evil" is because Chris Hitchens smeared her name with nothing but lies.
What makes you think they are lies?
@@Regular_PigeonChristopher Hitchens had a personal vendetta against Mother Teresa. That book is filled with misrepresentation and is a big reason why people still hate her today without good reason.
@@wilhelmvonn9619Because people will legitimately say that she prevented sick people from getting medicine so that they would suffer like some sort of sadist. Primarily she founded hospices (not hospitals) and she did offer them the painkillers they had available, but her mission was to give dying homeless people a place to spend their last days, not treat them.
Beautiful vid!
Say the rosary, each day, and Mary will lead you to her SON.
True! =)
Even though they DIED thousands of years ago?
The Holy Spirit is the one who intercedes. All Christians respect Mary, but you are not to pray to/through her to access God.
@@davidcampbell7440
Yes, you ARE to do that. Pray means request. That’s all. You can pray and worship at the same time, but prayer is NOT bound to worship.
That’s why it is good and holy to pray to (request of) God’s holiest sainted creatures for their help, as you would request of (pray to) your friends for their help in petitioning God.
Going to God in a unified group to seek help is the best way to get evidence of his attention. Even better if one of those seeking obvious evidence of his attention is his own Blessed Mother, Mary. How can he deny the holy pleas of his mother??
My favorite part of the Catholic Mass on this topic is the opening prayer to ask Mary, the angels, the saints, and our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for us to the Lord our God. If mass is the joining of Christs' people to worship God - so too prayer should be under this structure! "Direct access" to God *includes* those who are in Christ's presence.
When Jesus promised the thief he would be with him in "paradise", what was that paradise? Not heaven quite yet, but union with believers in Abraham's Bosom - where Heaven was opened up for the dead for the first time. Again... it's the union of believers (in Christ) which is paradise! Not some perfect fancy new creation. Though Heaven is definitely more perfect than such "paradise". Anyways, *this* is what prayer is, involving those in Christ's presence - not a primitive "direct" relationship with God that is void of incorporating those close to Him.
TLDR: People get hanged up on interaction with the saints, saying it's not necessary... but what *is* a relationship with God? It's also relationship with whom are *in* him.
One of your best performances.
✝️🙏🏻👑❤️ Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Hallelujah. Amen.
Another banger Trent!
I like your new thumbnail where you're smiling :)
Man I missed these long videos
"Some artichoke dip from ethics, some jalapeno poppers from metaphysics, and after that we'll throw spaghetti at the wall and see if anything sticks"
As a Neoplatonist I would actually agree with Oppy about that actually there are these singular causes of various things. However I would add that one absolutely first cause is needed. Which preceeds ( in eternity ) the henads ( the first unified group after the One )
Really? Gosh how fasci..........
Another Trent video 🔥
Yes sir, I get so happy when mister trent makes a new video. i get so excited i want to run around the street shout HEY EVERYBODY, little trenton has made a new video..wooo hooo, he is such a clever little boy. good boy mister trent, take a bow.
@@damianwhite504 Erm... what the sigma
@@d.airhorn3702 Trenton the clever, clever little man..He is SO clever he makes my skin crawl.
Parodies of Heatbreak Hotel and of Hotel California are needed for Hilbert’s Hotel.
I love you Trent! And everybody here! Hope you and your family had a light-filled peaceful joyful Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary! Prayed for you and everybody here at Mass yesterday and in my Rosary!
Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
Hail Holy Queen, Mother of mercy, Our life, our sweetness, and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy towards us. And after this, our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement O loving O sweet Virgin Mary.
Pray for us oh holy mother of God.
That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen.
Hope you enjoy Mary's song!
Luke 1:46-56 The Canticle of Mary.
And Mary said:
“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;
my spirit rejoices in God my savior.
For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness;
behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.
The Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is from age to age
those who fear him.
He has shown might with his arm,
dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.
He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones
but lifted up the lowly.
The hungry he has filled with good things;
the rich he has sent away empty.
He has helped Israel his servant,
remembering his mercy,
according to his promise to our fathers,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.”
Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home.
This comes after one of my favorite Bible verses bringing to mind the dignity of life-
When Mother Mary was pregnant with Jesus, she went on an about eighty mile joyous journey to visit her cousin Saint Elizabeth (patron saint of expectant mothers and pregnant women) in her hour of need, Elizabeth said referencing her tiny child in her womb John the Baptist who was conceived when she was in old age:
Luke 1:41-45 When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the infant leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, cried out in a loud voice and said, “Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And how does this happen to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Hope you all have a blessed week!
@johnHenrysaysHi
Why do you not obey Jesus when he said, " I Am the Way the Truth and the Life nobody comes to the Father except through Me " " When you pray, pray to the Father in my name. " Go into your room and pray so God the Father hears your prayers" " When you pray, don't use repetition as pagans do " None are good only God, for all have sinned! Praying to saints and Mary is not Biblical. We are supposed to pray FOR the saints. All who believe in the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ are saints and need prayers to help them stay faithful. Think about what Jesus said and ask yourself why should you listen to men instead. Maranatha
Fine tuning always makes me think of Nassim Taleb's concept of the "ludic fallacy" and the the "suspicious coin" thought experiment.
You say to a mathematician or scientist, "Imagine a fair coin comes up heads 99 times in a row. What is the probability it will come up heads on the next toss?" The answer they give will be, "Fifty percent. The past outcomes do not affect the outcome of the next toss."
But if you ask streetwise Fat Tony the same question, he will say, "Fair coin my ass. The game is rigged."
This is where you are the strongest, Trent … no making stuff up, no tortured redefinitions … just solid, rational explication of the facts.😊
9:02 could have SWORN Trent said “Grandma” when I closed my eyes for a moment! 😂
Graham Oppy = Grandma P.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
Do you think that makes sense to anyone who didn't grow up with it?
@hamobu yes, i didnt grow up with it but found it sweet
@@dylanlynch-cq5pf did you not grow up with it, or is it merely that you didn't believe in it but were aware of it?
@hamobu i grew up atheist with an atheist father and agnostic/non practicing Christian mother. i had a hatred for Christianity, Catholicism in particular
@@hamobu this verse was the first Gospel I heard. I was raised muslim but this verse gave me hope for His love then I proved it for myself. I always feel it whenever I pray and worship.
Is best to rely on faith. When you offer up weak arguments it makes everyone question your honesty and mental abilities
Christ is King.
Now THAT is original.
Of which kingdom? I would love to visit him sometime.
That's nice.
Trent , how about a video on the pope’s statements comparing religions to languages
He's still looking for an SSPX church
It’s amazing how people realize how strong the ancient philosophical arguments are after dismissing them.
Possibly due to the fact that they are LITERALLY laughable.
@@FilipinaVegana prove it
@@FilipinaVegana if they don't work then go ahead and lay that out for us
@@AquinasBased, see my comment elsewhere under this video.
@@FilipinaVeganaMost Atheist academics hold the Kalam argument in high regard, and Flew even cited it in his book as one of the reasons he became a theist. Not sure why you feel it is laughable.
This made me hungry
Is it important to note philosophers and apologists like Francis Shaeffer and his series, “How Should We Then Live?”
🐟 03. WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, & TRUTH:
PHILOSOPHY DEFINED:
Philosophy is the predilection for WISDOM, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or a decision, with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgement. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. For example, “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Etymologically, the word originates from the Greek “philosophia” (meaning “love of wisdom”) and is the systematized study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values/ethics, mind, and language. Some sources claim the term was coined by Pythagoras. Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation.
Philosophers generally divide their field into the two kingdoms, the Eastern branch, which covers the entire Asian continent, and the Western branch of philosophy, which mainly includes European, though in recent centuries, embraces American and Australian-born philosophers also. Furthermore, each of these two kingdoms can be crudely divided into lesser branches of philosophy, such as the Continental-analytical division of Western philosophy, and the various schools of epistemology of India, China, and Middle-East Asia, some of which are outlined below.
GENUINE WISDOM:
Unfortunately, in most cases in which the term “philosophy” is used, particularly outside of ancient Indian philosophical traditions, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and/or ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma (lawlessness), which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and/or pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
In “The Republic” the ancient Greek philosopher Aristocles (commonly known as Plato) quotes his mentor Socrates as asserting that the “best” philosophers are, in actual fact, naught but useless, utter rogues, in stark contrast to “true” philosophers, who are lovers of wisdom and truth.
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. See Chapter 12 regarding morality.
THE REPOSITORY OF WISDOM:
One of the greatest misunderstandings of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has arisen in the popular mind, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an unschooled buffoon, compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained collegiate doctorates in philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, et cetera. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only a miniscule percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! Anyone who doubts this averment need do nothing more than read the remaining chapters of this Holy Scripture, in order to learn this blatantly-obvious fact.
POPULAR PHILOSOPHERS:
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and Theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case! The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), and the British author, Mr. Clive Staples “C.S.” Lewis, almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or they have managed to promulgate their ideas via the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS:
To proffer merely one example of literally tens of thousands, of the assertion made in the previous paragraph, the 1905 essay paper by the famed British mathematician, philosopher and logician, Bertrand Russell, entitled “On Denoting” was described by one of his most notable contemporaneous colleagues, Frank P. Ramsey, as “that paradigm of philosophy”. Notwithstanding the fact that less than one percent of the populace would be able to even comprehend the essay, it is littered with spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntactic errors, and contains at least a couple of flawed propositions. Even if the average person was able to grasp the principles presented in that paper, it would not make any tangible impact on the human condition. Currently, this planet of ours is doomed to devastation, due to moral decay and environmental degradation, and such overintellectualizing essay papers can do nothing to help improve our deeply harrowing, frightful, and lamentable predicament, especially those papers that deal with exceedingly-trivial subject matters, as does Russell’s paper (an argument for an acutely-abstruse concept in semantics). The fact that Russell’s aforementioned essay paper falls under the category of Philosophy of Language, and the fact that he was a highly-cultured peer of the House of Lords, in the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, yet his own writings being composed using far-from-perfect English, serves only to prove my assertion that philosophy ought to be restricted to genuine members of the Holy Priesthood. Furthermore, that Bertrand was fully intoxicated with adharmic (leftist) ideologies and practices, including sexual licentiousness and socialism (even supporting Herr Adolf Hitler’s Nazism, to some extent) indicates that he was no lover of ACTUAL wisdom.
The fact that, after THOUSANDS of years following the publication of Plato’s “Republic”, not a single nation or a single country on this planet has thought it wise to accept Plato’s advice to promote a philosopher-king (“rāja-ṛṣi”, in Sanskrit) as the head of its social structure, more than adequately proves my previous assertions. Unfortunately, however, both Plato and his student, Aristotle, were themselves hardly paragons of virtue, since the former was an advocate of infanticide, whilst the latter favoured carnism (even stating that animal slaughter was mandatory).
To my knowledge, the only philosopher in the Western academic tradition who was truly wise, was the German, Arthur Schopenhauer, since he espoused a reasonably accurate metaphysical position, as well as adhering to the law (that is, the one and only law, known as “dharma” in Bhārata) to a larger degree than most other Westerners. Hopefully, someday, I will discover another philosopher without India, to join Arthur!
Cont...
Trent is such a G
Wow...this talk makes me feel really dumb... hahaha. I totally got lost in the hotel
The time which includes the past, the now and the future (from our perspective) is part of creation. The time was created together with the everything, but the "everlasting" or eternity that God was talking about is outside of this created time. So when God mentions "eternity", he doesn't mean the created time that we're able to experience.
Outside time and space is the same as saying nowhere and never so you are right.
@@kevinkelly2162 According to you who hasn't experienced other dimensions, then maybe you are right. But according to Spiritual, supernatural beings, THERE IS "eternity" (no beginning, no end) - no measuring of time
@@ryan-smith And you are neither spiritual or supernatural and have no contact with anything spiritual or supernatural. Eternity is a mathematical concept, nothing more and nothing less.
@@kevinkelly2162 That's why there were eye witnesses to the miracles and acts of God, and they have been written. If I believe, and I have faith, what are you gonna do about it, burn me?
@@ryan-smith Believe whatever you want but just don't try and force your beliefs on others. And it is religious people that burn others.
❤
In the contingency argument, the "not" modifier is in the wrong place. The opposite of "it's possible God exists" is "it is not possible that God exists."
Things either do exist, or can exist, or cannot exist. Given His status as "the greatest possible being," God is the only entity that can't fit in the second category.
But the argument doesn't work that way. The argument is that if it's possible God doesn't exist then God isn't necessary and God cannot exist.
The point is that "It is possible God exists" leads to "God exists" and "It is possible God does not exist" leafs to "God does not exist" which means one of the two premises must be false which really just kicks the can down the road
First
those who are first, will later be last.
Trent, will you be coming to South Florida for a talk any time soon?
Btw: you don't need time for the notion of a beginning, you just need ordinality and sequence. You need prior and posterior only. It can still all happen at the same moment in time. Time is just the extension or space between two events, but you can get rid of time and still have a sequence of events.
About the infinite future: It's not a problem to have eternal life, while having a finite future of the universe, because the current trajectory of this universe can still be finite. The coming and going of universes can be embedded in a timeless infinite existence. So the particular physical universe can be like a person's life - coming to an end. Universes can potentially be resurrected also. The potential end of the universe can also be an expression of death caused by the fall etc.
I have trouble getting over the fact that you seem to claim sequence can exist outside of time.
Can you elaborate?
@@cristianguerra1617 Sure look at cause and effect. Between cause and effect, no time passes. If it wasn't so, the cause and the effect would not be connected anymore. Once the cause is there the effect also arises. But still, sequentially cause must precede the effect. We have sequences without time in all kinds of things. Look at the number line - the numbers are ordered. It's only when you place them on a number line and introduce distance to visualize them, that now the numbers are extended. Time is like that - it's like placing events on the number line. But you see how for the sequence itself you don't need any extension. Christians usually believe that from God's perspective everything happens in one eternal moment.
I think from the theory of relativity time is part of space time. Both are movements, when you stand still, only time passes, when you move, less time passes, as part of the space-time movement happened in space and thus less time. The passing of time is nothing but movement. Time is not the background in which events happen, time is movement itself. There is no objective time outside of movement. So only from the perspective within the universe - from the perspective of a particular point in space-time, did time pass since the big bang. But there is no relative position, and thus no time for the entire universe. But I don't think that sequence or order of events is compromised in any way. I think from the perspective of a photon no time passes at all from its being emitted from the source and its contact with the eye. Still being emitted happened sequentially prior to it reaching the eye - thus no time passed, but sequence is preserved.
@@cristianguerra1617 If you want a quick and dirty example, God exists outside of time.
If you mean the actual philosophy, not all sequences are chronological. For example, alphabetization. If Bob enters a room, then Carol enters a room, and finally Alice enters a room, the chronological sequence is BCA, (some arguments would also make ACB chronological,) but the alphabetical sequence is ABC. Both of those sequences are true, but one requires time and space while the other doesn't. You could also have some purely spatial sequences that are independent of time; a reasonable analogy is a family portrait. Alice and Bob's children Carol and Dan stand with them in their family portrait; the contents of the family portrait don't involve time, but there is still a spatial sequence of the parents and children spanning the picture frame. That sequence is spatial, but not chronological, and probably not alphabetical. There are ways to sequence things that are independent from time.
The comment that the concept of a beginning requires ordinality and sequence, but not time, is discussing this. It's not commenting on our universe specifically, which is understood to include time, so the beginning of the universe regards time, but a more generic idea of beginning doesn't. That's what I believe Cromi is saying.
@@461weavile Time is within the universe, like space. Thus, the creation of the universe was not temporarily before the events of today, but it was sequentially before them. No time passes from a perspective outside of the universe. The passing of time happens only to objects within the universe as they move relative to each other.
@@cromi4194
THE ONTOLOGY OF TIME:
One of the most misunderstood aspects of this space-time universe is just that - space and TIME. There are various extant theories of time. However, time is a very simple concept to grasp for one who has experienced his or her own timeless nature. This usually occurs during a deep meditation practice, or during an awakening experience (see Chapter 17 to understand the notion of spiritual awakening). Possibly the easiest way to understand time, is to use the analogy of a movie. It may take a couple hours to watch a motion picture, yet the whole film is contained in the form of a single digital file (or in the case of older media, a reel of photographic film). The story of this universe may take hundreds of billions of earth years to complete, but from the perspective of eternity (literally, “no time”) it is not even as long as the blink of an eyelid. Indeed, it cannot be measured at all, for to measure a period of time requires a time-based metric! To use movie industry jargon, the story of this cosmos is already “in the can” (i.e. in the canister of film). This so-called “block theory” of time (otherwise known as “eternalism”) is often contrasted with philosophical presentism, in which the present moment alone exists. In practical terms, time is the perception of a succession of physical or mental events (that is to say, time corresponds to phenomenal change). So, to succinctly summarize the philosophy of time, from the viewpoint of The Absolute, all time is contained within a pinpoint of eternity, yet from the perspective of conscious agents, there are no wholly past or merely future entities whatsoever. Read Chapters 08 & 11 to learn of causality and predestination.
My Good brother, you are clearly a blessed man. Thank you for this video and the information you shared in it. However, there are a few things that you are off about.
First is the imagination thing. It is our primary command to use our imagination to think of those glorious mysteries. Every mystery is supposed to be thought upon and contemplated. That's meant to help us grow in spirituality.
The next thing is that we don't pray 150 beads. Just 50 a day is all that is needed.
Hilbert's hotel isn't a contradiction. It's merely a demonstration of why the arithmetic we use breaks down when talking about infinites. Simply put, infinity minus infinity is indeterminate - you could take the relative complement of two infinite sets and, depending on what the sets had in common, end up with a set of any size. This isn't a contradiction because there's nothing that logically guarantees subtraction has to work the way you expect with infinites.
Yeah good point. Im still studying mathematics in college, I have abandoned the kalam argument for years, I like other arguments like the argument from motion, although this whole existential inertia thing is super confusing.
You spoke about Hilbert's hotel, what do you think of the paper passer example? it is a bit different.
Aquinas Based agreed, I think the existence of God follows from reason whether time is infinite or not. The distinction is in per se ordered causality vs per accidens ordered causality, the classical theism podcast has some good eps on that.
The paper passer argument is a bit more convincing, but Jimmy Akin did a good rebuttal of it. Basically the paper can't be blank but just had some random thing written on it from all infinite past.
What is your point? Hilbert Hotel is not a mathematical contradiction (the sort you’d find in proofs by contradiction), but it demonstrates how infinite sets lead to contradictions when you try to apply their behavior to the physical world, which is what Trent is arguing here. He doesn’t even say much about the hotel, its mention is just a point about the impossibility of an infinite past.
@michaelsokolnicki7028 none of that is a contradiction. If Bob could be in the hotel and not in the hotel at the same time, that would be a contradiction, but that's not a contradiction the Hilbert hotel would lead to.
There is simply no reason why you would expect to take a countably infinite number of people from a countably infinite number of people and get a determinate number of people left over. You can't use simple subtraction to calculate that. You have to know who was taken and who was left. There's nothing contradictory about that.
Just with regards to the moral argument, how would you go about demonstrating 'Objective moral values and duties do exist'?
Yup
(They can’t)
Feelings basically
You need a proof for human feelings? @Unclenate1000
Trent, the Summa Theologica proofs are not notes. They are formal demonstrations. They stand or fall as presented. It is Feser who is sloppy and in error.
Agreed. Feser is in grave error and is sloppier than a trough of pig food.
The summa theologica is not aquinas going deep into the argument, he assumes the reader is aware of certain background metaphysics. Aquinas, however treats without assuming the reader is aware in summa contra gentiles. Furthermore, there are different interpretations of aquinas arguments in Summa Theologica, given by different thomists.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clear seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Creation proclaims the glory, majesty, power and Divine nature of the Creator, Romans 1:20
That 'proves' nothing useful
It's really kinda sad how people like Trent keep using the same weak arguments over and over again, hoping they mean something. They all have the same basic weakness, which he admits in the first few minutes of his talk: they cannot be verified. What good, I ask you is a theory that cannot be verified? Take Plantinga's philosophy, based on "properly basic beliefs" requiring no proof. Seriously? Or the model argument, which depends entirely on the definition of "maximal greatness" which is impossible to define. But that's OK because the concepts of "definitions" and "verification" are just silly. Hard to take any of this seriously, Trent.
Why is the moral argument still being held in high regard?
It still just boils down to i FEEL like theres a right and wrong and i FEEL like humans are special, therefore god.
You need a proof for human feelings?
@ no. Actual reliable proof thats not simply human feelings
You ain't a real OG if you never used 3.5 inch floppy disk hahahaha
I’ve used 8-inch and 5 1/4-inch too… but I’m old
@@markiangooley 8 inch? Wow, I've been using computers since I was a kid in the 80s, never even heard of 8 inch. (You _must_ be old hehe)
Nah, merely using them isn't enough. You have to have copied games across multiple floppies to merit OG status.
@danieltemelkovski9828 doom and or wolfenstein right hahaha
Only 3 minutes in and Jay is right fuckin to it today. Love to see it. Lfg
Intercontinental ballistic Joe Schmid is currently inbound
Joseph is a leftist stooge.
Trent: *breathes
Joe Schmid: one rebuttal coming right up.
@@FilipinaVeganayou are joe’s alt account.
Joe is smart but I think his fanboys overestimate him
@@newglof9558I would largely agree. I think he’s a cool guy though.
TAG is my favorite
Booo
TAG is essentially a fallacious argument with no value whatsoever. That's assuming you can even form an argument which many presuppers can't or won't simply because it's a form of rhetoric to try to "shut the mouths of unbelievers".
@@francisa4636 If youre slow you can just say so
@@Bluedream144 Projecting your own inadequacies isn't much of a response
@@francisa4636 Replying "youre projecting" is really the truest form of projection there is
The universe can't be infinitely old because something infinitely old can't get any older. The universe gets older. Therefore the universe must be a finite age.
That's not really true from the perspective of limits. If y=x+1 then y>x for all x in R. Even as x approaches infinity, y is a greater infinite
@@sivad1025 I think the language of infinity is wrong. Infinity must mean infinity. There can be no limit to infinity therefore you cannot have an infinite past because that's limiting infinity to past time, but infinite time must contain all possible time past present and future.
@brendanbutler1238 Infinity is by definition an unbounded limit. Infinity is not an element of any number set since it's not a number itself.
Your language is backwards here. An infinite past would be a past without a limit to its length. But a number without a limit can still increase, it just increases without limit
@@sivad1025 There cannot be an unbounded limit, that's self contradictory. Infinity is unbounded, and has no limits.
I agree infinity is not any number, because all numbers are necessarily finite.
But then you say, a number without a limit can still increase ? But you just said infinity is not an element of any number set, so there cannot be a number without a limit, ie infinite.
This is what I mean when I said infinity is infinity. You can't keep changing its meaning. One moment it has no boundaries and then it has a boundary that can be added to ?
The universe is passing through boundaries, it is changing, therefore it cannot be infinite in time or in any other way.
@@brendanbutler1238you haven't demonstrated a contradiction here. It's hard to get your head around but essentially we just do maths differently with infinite numbers. The other poster hasn't changed the meaning of an infinite, just describing how it operates.
Last argument is in a way connected to the fine tunning argument.
Which of course doesn’t work as because god wouldn’t have to fine tune anything because if a all powerful god wants something he will just do it
No need to adhere to any fine tuning
How is that prove God exists ?
@vibetech89
Well, what standard of proof are you seeking to “prove” about God? :)
I go with the most plausible explanation for my beliefs. For, I can’t have 100% certainty on anything, so I don’t ask for it. Otherwise, I’d have to empirically verify all my wife’s actions to love her and I hope we’d both agree requesting my wife “prove” she loves me is a toxic mindset for a marriage. :P
@@FuddlyDud What is highest standard of proof you have ?
@@vibetech89
Highest standard for what? Beliefs, habits, criminal Justice? :P
For, the burden changes per the issue. This is why in criminal cases, the burden is beyond reasonable doubt because the risk of punishing an innocent person ought be mitigated as much as possible (even if some guilty people get off as not guilty). However, in civil cases, the burden is only a preponderance of the evidence since the risk of punishing the innocent is much lower. :)
So, for beliefs, I rather go with what is the most plausible explanation given the totality of circumstances.
Since I answered your question, would you be up for answering the one I asked you for your standard of proof on God? :)
@@FuddlyDud Wait.Why are you red herring the topic it is about God are you a Christian ?
Regarding the infinite, does the argument that denies an infinite future matter if our infinite existence is outside of this time? If God exists outside of time and the past, present, and future exist at once for Him, then the promise of an infinite future could really just have been a reference to an existence with Him with no restriction of Time? It also would support how the death of Christ on the cross paid for the sins of those already dead as Christ's sacrifice can apply to Past, Present, and future all at once since they exist simultaneously for God.
The new earth is created and thus has time
But it's not an issue since the contradictions happen within actualized infinites not potential infinites. The future infinite is never actualized so it never leads to contradiction
Man, it's like Catholics stopped reading in the 14th century. Still can't get over Aquinas. (I say this as a friend.)
Did you watch the video? :/
Trent’s opening is about a Protestant philosopher from the 20th century and gushing over his impact. Seems like Catholics are beyond the 14th century to me. :)
Yes, we still read Aquinas. We also read all of the authors before and after him, as Trent shows by referencing a number of 20th and 21st century books. Try watching the video again with a somewhat more open mind.
@@topogigio6490 Yes, this was not my most brilliant comment ever. My real point of contention is how can Catholics still be so enamored of the argument from motion, as though it were a profoundly sophisticated and compelling argument. It is formally no different from an indigenous person's argument that the world is held up by a giant elephant, which is in turn sustained by a giant turtle, which is in turn sustained by some other mythical animal. That Catholics continue to find this sort of argument compelling, as opposed to, e.g., QED, is astounding to me. Apologies, but Trent lost my attention when he went on for more than 30 seconds about the argument from motion. Life's too short.
@@bens4446
"...Apologies, but Trent lost my attention when he went on for more than 30 seconds about the argument from motion. Life's too short."
You spent more time justifying your position than said 30 seconds you spent giving Trent a chance when you know he goes into multiple different types of argumentation.
Why not skip said argument, which is conveniently marked in YT chapters, and go from there? Why dismiss an entire series of introductory arguments over 1 you find unpersuasive?
I don't get your logic here. :/
@@bens4446I see that you’ve read (or listened to) Bertrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian.”
You are correct- these arguments are remarkably similar. Does that point to a flaw in the indigenous argument, though? Is there a reason why indigenous people cannot form good arguments? Perhaps our shared understanding of the need for a universal cause is, in fact, indicative of truth (great minds think alike, hmm?).
That said, the only real problem with the indigenous argument is that they deal with animals, a posteriori items that we observe in the world. It is a little bit silly to imagine such items as the primary forms upon which all other things of the universe rest. The Christian conception of God, however, is no turtle or mythical animal- God is, rather, the source of everything, and we don’t try to paint an actual physical picture of a bodily form.
Jalapeño poppers? Crud I’m hungry.
read the forbidden book Magnetic Aura on Borlest, and you'll see the secrets they're keeping from us.
What
(((They)))
Who is “they”
@@sheylamercado9801(((they)))
Manifestation nonsense and spam. Christians should disregard
How are any of these new?
If God is defined as a personal, conscious being, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and who is solely responsible for designing and creating literally _everything_ that exists (other than himself), then I think that God should have the unrestrained power and knowledge to convince everyone of his existence, all on his own. The fact that theists are still trying to argue on behalf of their supposedly all powerful deity, rather than God just showing up and plainly demonstrating his own existence, is exactly what you’d expect to see if God’s existence is conceptual, rather than actual.
That’s correct, God does have the power to do this if he ever wants to. What’s your point?
Well said my friend. Have you noticed that for being an omnipotent being god is quiet incapable of raising money, constructing churches or spreading his own word! When you think about god is impotent in this regard!
@@TboneWTF it’s not well said at all. Much like your comment, it’s just pseudo-intellectualism.
@@n1njachikin "it’s not well said at all" Of course it is and I can say the same thing about your comment. the only difference is I raise credible concerns about your faith which you can not answer. Or can you? (I bet you can't. And won't! Or both, right?) Good luck my friend.
@@n1njachikin I made my point. I said that human beings doing “God’s work” for him is exactly what you’d expect to see, if God himself is conceptual rather than actual. Of course, theists have a plethora of excuses for why their all powerful God who supposedly wants to have personal relationships with us is also so hidden from us, but they’re just excuses nonetheless.
God exists and now do all this.
You can't argue something into existence.
It’s good that he’s not arguing God into existence and is arguing for Gods existence
My reaction to your comment was the same as your profile picture: 🤦♂️
Arguing for the existence of something is not the same as arguing something into existence
if you have such an issue with logical argument from simple premises like "nothing causes itself", why do you accept maths? Maths is a disciplines where we discover previously unknown truths from simple premises.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription Because mathematics does not posit the existence of something and then set out to find it. It starts from axioms and then arrives at conclusions based on those axioms. By trying to prove the existence of God, you are starting from your conclusion (motivated by religious doctrine, which is hardly consistent) and then trying to construct arguments to arrive at a particular conclusion. And if your argument turns out to be logically fallacious, you invent new arguments that further obfuscate the problems.
What about the banana argument? 😜
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
the video has low resolution...is there a list somewhere here of the books shown at near the end. Just in case i have Money.😁 Trent ?
The logos of gospel of John is it same as the Greek logos. Explain what is logos of God. Philosophical kind or extreme mystical beliefs day like the Kabbalah.
WLC’s argument does not disprove a future eternity. His entire point is that the future infinite is not really an infinite since it’s simply a continuous succession of days. You never reach the endpoint, so there’s always a finite set. Unlike the past, which would represent an actual infinity and is incomprehensible outside of math paradoxes.
Is god an actual infinite?
@@21stcenturyrambo16 no
Yooo Billy Junker is my professor!
❤
The present is derivative from the past in a way that the future is not. For instance, it's a fact about me right now that I have a certain number of grandfathers, who had certain names and so forth. It's also the case that things in the past are facts "written in stone" and cannot be changed, whereas the future is yet to be determined because they will result from things that have not happened yet. Causes and effects may be accidentally ordered in time, but the state of affairs at each moment in time nevertheless depends on and is derivative from the states of affairs at every moment in time preceding it.
It's also the case that given any moment in time, there will never be a time in the future at which that moment will be infinitely far in the past.
Yet, if the universe is infinitely old, that means that states of affairs now derive from and are in fact dependent upon states of affairs at moments infinitely far in the past.
But since you can never get infinitely far away in time from any real moment, the idea of a moment infinitely far in the past does not appear to be an intelligible concept. An infinitely old moment does not seem to refer to the same thing that we are talking about when we refer to moments in time, since you cannot get infinitely far from moments in time. It would seem that the idea of an infinitely old moment must necessarily be referring to a cause OUTSIDE of time, if indeed it refers to anything intelligible at all.
Pretty sure ive heard every single one of these before
The whole point is that it’s just updated versions of the old ones
If your conclusion is that the future is finite, I don't think it's that big of a problem. We don't know that the New Jerusalem, New Heavens, and New Earth will be in this universe. We don't know if causation will work the same way. We don't know the nature of what time will be like.
Are arguments the same are proofs??
Philosophically, yes, if they can't be refuted
(1)Fine tuning argument Min 30:20 ish...
(2) You could argue alot of things are improbable
(3) How just because they are improbable does not mean they do not happen
(4) Meta AI calculated the probability of rolling all 6s with 100 dice
(5) Any set to be honest
(6) Here are the numbers
(7) When rolling 100 dice, each possible outcome has the same probability, which is:
1 / 6485183463413514231596672000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
This is because each die has 6 possible outcomes, and when rolling 100 dice, the total number of possible outcomes is 6^100, which equals the enormous number mentioned earlier.
Since each outcome is equally likely, the probability of getting any specific combination of numbers on the 100 dice is the same. This is known as a uniform probability distribution.
For example, the probability of getting 100 sixes is the same as getting 50 sixes and 50 ones, or any other specific combination of numbers. Each outcome has the same incredibly small probability, but they are all equal.
Brings a new meaning to yahtzee in human perception.
(8) The argument that a universe without a hyper dimensional deity seems difficult
(9) However just because it difficult to conceive of... because of probability does not its incorrect
(10) That not to say there is not a deity
(11) But I think its an incorrect argument.
So if you were playing a game or dice with a friend and he rolled a 6 100 times in a row, would you suspect him of cheating, or would you say “that the likelihood of that happening is the same as any other outcome”?
@@Deuterocomical
(1) I might suspect a human being cheated
(2) But not if I was their with them... Or viewed it on camera
(3) However we do not know how long time has been around
(4) I'm not talking the observable universe
(5) I'm not talking the matter you an I know of as elements
(6) But virtual time as a concept.
(7) Prototype universes might have had a Google amount of universes...
(8) Before it got to our universe...
(9) As I said not ruling out a deity... But the argument.
@@Deuterocomical We would say "there is statistically significant evidence against the null hypothesis (α=0.95)" /j
Do we see evidence of the universe resetting itself with different variables?
Multi-verse doesn't make sense as it would imply infinity and therefore not a strong foundation for an argument
@@caffeinatedhuman4035math isn’t possible without God. Your presuppositions shouldn’t be granted for your argument when they’re unjustifiable
Joe Schmid 10 million word response is up
But don’t you know? Nothing is new under the sun!
😂
You're looking in decent shape rn. Just jumped out at me. New workout regiment, Trent?
*Regimen*
(Sorry, pet peeve. Or maybe I need to get a life...)
The past is finite because the past is inside of the Universe. The future can be infinite because it will be outside of time itself.
This video references William Lane Craig, who holds heterodox ideas-including a big bang cosmology of an initial singularity. Why does this video mention William Lane Craig without a warning about his heterodoxy and “mythology”?
1. Big bang is not heterodox because it has nothing to do with faith. Science is not Faith and faith is not science. It’s a scientific discovery. In fact it proves the universe came from nothing. Which is what is divinely revealed.
2. Take the Good. Discard the bad. Just because Craig has heterodox ideas regarding certain aspects of the faith, does not mean we shouldn’t take the good from him.
👍
Locomotive example falls off the rails if you don't consider them.
Awesome
Pax Christi
Even if you accept that there must be a locomotive instead of unlimited line of cars (because your brain can't comprehend infinites) there's no reason why that locomotive should be intelligent or timeless.
It's not a matter of comprehension, an infinite row of cars can't move itself period.
As for the attributes of God, that's another argument, so if you're going there, can we assume you've ceded the point that He at least must exist?
@@GeneralSeptem I quoted your salient points to answer them. If I missed something let me know
" an infinite row of cars can't move itself period."
That's the limitation of the analogy but not of the chain of actualities that we are trying to model. A better analogy would be a row of dominoes where each domino is pushed by a preceding one and will push the next one. The argument is that you cannot have an infinite row of dominoes (I don't see why not), that there must have been a first one, and that it must have been pushed by God. Even if we agree that there was a first domino, all we can say is that it fell.
"As for the attributes of God, that's another argument, so if you're going there, can we assume you've ceded the point that He at least must exist?"
It's the attributes, and not the label that make God, God. If we assume your argument then all we can say is that everything started somehow.
@@hamobu”even if we agree there was a first domino, all we can say is that it fell.” Okay and what caused it to fall? Nothing? Or something?
@@mattdaraitis4253 We don't know what caused the first domino to fall, if anything.
@@hamobu well here’s what we can know from reason alone, is unless something caused the domino to fall, it’s natural state would be to stand unmoved, and here your critique has reached the intellectual bedrock.
Isn't the argument from motion literally just the cosmological argument? Am I going crazy here?
Similar.
Actually, they're kind of opposites since the motion argument doesn't assume a finite past and the cosmological argument doesn't assume the nature of motion
I'm not a fan of the motion argument since it presupposes that the universal forces are naturally constant and it doesn't address the infinite past
The cosmological argument says ignore motion, existence itself had a starting point which indicates a non-contingent creator
Comment for traction
Hi Trent and team, on this subject, i would highly recommend the book Science Before Science by the world-renowned physicist Dr. Anthony Rizzi yo reall ground these ideas.
Do you need to be Baptized in water to go to heaven
Who is Borlest and why did Trent's comment section get blasted by his devotees?
I can't say for certain, but my guess is that they're bots advertising the book, or something along those lines.
The argument from motion fails because it results in modal collapse.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but thats only if you presuppose libertarian free will.
Is God coming back to life? That would be resurrection. God bless.
I think I got it down. When Jenny Craig and Grim Reaper Sly Stallone go into Gilbert's motel..This will cause a pair of ducks. The couple then will go into an infinite depression ( oh that's sad)
Don't worry Trent I will tell everyone you taught me this FILOFOSSICAL AGUMENT.
What is blud yapping about
If you’re a reasonable person you would agree that you cannot prove God’s existence and I can’t disprove it. God requires a belief, while everything we currently know about the world, does not require any miracles or creator. So far 0 scientific evidence points to a God. Be reasonable…
If you believingly say that God is the creator of reality while simultaneously being real then that is a contradiction itself because how can you be both real while creating reality as whole. Reality is all that is real so if you say God is real then he cannot exist prior to reality to create it as he is a part of it.
Here goes a question what if reality just simply is with no beginning or end?
Boost
Catholic miles teller
Dear Trent, I appreciate your apologetics work but please consider this out of Catholic Christian Charity. Dr Sungenis has sent you information on his side of the argument of several issues, he also is a fellow apologist. Would you not want to at the very least reply to him or better yet why not have him on your channel to debate him. By just avoiding any contact with him after he has taken the time and energy to share his opinions with you, do you think that is right? as a Catholic? as a Christian?...hey just asking!
Your deity is from the bronze and iron age, developed from more ancient deities. Mankind existed millions of years without the idea of an all seeing but invisible being in the clouds. Develop your humanism instead, the world is moving forward!