ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 พ.ค. 2020
- A recent New York Times story claimed to reveal "Why the Big Bang Produced Something Rather Than Nothing." Bishop Barron and Brandon Vogt discuss the article and whether science is capable of answering this classic philosophical question.
A listener asks about the fear of God, and whether it's appropriate since God is all loving.
NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a patron and get some great perks for helping, like free books, bonus content, and more. Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners…like you! So be part of this mission, and join us today: / bishopbarron
---EPISODE LINKS---
"Why the Big Bang Produced Something Rather Than Nothing": nyti.ms/3fmyQiL
Word on Fire Bible: wordonfire.org...
---WATCH---
Subscribe to this Channel: bit.ly/31LV1sn
Word on Fire Institute Channel: bit.ly/2voBZMD
Word on Fire en Español Channel: bit.ly/2uFowjl
---WORD ON FIRE---
Word on Fire: www.wordonfire...
Word on Fire Institute: wordonfire.ins...
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): dailycatholicg...
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Bishop Barron Instagram: bit.ly/2Sn2XgD
Bishop Barron Facebook: bit.ly/2Sltef5
Bishop Barron Twitter: bit.ly/2Hkz6yQ
Word on Fire Instagram: bit.ly/39sGNyZ
Word on Fire Facebook: bit.ly/2HmpPpW
Word on Fire Twitter: bit.ly/2UKO49h
Word on Fire en Español Instagram: bit.ly/38mqofD
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: bit.ly/2SlthaL
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: bit.ly/38n3VPt
---SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE---
Donate: www.wordonfire...
Word on Fire Store: store.wordonfi...
Pray: bit.ly/2vqU7Ft
Bishop Barron is on fire in this video. I think if every clergy (protestant or catholic) had this level of knowledge and ability to communicate and interact with reality, churches would be gaining members and holding on to the ones that already attend. As a protestant, I could listen to him all day. Keep up the good work Bishop.
I would love to see word on fire do a complete church history series
That would be very amazing!!!
Isnt that what they started out with?
I would love to see a series on each book of the bible
I agree. I am Protestant, and I would watch that. They should do something along the lines of what they did with the "Catholicism" series a number of years back. I guess that would be a pretty mammoth undertaking, but I still think it would be worthwhile.
@@Henry._Jones I pray that you return to the Church brother
Bishop Barron is an example of what we all should be doing: reading good books before our eyesight fails. Perhaps if we were as well read as he is, we would be less prone to accepting much of the nonsense pretending to be intelligent. Too often, we take the easy path and form our opinions without doing any research on our points of view, much less opposing points of view. In ignorance, not knowing that we do not know, we think we know, and remain content not to know anything new.
If u talking about the bible than i am sorry u are just wrong
Simon Kravitz
It isn’t a matter of being wrong at all, merely that its treasures remain inaccessible to the untutored, who then dismiss what they are unable to understand.
@@normaodenthal8009 I am not dismissing it cause I don't understand it needs to be shown to be important(I am talking about the bible )
I want to drink beers with these guys for many reasons. 1) some of their intelligence may rub off onto me; 2) I would look smart just by associating with them (since I'm a contingent being) 3) I like the taste of beer.
I agree. Bishop Barron is one of the most cogent thinkers in our time and has an excellent vocabulary to express abstract concepts in thoughtful ways. A masterful example is: "The collapsing of all the epistemic areas into the scientific is one of the negative marks of our time".
You see Bill, even Bishop Barron like you, bears God's likeness... You both have the same potential to become smarter and good at reasoning. The most important thing is to put Christ at the core of Our life and as a consequence, desire for knowledge will flow out of it. Since when I became more steady in my faith, I've been surprised of How Holy Spirit can inspire amazing reflections and insight that I could not possibly conceive if I were to stuck in worldly desires. Pray and hit the books. Stay blessed my brother
@@kevinomahony4139 Yes, and I had to look up the word "epistemic" to figure out what he meant! :D "Epistemic" means "of or relating to knowledge." Epistemology is "the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge."
What Bp. Barron is saying is that it's a mistake to think that scientific knowledge is the only valid kind of knowledge. That belief is called "scientism."
Three excellent reasons!
@@clarewalker245 ahahaahah I had to look that up too
Right on, love to hear bishop barron commenting on this question. For me it stands out as something that demands a response yet defies contender answers
I recommend these three books: ‘How Reason can lead to God’ - Joshua Rasmussen, ‘Five Proofs of the Existence of God’ - Edward Feser, and ‘The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss’ - David Bentley Hart.
Two philosophers and one philosopher-theologian arguing for the transcendent source of all reality: the invisible, infinitely knowable, sheer act-of-being itself. Not a “man in the sky” but the perfect unity of being, consciousness, and bliss (Hypostases in Greek, translated as personae in Latin, but that’s already slippery language).
If you’re willing to pursue capital-T Truth to where it leads you then you have nothing to fear by reading theology and philosophy of religion. At the very least it can sharpen your critique of the God you seem to think Christians believe in.
@@JamesRichardWiley You're the perfect target for these three books. Read this article as well: www.firstthings.com/article/2013/06/god-gods-and-fairies?fbclid=IwAR3AgBxwiG8WiIM6RdOVjPy70frA9TpDhH0DJK2zEgxKNATSjB8TecETZ7M
And for those who suggest that only theologians give arguments like this: Thomas Nagel (atheist NYU philosopher) argues that physics can't explain consciousness, and David Albert (atheist Columbia philosopher) thinks that atheists who claim they universe came from nothing (or created itself) are hopelessly wrong.
Thanks
Fr Barron, do you ever sleep? That is a LOT of books that you mentioned you are currently reading (^_^) Not to mention also, you wrote a LOT of books and still writing more!!! We are so blessed to have you! Pls don't stop igniting in us the WORD on Fire!!! God bless you and the whole world!
Damn bishop Barron is a smart dude
We should accept the inspiration from Bishop Barron and the Word on Fire ministry to educate ourselves to better engage our brothers and sisters in truth
Thank You to God! Thank You Mommy Mary! God bless all! God loves us! Ever 😇😇😇
Not to take away from anything Bishop Barron said, it is interesting to note the original phrase translated as "fear of God", which is the Hebrew word Yir'a (יראה). It means, as the Bishop said, foremost reverence rather then fear. To drive this point home, the KJV uses the word fear in Leviticus 19:3 which reads: “Ye shall fear [Yir'a/יראה] every man his mother, and his father."
We just spent the past few months having a prolonged discussion on this, using Jim Holt's book as a guide. Looking forward to the video.
This is by far the best argument for the existence of God yet the simplest.
@@JamesRichardWiley The harm in that is it is idolatry. The Aztecs worhipped the sun. It made it's appearance everyday, clockwork, for everyone to see. Exactly what you are demanding.
@@JamesRichardWiley Because living freely means finding your own way
Bishop Barron you are amazing !
For anyone wanting to understand Thomistic metaphysics I would recommend 'Scholastic Metaphysics' by Edward Fesser.
Who are *you*, precisely? Is what you call “I” reducible to your body? Most of the great religious traditions (along with many philosophers and neuroscientists) hold that consciousness is not reducible to an emergent property of matter. To make your argument persuasive you better damn well deal with the question of consciousness. I’d suggest looking at some of the interviews Robert Lawrence Kuhn has conducted with both Atheist scientists/philosophers and Religious scientists/philosophers for Closer to Truth.
The claim that gods are merely projections of human thinking can easily be traced back to guys like Feuerbach and later Freud. Bishop Barron has dealt with it in prior videos. That said, a key insight of mystics and contemplatives (coming from apophatic prayer and theology) is that God, properly speaking, is beyond mere concepts. Language points to a transcendent reality that goes beyond the grasp of human intellect. That doesn’t make God any less real but truly supernatural (beyond nature). To say that God is transcendent means that God is as much beyond Nature as in it; God contains and penetrates all things.
@@JamesRichardWiley Well one doesn't have to accept what the book says but in my opinion it is very useful when it comes to Bishop Barron since he is a Thomist.
That is probably not people who can speak for quantity {all science}, but the opinions of some scientists who are overstepping their ‘property rights’, out standing in their field. They seem to want to make the general public believe that They are the vendors of truth in science while tossing out peer review ‘under the table’ since mostly the general public doesn’t know about peer review or whatever a scientist has to be responsible to in order to be a credible scientist.
Bishop showing he remembers his Heidegger courses....
Rockinghorse Winner one ☝️ point for you for spelling that correctly lololol
Are you an artist? 🖼
I really enjoyed this conversation as an unaffiliated person. I think you paid proper respect to science, which it deserves for what it does, and to philosophy for what it does. Not only have we experienced a collapse of philosophy, but also, therefore, a divide between two sides of the same coin of thinking, which is science and faith, or the material and the immaterial. Religion, I feel, is a subset of philosophy, as is science. I also feel that this question of why there is something rather than nothing is at the very heart of religion in the first place, a priori, because this relatively simple question points directly at a creator of some sort. It wouldn't surprise me if humans and pre-humans were asking this question hundreds of thousands of years ago. It's not a difficult question to ask, but it appears impossible to answer, and there's a certain simultaneous joy and pain involved in that.
I have to say that once the question was asked in the video about the Christian stance, the answer fell apart. And understandably so. Christianity, it seems, has its own "big bang" in God, and has, therefore, its own specific challenge and dilemma, practically identical to the one in physics, to answer, "Why God?" I was expecting something a little more profound from the bishop after presenting his thorough knowledge of other historical views on creation, but he seemed to get ensnared in the same sort of dogmatic and arrogant gobbledygook that physicists display when asked the question. It could be, perhaps, that Christians, like physicists, are also not the people who should be answering that question. Are Christians metaphysicists? Can they, or should they, bear the weight of that question? Or should it be left, as the Bishop implies, to the pure philosophers?
All that said, I really appreciate people of faith being able to talk about this kind of subject in a logical manner that doesn't disrespect other modes of belief that are just as important. Thank you.
We can say that science is the product of man and man is created by God and for God.
Thanks much for this video..
If scientists can see or show science, we can see and show God.
Something came out of nothing because God is called the Creator.
One of my earliest memories is of me looking out the window at a tree and wondering why it exists, ultimately leading me to wonder why anything exists. As a lifelong atheist I had hope in Krauss' book, but it certainly fell short. It removes things like space-time as something that needs explaining, but it doesn't remove existence itself. I've never found a satisfying answer, and I'm inclined to believe no true answer will ever be satisfying to a human brain, if the concept of answering that question is even coherent.
I will also say that positing God as the prime mover doesn't do any better, because God's existence needs explanation at least as much as the universe does. And if you say that God just doesn't need a cause, why can't we say that about the universe?
Because everything in the Universe changes and has no means of making itself exist. Matter and energy can be created or destroyed, even if they could, what is it that upholds any order to the forces of nature at all. God does not need an explanation as He is Being, in other words, what it means to exist, that is also God's very essence. Creatures are but thoughts of, within, and upon the Divine Mind. All things take their nature and form because that is how God says they are so, like an author says of the characters and things in their story. Think about how mathematics is the basis for defining the behavior of physical systems, yet these mathematical laws are neither beholden to physical processes nor do they possess any means to make physical things, they are descriptive, something else applies both of these. Mathematical objects exist within a mind alone, so if Mathematical forms govern the expression of physical systems, it must be from a mind external to these systems. I hope that can provide you with a bit of food for thought and reflection.
God bless you. Amen.
@@Internetshadow0000 I hear all that, I just don't get why you need to propose a God as the uncaused mover rather than the universe itself. The universe itself is not something within the universe, so the normal laws of physics need not necessarily apply to it as a whole.
@@BrendanBeckett There is a hypothesis, I think with good reasoning behind it, that the total energy balance of the universe is zero. In other words, the universe consists of nothing. So asking the question why is there something rather than nothing, might actually be asking an incorrect question.
Your reasoning here is incorrect: from the fact, if it is one, that the total energy of the universe is zero we can deduce that there is a universe with total energy of zero, that is, that there is a universe, therefore something exists. As someone remarked, when you dig a hole the fact that the hole and the pile of soil match, doesn't negate the existence of the hole, the pile and the act of digging. Ditto with a 'balanced' universe, a quite different concept from a non-existent one.
Wonderfully articulate and useful distinctions. Isn't this something Pirsig tried to puzzle out in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle...?"
wise direction, Thanks Bishop
How would one respond to the question, "Why can God just exist without a cause, but the universe must be dependent on some other cause? Why is it unsatisfactory to say that the universe just is when we as Christians can say that God just is?" This is a question I struggle with when discussing the origin of the universe with people.
A excellent question...God is a sort of Christian axiom. I suppose we do have a direct experience of many cause/effect models. I don't think a scientist can give me a nothing to something experiment. However , like you I cannot ''understand'' an ''uncaused cause''....so I have faith in God as , at least , being more in line with my human experiences...but beyond me !
Ok Let me try. I will start by saying this let's put God aside for a moment and stick with the idea that the universe doesn't have to exist but it does. Therefore there must be a cause for it. There is the universe rather than nothing and to just accept the universe is just there doesn't answer the question of why it must exist rather it not. Therefore there must be some external cause that is outside of that of the universe. And because the there can't be an infinite number of causes for the universe it doesn't answer the question aswell it just postpones it. Now since that is the case the universe must have a cause and that cause if contingent must also have a cause and so on and forth. But again it can run indefinitely because it just postpones the question of it existing rather than not.Therefore it makes sense that it must start with a non -contingent cause. And that not contingent cause is what we Christians refer to as God.
"Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?"
Oh, that was me. I needed a place to store my stuff. But I over estimated and made the universe a lot larger than I needed it to be, so I don't mind sharing the space.
👏 slow clap to this accidental blob. Good job articulating!
Yes, yes, a category mistake and hubris, not to mention the fallacy of universal authority. Brandon, thank you for suggesting this universal authority fallacy when you said that 'scientists are associated with smart people,' who are likely smart beyond her/his field of study and practice. Though as a school psychologist I'm convinced about the cognitive-academic value of smartness/intelligence, I'm also aware of the considerable limits of smartness/intelligence in view of the science of expertise, as in "The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance," discussing that at least 10 years of practice/experience in a field is generally at a minimum required for expertise/maybe authority in a field. Yet even then as we all know are knowledge in a field like school psychology is quite limited and is affected adversely by hubris and the sociology of science, i.e., the temptation/sin of advocating what gets you popular. Thank you, Bishop Barron and Brandon for your ministries.
Bravo! And, IMO, this subject needs a video and a book in the Thomistic style that presents the strongest arguments, and more of the popular arguments, against the view presented by the Bishop.
Yaaaaasssss bring the philosophy padre
Really looking forward to this one! This is truly THE question. Could there have been nothing instead of something? Yes. Then that something is contingent. If something is contingent, then it cannot explain itself, i.e., it has an external cause. If by that something we mean all possible spatio-temporal extensional reality, then some other reality had to be its cause. Then that cause could be either some other contingent reality or some necessary reality. The former leads to an infinite regress and hence to serious explanatory inconsistencies. The latter leads to a reality that by virtue of it own necessity of being is inmaterial and eternal -as anything outside space-time must be-, limitless or rather extensionless in any possible dimension, simple and one. That necessary reality must also have some tremendous “causation skills” if it is to be considered a suitable candidate as an answer to THE WHY question that this video will discuss. Absolute, inmaterial, eternal, simple, one, all powerful... And from these attributes we are just a small step away from fully arguing our way through to someOne we might already know. Thank you, Bishop Barron. This is just a very poor attempt to restate what I learned from you and by following some of your reading suggestions. I hope it’s right! God bless you, Brandon and the whole team of the WoF ministry!
-"If something is contingent, then it cannot explain itself"
Unless it's a brute fact i.e. has no explanation. I feel like that possibility has to be ruled out and I just don't see how. It seems beyond our ability to convincingly reason about. The only people I know who aren't agnostic about that question seem to be religious people and theologians, which I think says a lot.
-"The former leads to an infinite regress and hence to serious explanatory inconsistencies."
That depends on your take of the matter. If you approach explanation and causation from a Humean perspective, this isn't really a problem.
@@samuelstephens6904 Samuel, because something is beyond our ability to completely comprehend, doesn't mean that it's beyond our ability to convincingly reason about. Hume's philosophy basically is to ignore the question of why there is something instead of nothing and say "It just is." Hume's approach is another way to illustrate the expression "Whistling past the graveyard." So, if someone chooses to ignore the question as their starting point, nothing to be done about that but the assumption dilutes their objectivity. Also, it seems quite a blanket statement to say that the only people who aren't agnostic about the question are theologians and religious people. Your statements don't indicate an agnostic position.
@espound
-"because something is beyond our ability to completely comprehend, doesn't mean that it's beyond our ability to convincingly reason about."
Sure, but the whole appeal of necessary explanatory entities is they are supposed comprehendible. If the move is going to be "well look, just because it isn't completely comprehendible doesn't mean we shouldn't accept it," then I am completely justified in defending brute facts and infinite regresses using the same line. You are taking the only virtue your account of things is supposed to have over the others and throwing it away by saying this.
The problem I have with theologians and religious types isn't that they are attempting to reason about these questions. It's the amount of confidence they place in the conclusions, conclusions which fortuitously affirm the high-stake beliefs they already hold. It seems like most other philosophers are open-minded about this sort of stuff. They take positions, but as an exercise in fully exploring where the arguments might take them. I don't think they would bet their house on it, much less their eternal souls.
-"Hume's philosophy basically is to ignore the question of why there is something instead of nothing and say 'It just is.'"
No. Hume's philosophy with respect to infinite regresses can be summarized as such: explaining the parts explains the whole. In his _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion,_ Hume (or Philo) says: *The WHOLE, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct counties into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular cause of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.* Now some people have a problem with this view, but to say Hume "ignored the question" is uncharitable.
-"Your statements don't indicate an agnostic position."
With respect to these big questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "Why are things they way they are and not some other way?" I'm not committed to any position on the matter. It's fun to think about, but I think reality is probably much stranger than we can imagine. I don't have a high degree of confidence in our ability to come to any conclusion, at least not yet.
@@samuelstephens6904 Thanks for your considered reply.
"They take positions, but as an exercise in fully exploring where the arguments might take them. I don't think they would bet their house on it, much less their eternal souls."
What good is that? Sure, brute facts and infinite regresses can be defended. Not sure of the use of that except to show that the defense is possible. To keep all options open all the time seems, ironically, to be an empty approach. People commit to marriage or work without knowing where it will take them or if the outcome is certain. It is not particularly useful to say I'm going to think about the usefulness and trade offs of marriage all my life or about working for a living and then maybe commit to it when I'm certain. Sure, the appeal of necessary explanatory entities is that they are comprehensible but that's not the way life works. That's not even a scientific approach since any hypothesis can only be rejected, it can't be claimed to be true for all time and space. Not sure how I'm throwing away the virtue of my approach by allowing for incomprehensibility when making a decision. The virtue of the approach, as I see it, is that it is completely reasonable, leads to the promise of a divine nature and gives meaning and purpose to life (which infinite regression and brute facts do not).
Also, the historical record provides validation, Christianity is about Jesus Christ who was both divine and human, walked the earth, died and was resurrected. Those are the claims and the historical record supports those claims. Now, you quite rightly will say the historical claims don't prove anything. No disagreement. However, it can not be reasonably denied that the record of the New Testament supports those claims or that the people who wrote the documents of the New Testament believed what they wrote. So, I ask the question of whether or not you believe the claims that Julius Caesar was an emperor of Rome or that he fought in the Gallic Wars? The earliest copies of documents about Julius Caesar are from 800 years after his death. The New Testament documents have far more existent copies than those describing Julius Caesar and copies that are much closer to the time of Jesus' ministry. One can't honestly dismiss the claims of the New Testament as forgeries or fakes. So, the common dismissal is that such claims of incarnation and divinity are impossible. This, of course, assumes that one knows the nature of God and what God can or can't do. As you say, "I think reality is probably much stranger than we can imagine." Yet, at the same time, you are denying strange and wonderful things. In Jesus Christ, God became man so that man could share in God's divinity. What could be more strange and wonderful than that?
Not trying to be uncharitable to Hume but to address the question of a first cause and dismiss it as not within the realm of discussion even though it remains a distinct possibility is a way to ignore the question. He explains the kingdom by its counties. Where did the counties come from? They, as are everything save one, are contingent on something.
@@espound
-"What good is that? Sure, brute facts and infinite regresses can be defended. Not sure of the use of that except to show that the defense is possible. To keep all options open all the time seems, ironically, to be an empty approach."
It's not the empty approach. It's a rational one. It's one that recognizes the epistemic limits of our ability to investigate and reason. Philosophers are open-minded about the "big questions" not only out of principle, but they are forced into it by the sheer insolubility of these issues, that over thousands of years of asking them has merely honed our ability to think and speculate, not conclusively provide answers. This is why 85% or something of philosophers today aren't standard theists. The conjunction of these very difficult questions, along with the set of answers classical theism requires, is just on its face highly improbable.
-"Sure, the appeal of necessary explanatory entities is that they are comprehensible but that's not the way life works. That's not even a scientific approach since any hypothesis can only be rejected, it can't be claimed to be true for all time and space. Not sure how I'm throwing away the virtue of my approach by allowing for incomprehensibility when making a decision."
I'm not sure you understand. The further we move away from questions that can be straightforwardly answered through empirical science, the more we have to rely on metatheoretical virtues. Occam's razor is a well-known example of such a virtue. The virtue of positing a necessary stopping point in the regress is that it keeps our explanatory intuitions intact. When generally don't come upon mysteries in our everyday lives and go "Oh, it's a brute fact. I've already found ten today." But when you say appealing to an ultimate explanatory entity isn't completely comprehendible, you are sort of not giving me (or yourself) a good reason to accept that conclusion over the other options. It seems the reasonable thing to do at that point is to be agnostic.
-"The virtue of the approach, as I see it, is that it is completely reasonable, leads to the promise of a divine nature and gives meaning and purpose to life (which infinite regression and brute facts do not)."
I have so many problems with this. The first is that you haven't made a case that it is completely reasonable. By your own admission, it isn't. "The promise of divine nature" and "gives meaning and purpose to life" are totally irrelevant. We shouldn't accept answers because we like the conclusion or they clear-up some existential anxiety in our personal lives. I don't even see how it necessarily follows from this that our lives do have meaning, or that they wouldn't on the alternative hypotheses. My own personal philosophy of life is unrelated to the question of whether or not reality has a necessary explanation or not. It doesn't change my circumstances at all.
-"Also, the historical record provides validation"
I'll be frank and say that I think the historical records are crap and give no credence to the idea that Jesus returned from the dead and performed miracles, let alone was the son of God/God himself. What does this have to do with whether or not the universe has a necessary explanation anyways? It's totally sensible to answer "yes" to such a question and not be a Christian or even a theist at all.
-"However, it can not be reasonably denied that the record of the New Testament supports those claims or that the people who wrote the documents of the New Testament believed what they wrote"
I'm not sure I can even grant you that. I don't know what motivated, say, the Gospel authors. I'm guessing Paul and the people he interacted with believed Jesus resurrected, but that's obviously not very compelling on its own.
-"So, I ask the question of whether or not you believe the claims that Julius Caesar was an emperor of Rome or that he fought in the Gallic Wars?"
Yep. Those are very mundane claims. There are emporers and they engage in wars. It seems unlikely that people would be mistaken or make false claims about things in that category.
-"One can't honestly dismiss the claims of the New Testament as forgeries or fakes."
I don't necessarily, but the authorship and reliability of many things in the NT are poor and related to claims that have much, much lower prior probabilities than the claims about a guy named Caesar being emperor and engaging in some military campaigns.
-"So, the common dismissal is that such claims of incarnation and divinity are impossible."
I won't say they are impossible, but even a Christian has to admit that the truth of these claims must have extraordinary low prior probabilities since they reject all of the claims of incarnation and divinity outside of their religion.
-"This, of course, assumes that one knows the nature of God and what God can or can't do."
Hell, I could grant you that a god exists and it has the power to raise people from the dead, and I still wouldn't believe that Jesus was raised from the dead because people being raised from the dead almost never happens, if at all.
-"Yet, at the same time, you are denying strange and wonderful things."
No, I'm questioning reasoning that seems highly motivated by naive concepts and wishful thinking. So it's the opposite. Classical theism doesn't seem strange or wonderful to me at all. It lacks imagination.
-"Not trying to be uncharitable to Hume but to address the question of a first cause and dismiss it as not within the realm of discussion"
Hume's fork isn't a blanket dismissal. He has his arguments for why we shouldn't or can't come to conclusions about these sorts of things. It's not like he said "commit it to then to the flames" and called it a day. I don't agree with Hume as to the extent of his skepticism, but it's not coming from nowhere.
-"He explains the kingdom by its counties. Where did the counties come from?"
The various parts that make them up. Hume's point though is that you don't need to explain where countries come from the explain where kingdoms come from.
Two thoughts,
1) The scientists involved in the study made no claim of addressing the "something rather than nothing" question. Blame that on the sensationalism of the journalist who penned the article, Dennis Overbye, and his editor. The actual study as presented in the journal Nature by an international research team simply reported a possible asymmetry between neutrinos and their opposite, antineutrinos, which may help explain why matter survived to exists in the universe after the matter-antimatter annihilation in the first moments post-Big Bang. Theoretically, even if matter failed to form in the early Universe, there would still be abundant energy, not nothing. None of the scientists quoted made broad philosophical statements like the title and first line of the article makes. Again, blame journalistic sensationalism, aka "click-bait".
2) Regarding the "why is there something rather than nothing" question, as articulated by Leibniz, I personally like the response of Henri Bergson who dismissed it as a nonsense question. pointing out the question presumes the priority of non-being over being, as if being came in to fill some void. Influenced by Bergson, Merleau-Ponty goes on to take issue with the phrase "rather than" as fallaciously assigning supremacy to non-being such that being is then obligated to be explained or to make an account of itself. Deleuze follows in the same vein explaining the concrete will never be attained by combining the inadequacy of one concept with the inadequacy of its opposite.
Try this out: Instead of saying "Given nothingness, how could something come to be?", flip it around, "Given something, how could nothingness come to be?" Quite a different perspective. So, the question then becomes, what do you take as given?
God is that ground of all Being, or Being itself, ipsum esse, who, metaphorically, answers Moses' question of His identity simply with "I AM THAT I AM".
Yep, it's really the sensationalism that is the problem. The scientists just did their job and reported the findings, and then the journalist decided to make an unwarranted philosophical claim out of it.
It is that being must be greater than nonbeing, for things that are less real like imagined things are lesser in every capacity, my characters in my book can not know me or do anything unless I make them do so. So thus, nothing, being absolute privation of being is without any ability at all. Also things that exist can know of nothing (obviously) but nothing can not know that which, exists as it lacks any capacity.
God bless you, brother.
Yes, that’s always fun when journalists get their hands on science. I would say there’s a bit more to the question than that, though. If you frame the question as “why is there something rather than nothing” the only premise is that there is something, and if there wasn’t something then there’d be nothing. I don’t think it assumes the priority of non-being, it’s just that non-being is the only alternative to being. And being as we commonly experience it does have causes (hence we can ask “why” about most of it.) So I think the assumption of the question is that if there were no cause to all being then there’d be non-being - but there is being. So what’s that cause? Or more simply. “Why.” Just my thought on it.
@@Internetshadow0000 Thank you, brother, and blessings be upon you as well!
I like your notion that nothingness is without any ability. Following that intuition, I might take your idea and run with it like this. If non-being, or nothingness, is without ability, that is the same to say it is without power. Thus God, thought of as pure Being, or Being itself, is "all powerful" in the sense that God then, is the personification of the power of Being, which we call becoming, or creativity, the creative impetus to the universe as we know it. Not sure if that's what you meant but that's where I got to! Thanks for the insight!
@@De-Nigma Wow, yes, thanks for sharing your thoughts, there is much wisdom there.
For me, the question of existence (something rather than nothing) is a separate issue from the question of causation, aka the cosmological argument, and the pitfalls of that unresolved debate. I think the causal argument is a red herring. A brief sketch of the problem goes roughly like this; in arguing that everything in the universe has a cause you have to mean not just every thing, but every event. But the conclusion that this great causal chain is set in motion by a first cause only holds, logically, if everything that happens in the universe is completely and utterly deterministic. So you lose free will and agency in the argument. You have to. I have never seen a clear way around that, logically speaking. One way to save free will and agency, then, is to posit that every free-willed agent is, to some degree, self-creating. I actually think this is the case in the way process metaphysics talks about it, but that's a minority view to say the least. The point is I do not believe we live in a purely causal universe, therefore, a key premise of the cosmological argument is moot for me. And so, I don't see that the existence question is about causality.
Causality is a temporal notion, but time is anchored in and subsequent to, Being.
When I say the question gives priority to non-being I mean it in Bergson's sense, that the only way the question makes sense is if you would expect something else, namely, non-being. But what reason could we possibly have to expect non-being, such that being then needs to be explained? I'm not sure we can say for certain that the non-being of everything is even possible. On what grounds can we even make that assertion? And if we can't, how is the question meaningful?
If the question was simply, "Why is there something?", I might agree with you that the only premise is that there is something. But the full question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" adds, I think, a second premise that "nothingness" is a privileged, or default, state to which "somethingness" must answer. Otherwise, why include it in the question? To that end, I deny the special status of nothingness. I am trying, however feebly, to move beyond the well-worn cosmological arguments.
In the end, my friend, I think we are arriving at roughly the same destination, just taking different routes to get there.
Sorry I can't explain myself better in a TH-cam comment section. Perhaps if we discussed this over a beer....
Thank you for explaining so much to a person like me who's lack the intelligence that you're blessed with ,one simple question ; can anyone who's is a atheist but is a good human bean be saved?
Mark of a rational mind to ask why things exist contingently
Boy does this one sound interesting. Can't wait!
With all due respect to the good bishop and Brandon, I think they are misunderstanding the claim that the physicists are making in this case. I think this misunderstanding is due to the imprecise language used by the reporter at the start of the article (“why there is something rather than nothing” which implies the deeper metaphysical question they are discussing).
What the physicists seem to be claiming is a better understanding of the balance of matter and antimatter shortly after the Big Bang, is why there wasn’t more antimatter than matter. Had there been such an imbalance with antimatter in far more abundance than matter, there would’ve been an annihilation of all of the matter of the universe and indeed nothing would’ve remained. Instead they think they might understand better why this delicate balance existed shortly after the Big Bang that lead to there being matter remaining after the Big Bang. This is what was meant by “something rather than nothing”.
Precisely this. There's no "ultimate claim" in this article beyond a clever first line from the reporter...
I haven't read that many books in my almost 40 years on this earth
So many militant atheists do indeed suffer from a kind of aggravating, oblivious savantism that simply renders them blind to the philosophical infrastructure upon which science operates. Quite troubling. A broad cultural shift in education needs to get moving to remedy this - and stat. Thanks, Bishop Barron and Brandon Vogt, for helping out.
It won't get better as long as education is about presuming to take children out of their natural milieux and whittling them down into useful automata to serve the engineered society.
You can sing that one!
Excellent answers to the arrogance of science. Bless you Bishop.
Loved the podcast, as always. Although when I read the article in the NYTM - aside from the click-baity title and questionable opening sentence - I felt it mostly steered clear of philosophical matters and stuck to the science, exploring the fascinating mystery as to why matter and anti-matter didn't cancel each other out. Bishop Barron is however undoubtedly correct in saying that scientism often uses just this type of 'discovery' to disavow God. Personally, I've found Joshua Rasmussen's books as simple but very thoughtful resources for framing these types of debates.
Does drawing the inquiry about why there is something (in the first place) towards a discussion of Christ explain it adequately if it leads farther to the question of why God required salvation at all if created things weren't present to begin with?
@@JamesRichardWiley Absolutely...In Christian belief Christ- God's self revelation- puts an end to death and reveals the Resurrection.....But as John Betjeman asks..''And is it true...''
A single correction I would venture at the 10:30 minute mark is that what studies "being as being" is Ontology, not Metaphysics; however, it is deemed that Ontology derived from Metaphysics. The latter seeks explanations for the being, such as why there is being to begin with; the former studies the being as being.
Correct.
@@JamesRichardWiley there is no issue but the desire for seeking the reasons and explanation for those things you described.
Aristotle 101...!!! His philosophy and metaphysics has been circulating in the media and now the New York Times (and that part of society that it represents) has to take on it. If the newspaper is willing to seek the truth, availing itself of the logical principles or laws, one of them being that of Causality, and start engaging and straightforward metaphysical analysis, we will all benefit from this exchange. To that end, it is important to set aside ideologies, as they are intellectual prisons that lay out artificial boundaries.
I have amended and edited my prior comments, as they were too conceited and stuck up and not in line with a true Christian spirit.
Barron’s point about “different questions” has been well articulated by physicist Bill Phillips.
It is a familiar topic. For about eleven years from the mid-70's to the mid-80's, in my marriage relationship, I was engaged by my now ex-husband, in these philosophical ideas, I was tutored in the fundamental laws of physics, astronomy, biology, logic, philosophy, science, math, zen, and metaphysics. I was intrigued and interested even though I didn't pursue studying these topics except as required. It was an attempt to challenge my beliefs. Weekly, a topic on which I was far from an expert was inevitably the focus of family discussions; the history of religion, which was intended to divert me as a Catholic. The siblings were philosophically secular, none of whom were baptized as Christian's because their Methodist maternal relatives believed that the children should choose their faith. Science was used to challenge my belief in the existence of God toward me as a believer in God. I remained a solo practicing Catholic, which was a foundational belief of mine by the grace of God. From experiences of childhood trials, I had my faith challenged and I believed I was loved by God. What I sense and trust is a sense that surpasses knowledge and transcends doubt, the trust that sustains love and overcomes fear.
It's never too late. Your mother prays for you, no doubt. Maybe the Holy Spirit is working through your skepticism. We who believe in God have our moments when we question. It's a healthy sign because, like Doubting Thomas, Jesus sees your desire to know the truth. Jesus exposed his wounds and asked Thomas to touch them. At that, He offered to Thomas, every reason to believe and Thomas put his hand in the side of Jesus, when Jesus said "do not persist in your unbelief..." at that Thomas believed and said, "my Lord and my God." If you sincerely ask persistently, The Holy Spirit will show you The Son. Jesus said, "no one comes to Me unless The Father sends him." Also, Jesus said, "no one comes to The Father except through Me."
The only error that I heard Bishop Barron make was the misuse of the term 'begs the question.'
I'm an artist who crossed over into theoretical physics. Here's my answer...
Q: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING?
A: THERE'S ACTUALLY BOTH SOMETHING AND NOTHING.
THE TWO EXTREMES OF ETERNITY & OBLIVION EXIST...PLUS A MIX OF BOTH WHICH BECOMES 'TEMPORALITY'.
ETERNITY
TEMPORALITY
OBLIVION
There was no 'beginning' to Eternity or the 'TEMPORAL UNIVERSE'.
The 'Big Bang' (expansion) is an ongoing eternal event.
The opposite of the Big Bang is also an ongoing event...
The 'Big Crunch'...(contraction).
So the scientific question of whether the universe is OPEN, FLAT or CLOSED...(Expanding, Steady or Contracting)...is actually all three at the same time.
A toroidally rotating magnetic field is actually a ghost image of the universe itself.
AN ETERNALLY ROTATING TOROID WITH AN ETERNAL SOURCE (FIRMAMENT) IN THE CENTER AND OBLIVION (NOTHINGNESS) WITHOUT.
Consider...
'YOU' cognizantly 'exist'.
'Cogito ergo sum.' - Descartes
"I think therefore I am."
But you...do not exist UNCHANGING for all eternity. You can move, grow, decay and die...ceasing to exist...beyond all hope of return.
'Cogito ergo sum ego mutare non.'
"I change, therefore I am not." - Garth
We can both EXIST and NOT EXIST. From this dual state of SYNTHESIS (TEMPORALITY)...we can infer the two abstract extremes of ETERNITY (THESIS) and OBLIVION (ANTITHESIS).
The only geometry that can accommodate a triune existence...
PAST
PRESENT
FUTURE
PROTON
NEUTRON
ELECTRON
HEIGHT
WIDTH
DEPTH
CHAOS
BALANCE
ORDER
BODY
MIND
SPIRIT
BIRTH
LIFE
DEATH
GROWTH
HARVEST
DECAY
BLACK
GRAY
WHITE
FATHER
SON
HOLY SPIRIT
...is a toroidally rotating aether vortex universe that constantly expands...sustains...and contracts at the same time...forever.
CAUSE...and EFFECT...
The ETERNAL IMPELS OUR TEMPORAL EXISTENCE.
CONTINGENCIES...and EXIGENCIES...
OBLIVION (what the Bible calls 'Outer Darkness') DISPELS OUR TEMPORAL EXISTENCE.
The universe is an event field of rotating or moving SPACETIME that is emanated by an unchanging eternal source (GOD) which is diffused by oblivion.
The universe cannot create something greater than itself (life)...therefore the universe is alive...but more so than us who can decay.
Our eternal energy is anchored to our temporal bodies by a toroidally rotating bloodstream full of ferrous material (iron).
The human or animal heart vibrates...
MOTION
VIBRATION
NONMOTION
contracting...
expanding...
resting...
...pumping our blood out around and back in toroidally throughout our circulatory system until it finally stops and we die...and the eternal part of us...our human consciousness...returns to the eternal source.
This is why the Eternal source calls itself "I AM".
@stlivermore ...Thanks for responding. I smoke Marlboros truth to tell. I can make a pretty good toroidally revolving smoke ring too.
Galaxies are toroidally rotating aether vortexes too. Much vaster than what we can detect. All we see is the lit up whirling center of a much vaster vortex of spacetime.
The invisible inertial mass of a galaxy's toroidally revolving vortex of spacetime is where the dark energy & dark matter necessary to cause galactic spin resides.
Gravity is caused by the 'Bernouilli Principle' btw. It's a hydraulics phenomenon. You gotta treat spacetime like flowing water. That's what gives gravity the inverse square rule. TIME & SPACE are the same thing. Time flows therefore space flows.
Have a good existential day!
Very good. An interesting synthesis of...
philosophy
bilge water
fantasy
Do you know about Complexity Theory, by chance?
@@tinman1955 ...Thanks for responding. My theory has been labeled far worse than fantasy and bilge. You get used to it.
You might check out similar theories...
The Kurt Godel rotating universe theory circa 1949.
The Updated Kaluza-Klein theory.
The J.C. Vogt Pyncnosis theory.
Howard Bloom's Toroid universe theory.
See also...concerning gravity:
'The Reanalysis of the Eotvos Experiment' by Ephraim Fischbach, PRL Letter: Vol. 1 No. 56 copyright 1986.
'Limits on Composition Dependent Interactions on a Laboratory Source: Is there a Fifth Force coupled to Isospin?' by C.W. Stubbs and Eric Adelberger.
Hope that helps.
@@Internetshadow0000 ...I assume you're referring to theories that emerged back in the 1960's that built upon previous system theories...particularly self-organizational properties that inherently 'seek the balance' between ORDER and CHAOS in order to become adaptable towards external changes.
W. Edwards Deming had many successful insights into systems theory via statistics that prompted him to create his TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT (TQM) theory; "Systems always change from without...never from within'.
Is that what you were referring to?
I can't wait!
Books? I've got Chaucer's Canterbury Tales on my desk, as well as "1001 Incredible things to do on the Internet." IMO, the Internet is an area to be evangelized. Huge apostolate. Great to know that the Bishop is reading Louis Bouyer's book.
Dude, look...you’re trying to troll a group of people who are intelligently wrestling with the age-old questions that have puzzled people within and outside of religious life.
You want people to engage these comments in a more serious way? Bring some philosophical heat. Bring Nietzsche, Heidegger, Camus, Oppy, Sobel; people who had some actual grasp of the arguments that Theists make.
Ed would ask me if I speak German if I ever mentioned this... The question is a version of: why is it that we exist.
I want to believe, but when I start to think about it, my mind just cannot comprehend even remotely. I often ask, not so much, who is God, but, what is God ? Does God exist in some other realm ? Does God exist in some actual physical place beyond our reach ? How does God live ? Does God eat and drink ?I could see Jesus doing these things, and yes, he was God. Yet God is also Spirit. It is very hard not to be totally confused. Jesus said, to trust in his word, and although that is asking a lot of us, it is really all we have to depend on at the end of the day.
I feel like the article claims not so much that scientists are closer to understanding how the universe came to exist at all, but why antimatter and normal matter didn't annihilate each other in the first moments of the universe, leaving only energy. If I understood it right, the title seems a bit misleading, more like saying that a fire hydrant is the effective cause of a house, because when the house was burning, firefighters were able to use it to put out the fire, which prevented the house from burning to the ground. It definitely claims that we are closer to understanding why the house continues to exist, but this has nothing to do with explaining how the house came into existence in the first place. Maybe the neutrinos are like the fire hydrant.
The Greeks not only probed into the metaphysical question of why things are, but in noticing existence and being they also saw two additional facts of metaphysical importance: that they (beings) are in order and that they're in motion. These two facts, along with that of the being, call for an explanation. Greek philosophical thought is necessary to understand reality and a basic analysis of it. It is a pity that philosophy is not studied systematically along with technical knowledge... I note bishop Barron makes a distinction between philosophy and science but it should be clarified that science stems from philosophy and that philosophy encompasses science inasmuch as it historically generated it in a systematic way. We can see that in Aristotle, who developed and analyzed many of the future sciences, be that physics, astronomy, biology, even psychology (De Anima). Philosophy however is higher in importance than all the individual sciences, including the most abstract ones such as geometry or mathematics, because without philosophical development we wouldn't have had Logic, which is the underpinning of every science. Logic is more important than mathematics or physics because both those sciences have a specific object that is contingent and specific (quantities or the workings of the physical world); every science has an object that it studies: biology studies life and medicine studies health and so forth... Logic, however, studies reasoning itself, weather it's correct or incorrect, and is therefore the basic requirement for every science. You cannot do ANY science without Logic. This major discovery of Aristotle is so basic that it operates in the very device that you're holding in your hands, because you cannot do any sort of software coding without applying Logic. Both philosophy (which includes metaphysics) and science share one common element, which is that they are built on Logic, a philosophical product!
"Why is there something,,,?" has always seemed like a non-question to me. There would have to be something for any questions to be asked. That there is something seems bedrock to everything else.
NBA ALL-STARS have just announced they’re one step closer to understanding the meaning of the universe LOL 😂 Brandon I didn’t know you had some good sarcasm in you.
It begins to make sense to me why the theories of infinite multiverses have arisen. If you disbelieve in the First Cause, it follows that nothing can exist in potentiality.
However, infinite multiverses don't actually refute Aristotelian first-cause arguments (see ch.1 of Feser's "Five proofs of the existence of God") because even if the universe were to be infinite (which is itself debatable) it would still need a hierarchical cause for its existence. Remember, that only the Kalam version of the argument is concerned with the big bang--for Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, and others, it is irrelevant.
@@JamesRichardWiley As long as it is logically possible in and of itself.
10:50 bookmark
Does anyone know any mathematicians who are also classically-trained philosophers? I have been thinking of some cross-disciplinary topics I want to explore but I want to see if they are even viable ideas first.
God blesd all who read this. Amen.
John Lennox (Cambridge) is a believer and mathematician...not quite what you ask ...also have a look at Paschal again slightly wide of what you ask...possibly the Big Bang guy??
Philisopy and Science schould go to keeping peace on the earth and reaching at the end for the souls heaven somewhere behid the sky?
Great! 😇😇😇
I liked what you said about fearing the Lord, however, I do think God is something we should have a healthy amount of fear towards in the more traditional sense as well. Consider this verse from Matthew 10 : 26-28:
"So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."
God created the emotion of fear and I think it can be a good thing. At the very least it helps protect us from danger; consider animals and how much they benefit from being afraid of potential threats. How much more useful can it be for us? God is very mysterious, powerful, and so far beyond us that we can't hope to understand all that he does - our very life is continually in his hands. So, having a bit of fear for Him seems proper
'Fear of the Lord' is not an allusion to an emotion, as the Bishop explains.
Not long now. Amen.
Why something rather than nothing? Why not?
They multiply Priests and saints with a sullen face, perform miracles, cast out demons. Jesus said the tree is known by its fruit.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW
7: 21-23:
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and did many miracles in your name?' 23 Then will I tell them plainly that I did not know you at all. Get away from me, you workers of iniquity.
Matthew 7: 15-20
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do they gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles? 17 So every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; and an evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Ye shall know them by their fruits.
B. LETTER TO CORINTHIANS (Apostle Paul)
11: 13-15:
13 For such are the apostles, liars, deceitful workers, impersonating the apostles of Christ. 14 And it is not surprising. because Satan also takes the form of a bright angel. 15 Wherefore, it is not a great thing that his ministers should be likened unto the ministers of righteousness. Their end will be in proportion to their deeds.
4: 4. In whom is the god of this world?
(Satan) blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the light of the glory of the gospel of Christ might not shine upon them, which is the image of God.
It’s sloppy wording. Scientists have come one step closer to understanding the mechanics (the how) of the existence of matter, of how there came to be something rather than nothing. That’s legitimate territory for scientists. It is different from the question why there is something, rather than nothing. That is not the territory of science.
Which book on Napoleon are you reading?
I have an extremely rare condition in which I can remember virtually every moment of virtually every day at least as far back as the age of 1 1/2 years. I clearly recall occasional demonstrable details (carpet colors, furniture, private conversations) from the age of 1/2 year. The first things that I recall eidetically are playing with PlayDoh, while wondering why things exist, rather than nothing existing. This notion became a daily obsession for me that exists to this day, many decades later. I am exceedingly grateful to the Lord for endowing me with almost unique intellectual gifts, including a WAIS Full-Scale IQ of 168. I am somewhat frustrated that, with only perhaps half of my earthly life remaining, I have seemingly made no progress in elucidating one of the more vexing problems that I regularly contemplate, especially considering the fact that God has provided me with special tools which which to approach the problem. Thank you so much for the brilliant show that has played a profound role in drawing me back to the fold.
It’s so obvious that this contingent universe is clearly by design. To my mind a deity or deities is a fact. Where faith comes into the teachings of Christ which are 1. I’m the son of God 2. There is one God not Gods. And 3 to top off. Believe in me the son and you can live forever. A lot of people mistakenly think these days we are born we die that’s it. Which is so sad. This Universe is by Design to me that’s a fact. The faith is in Jesus and his teachings. If the very universe itself keeps on going without end why should life be any different. People need to be more educated about what I consider to be facts. Excellent video 👍
The reason y there is something rather than nothing is cause nothing can't exsit so there has to be something
This video dont work i can't hear anything? It dont play? is there's something wrong in this video?😔😔😔
This video will be released in two days. This is just an announcement by TH-cam.
How do you explain for people who believe nothing IS something. Because I believe there is always something even in nothing.
The absence of something must be nothing
@stlivermore What about x to the power of 5?
I think you're overstating how much the article is attempting to address the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing". Maybe it uses similar phrasing in the title and first line to get more clicks, but the rest of it, to my mind, sticks squarely to the scientific questions. Even the title asks what came *from the Big Bang*, which I'm sure the author would agree is already not nothing. They're interested in why the contents of the material universe haven't disappeared through matter and anti-matter annihilating each other - one of the biggest remaining questions in physics. I've definitely experienced the general tendency you put your finger on for scientists to overstep the bounds of their discipline, this just doesn't seem to be a particularly egregious example. Thanks for all your great work!
entropy destroys the big bang theory, checkmate
I don't really understand why the universe couldn't be a self contained unit of perpetual cause and effect? The reasoning at 14.40 is not convincing. It is only in relation to us that things, or something concerning things, are contingent. But even if they were not, things could be necessarily reacting in a certain way i.e. according to the laws of physics.
Where did the laws of physics come from? And why these laws and not some other set of laws?
@@michaelnelson3652 If you have a self contained universe the laws dont come from anywhere but they are rather embedded in all materia. Or in space-time in a more modern interpretation. Pretty much like Aristotle thought. (Although I am not an expert on him.) In a sense the Big bang theory makes this metaphysics easier since everything came from one place. If universe on the other hand was stationary then question of how the matter can have uniformity would arise.
Nothing in the universe can contain itself, so why would it apply to the universe?
this "absolute nothing" that philosophers and theologians think they can tinker with is not even a viable concept. it nullifies its own conceptualization. so why are we concerned with this question?
Hey, Bishop, why not try reading a book by John William Burgon (e.g. the Revision Revised), rather than wasting your time with a modernist like Karl Barth?
I'm curious how Bishop Barron would explain how the classic contingency argument doesn't lead directly to the "god of the gaps" response. How do we get from the unknown to God, & how do we then ascribe traits to God, such as love, presuming not only to know Him, but know He exists on a philosophical but not necessarily religious basis?
God of the gaps still includes the idea that god is an object of being, therefore is a fallacy. There is nothing that science can still explain, that address God, even if it emerged from nothing because of the fact information must move forward in time from a previous time. Arguments that the universe can emerge from nothing must use the logic of time. So like Heidegger suggest, Being and Time are one. This is a phenomenological move into metaphysics.
The question of how to get from the first-cause God to any religious God is addressed by Aquinas. I recommend two resources here: Ed Feser's "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" talks about this, and Eleonore Stump has a lecture "The God of the Bible and the God of the Philosophers" that is on youtube.
@@Mrpargmatic That's great. Yet even if we are extremely careful in our language & stipulate God as "ipsum esse subsistens", as Bishop Barron likes to say, the question remains. How we are able, through pointing to an unknown to extrapolate a known & then being extremely specific in describing this known within the unknown is the question. The question was not is it a fallacy, but the specifics of how such a move is made.
@@michaelnelson3652 Thanks for giving me something to work with. I'll look into those, & I suppose I need to read Aquinas in more depth than I ever have. Again, I appreciate it.
Is "singularity" an interruption in "contingency"?
@stlivermore A "singularity" is a boundary beyond which our predictions can't reach, because either there are no rules, or we don't know the rules, by which what is on the other side affects what is on this side and vice versa. (Think the event horizon of a black hole). So, contingency chains break down.
I might be using the terms carelessly, which is why I ask.
Honestly it depends on the nature of the type of singularity we are speaking of. A gravitational singularity is still a physically-bound phenomena. It would ceas to exist if the spacetime it is embedded in did, therefore contingency is preserved in that form of singularity.
And it is not that we know nothing about them. It is just that the calculations spike to infinity in them.
So God created the numbers?
No. It is not logically possible to create numbers as they are merely a concept. You could say that they are imaginary units of logic.
Apparently Thomas Aquinas, although he is the Philosopher of Being par excellence, never put this question himself... It was first explicitly put by his contemporary, Siger of Brabant. If Bishop Barron didn´t have 20 Million other fans, I would love to hear his reaction to that comment. :)
Every scientific discovery glorifies God's creation and intelligence, it shows how big he is by building something we are taking centuries to discover in little pieces
No. No scientists assumes there is a god. Nothing in science points to a god, more than for totally scientifically illiterate liars, like for instance dishonest theists.
Where's Thomas Aquinas when you need him? My simpleton answer to this question: Is Genesis not enough?!
Nope, Genesis is not enough. Neither is Aquinas. Brilliant as he was there's something a bit dishonest about claiming to know the unknown and reasoning God into existence.
search; the gnosis of karol wojtyla.
Generally speaking, scientists ask how, philosophers as why.
Who asks "who" , "what", "when" and "where"?
@@huskyfaninmass1042 Historians. ;)
Bishop Barron needs new glasses it appears. Unless he needs short temples to prevent headaches perhaps? His glasses frames look too small...pardon my saying
Why do we need to answer the "why" to questions that don't need to have that answered? Why is there life? Really? Why are there 500,000 species of beetles? Really? Why do we love?
As a skeptic I find that religions seem to be at both sides of this question. When if comes to "Faith" don't question it, just have faith. Yet when it comes to science, religion demands to know why yet when science can't answer it then the answer is God.
Who says when it comes to Faith don't question it? Look at the Fathers of The Church Faith is something born out of reason. You cannot seperate Faith from Reason.
If I might offer Lawrence Kruass who is one of the foremost public communicators on this topic does not assert this is a) proven or b) can ever be proven. Rather we have mathematical module that allows from a) something from nothing, and b) the unstable nature of the equations makes is a sure thing. This is allow no end of work for philosophers and theologians.
A much better question is why would a God create a universe ... this is more of an issue as since a god by definition needs nothing and the Theological answer is that God wants to share the love ... which is contrary to the definition of a god. I have heard Bishops Barons elegant answer to such. But for me the "desiring the good of the other" argument is still a want ... I feel the Theologians have as much work to do as the cosmologist .
Thanks for the reading list; I shall put Lockdown to better use than gorging on Netflix.
Being enables beings to be. A table ''bees'' but not the same as a bee ''bees'' -- surely this is obvious. A table might infer a carpenter....but it gives no insight as to his hair color. Jumping categories is a dangerous business....even if we talk about God. St Paul saw darkly, and knew and spoke''in part''. A great humility here. Mystery in any sphere struggles for a language or a mathematics. The smallest part of a table does not account for its being. It is difficult to imagine something coming from nothing and also to imagine an uncreated being.
The Copleston/Russell debate is on utube. C fences R in by exposing the fact that they cannot form a basis from which to argue. A similar crossroads was exhibited in a Haldane/Hitchens dabate where Hitchens astutely avoided the idea of ''grounding'' for his own point of view in a way that , I think , was better than that of Russell.
17:04
So god created the numbers?
I quit watching because of background.
Mother's son's daughters must've survival ability anywhere is means of her's Immotions with warmth heart milk . Whenever see themes Frome faar, whoo mom's heart be not coureghus with Her's smiles if they're doing very well. Is her inner satisfaction satisfaction. Is Mom.
This might not be as dumb as it sounds, but perhaps the first question you should ask is "is there something"? Check out the zero energy universe hypothesis. Perhaps the universe consists of nothing.
That's why we are all here locked up.
Science doesn't claim to have the answer of the "why" at all... Any respectable scientist would give the honest answer "we don't know" for the (metaphysical, as he puts it) question "why is there something rather than nothing?". We (humanity) might create conjectures, but we don't really know. And we might never know. But I think the question is still worth being asked.
The article mentioned, despite the title (which was not chosen by scientists), goes about the imbalance that allowed matter to exist rather than be cancelled out by antimatter during the big bang. Hardly a "why". And no scientist claims it explains the "why" question, just the NY times journalist.
Of course the Bishop chooses to ignore the discussion around the fact that god does not provide an answer to that question either. God being a metaphysical "something" in itself, promptly begs the question again: "Why is there a god rather than no god (hence nothing)".
Which you can't answer, unless of course you apply the special pleading case that the theists usually apply to the existence (an omnipotence and omniscience) of god, which doesn't advance our knowledge on the topic in the slightest.
Answer: ...because nothing is an absurd concept. You cannot "have" nothing. The very question is a Red Herring; what methodological naturalist is claiming there was ever "nothing?"
Still wondering if atheists believe that humans have souls....
No we dont
Wondering why general anesthesia works on souls.
Metaphysic is to “logic an answer” that is an assumption claim based on thought, not in reality. Theology makes the assumption that god exist therefore god caused existence, bias
And we all assume the world is intelligible. All human endeavor involves baseline assumptions, if it did not we would already have perfect knowledge and have no need for the system of inquiry as we would know all about all.
Metaphysics is not necessarily theistic in any case, just look at platonic objects or even chaos and information theory. These are not physics persay but they speak of why the physical world acts like it does. And the physical world does obey these and other immaterial laws such as those that form the basis of our understanding of physics in probability and geometry for a few basics.
And yet, these systems have no physical framework that enforces them as the natural forces do. On the other hand, these laws have no inherent capacity to actualize their potential and if not found in physical existence the only other substantial framework they can exist in is the ideal, that is to say in a mind. This is a theistic metaphysics. And this I believe is what the nature of the world is and I believe thr successful form of the natural sciences being when they are combined with mathematics and how this accounts for both the classes of material and idea and can be demonstrated.
God bless you.
The Archivist 🤔 you make a lot of descriptive not prescriptive claims 🤔 Mathematics and physics are an a posterior abstract science based on observations in reality. Theology is an a priori Metaphysics that is not a science but an insufficient assertions of belief claims used to logic an answer. And that’s factual. That’s why Thomas Aquinas Five proofs for god fail. 🤔 As for actualized aka to make real, all potential is zero until it is physically made real. If potential is zero, it exist only in thought not in reality ✝️ God bless you.
@@chosenskeptic5319 What about Euclid?
Tom Greene 🤔 first and foremost, geometry is a science, a set of principles based on a posteriori knowledge that supports a sufficient conclusion. Philosophy and theology are a priori knowledge to reason a reason based on reasons which are insufficient claim assertions.
@@chosenskeptic5319 Philosophy and Theology flows out from the human experience so I don't know if its correct to say its apriori. No knowledge is apriori completely.
What about complex numbers something like Euler's equation in mathematics, are they also based on your classification, aposteriori knowledge?
The word science comes from scientia which literally is the Latin word for knowledge lmao. Why should we trust scientists with scientific findings? I must say the "We wouldn't trust nba players with scientific findings so why trust scientists" line made me piss my pants. Probably the funniest use of flawed logic I've ever heard. It must take a lot of effort to stay in your echo chamber
Come on, Nate. That's a lot of incendiary rhetoric, but not much of an argument. As I made clear, I'm talking not about "science" in the broadest possible sense, but rather of those disciplines ordered by the modern scientific method. That method is appropriate when adjudicating certain types of questions, but it is inappropriate when other types of questions are under consideration. One of those is the properly metaphysical inquiry, "why is there something rather than nothing?"
this doesn't really refute nihilo ex nihilo like i hoped it would