I was in a Church where the congregation sung a song: "We walk by faith and not by sight". Why are there so many "Faiths" when there is supposed to be overwhelming evidence for the existence of a divine being without any physical properties ? It seems to me people have a tendency to think that their pet beliefs are true.
Randomness to me is equivalent to chaos and mathematics is far from chaos. Chaos is by default disarrayed, disorganized, cannot be fitted into equations or laws.
Professors are often blinded by ego. Universities are losing respect today with all the scientific information we can derive from the internet and now through AI. They are definitely behind the times with evolution. Just review mathematicians, Oxford's John Lennox and David Berlinski along with Discovery Science's Stephen Meyer. and see what they have to say.
You lost me at “accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.” This may be true, but this language has been overused by nondenominational Christians. Catholics believe that people need to be Baptized by water and the Spirit, ordinarily by a Catholic priest. Accepting Jesus is already intrinsic to our faith through Baptism in water and the Spirit.
1st Guy: a) The other guy probably didn't say that he can't be influenced by culture, that would be dumb, and yes if he lived in the past the cultural pressure would be so great that he would be religious, but only if he was raised in that time, not if he went there as an adult with his knowledge. b) Intelligent people back then BELIEVED there was evidence for God, whether their beliefs were justified that is a separate question. I've heard so many people try and give evidence for god but the "evidence" is never valid, and when that is pointed out they construct arguments which are not sound, then they think of reasons which are illogical, then they claim they have knowledge of God which is impossible (A finite thing can't contain knowledge of the infinite). In the end they admit they just feel it, which is totally understandable, but just because you feel something within does not mean it exists without. c) If Anthony said there is overwhelming evidence against God, what he said was dumb. There is no evidence against or for God. God is by definition is beyond existence, so it's by extension unfalsifiable so it can never be proven to exist or otherwise. d) When we look at something like a watch, we don’t conclude it had a creator just because it’s complex. Instead, we figure that out by examining its parts and noticing how similar they are to things we already know were made-using methods we understand-by creators we know exist: people. It’s not the complexity alone that tells us it was created, but the connection to what we’ve seen and experienced before. For the world (universe) we don't have that. e) Why not invoke a mind that is beyond the universe for the universe as a watchmaker for a watch. Because the watch and the watchmaker are part of the same system, there are only 2 objects because our evolved brains "find it useful" to distinguish between objects even though it's all interacting particles with no boundaries. God is by definition beyond the system, so it cannot interact or even observe our universe, let alone create it. A non interacting creator is a contradiction, so God is illogical if presented this way. If he wants to claim that God is beyond logic, go ahead, but he cannot then make arguments for an illogical thing. f) Another guy asks him how does an immaterial being create a material world, and he jumps to say that he BELIEVES his mind is immaterial before he got interrupted. He thinks of himself intuitively as a mind (he would call it soul) controlling the body, but even if it feels like that, there is overwhelming evidence that our "mind" is a product of our bodies and the environment in general, and that thoughts are a consequence of previous states in your brain. In short, there is no free will in a material sense, but only as an illusion produced by brain states. So if we are to compare God as Mind and Universe as Body, God would just be an illusion produced by universal states. That God would not be all powerful, although it would still be an interesting thing that occurs even though it would be unfalsifiable. g) The microphone was a part of nature just in a different way. When we make something we are not creating it out of nothing, we are using existing particles in the system and rearrange them into an "object". God would by definition have to create the universe out of nothing because if something existed before God created the universe, that thing was the universe. h) *If God knows something it is real*. That's just a claim, we have no reason to believe that without any reasoning behind it. Your interjection: Imagine a world with me where we have Gods body (the universe) but Gods mind doesn't exist for some reason (I know it sounds crazy but it's a hypothetical), but we as humans have bodies and minds. There would still be interconnectedness, connection and unity to be observed by our minds, so it only makes sense that in this hypothetical we would still be able to reason and do science right? Gods mind being real or not being real doesn't change anything when you think of it this way does it? Nothing is random, the world is deterministic and when we use our models to analyze it we see that it plays out in a predictable manner. Maybe there are some truly random quantum things, but until we have a theory of everything (Which we never will, because we are not God) we can never know.
I think you're trying to say the universe is deterministic not the world. But that's also not true in regards to Humanity. To claim human behavior is deterministic is to deny the dignity of man and even deny the passion of Jesus. We indeed have free will and make our own choices.
This is the very best explanation i've ever read about "God" or any religion for that matter ! Beyond BRILLIANT ! Thank goodness i was never indoctrinated as a child that you MUST believe in only the "Christian "God" ! I'm a very happy and content ATHEIST!
More to the point, why not a universe containing only photons? Or hydrogen atoms? Why the complexities of physics needed for complex atoms, never mind covalent bonds and molecules? You don't even need to go as far as living things to notice that something is very strange and special about this universe.
Same with mystical theological assumptions. Extreme especially in all religions, the Kabbalah and the mystics of islam and Roman orthodox churches. One good example is the bible code book by Michael drosinin same method using a mathematical sequenced that proved the hidden future events.
Oh boy, where do I even begin? First off, I love how you frame this as atheists somehow “borrowing” a religious worldview every time we reason, as if reason is exclusive to belief in a deity. Spoiler alert: it’s not. You don’t need a supernatural entity to explain the effectiveness of mathematics or the connectivity of the universe. Mathematics isn’t some divine secret code; it’s a human-developed language to describe patterns we observe in the natural world. The reason it works so well in science is that it’s tailored to describe reality-not because some cosmic mathematician ordained it so. Also, the idea that atheists are “forced” to accept randomness is absurd. Science doesn’t rely on randomness alone-it relies on mechanisms, evidence, and natural laws, which have been discovered and tested. Just because something seems random doesn’t mean it lacks order or explanation. Evolution, for instance, isn’t pure randomness; it’s a combination of random mutations and non-random selection. No God required. As for Eugene Wigner’s “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,” it’s only “unreasonable” if you start from the premise that it must point to something supernatural. It’s reasonable if you consider that the universe operates in consistent, observable ways, and mathematics is the language we’ve crafted to describe that consistency. Saying “math works, therefore God” is a lazy leap. Why assume there’s a divine mathematician instead of accepting that the universe simply behaves in ways that allow for mathematical description? Finally, this whole “atheists can’t reason without borrowing from religion” argument is nonsense. Reason, logic, and critical thinking predate Christianity by centuries. Ever heard of ancient Greek philosophers like Democritus or Epicurus? They were reasoning and exploring natural explanations for the world long before your religion showed up. The Magi? Cool story, but let’s not pretend stargazing equals scientific reasoning. Following a star because you think it points to a divine baby doesn’t exactly scream “natural theology.” It screams confirmation bias. At the end of the day, we don’t need a magical being to make sense of the universe. The more science uncovers, the less room there is for gods of the gaps.
Your 1st and 4th points are the same so I'll address it as 1. The claim he's making is that just by inherently relying on your reason to connect objects, you are already conceding that their is an interconnectedness to reality which points to a design. The logical conclusion being that a design most likely has a designer a la there are no naturally occuring striaght lines. Your 2nd assertion, frankly, doesn't even warrant discussion. Evolution? Go find me a big foot and then we can talk about evolution. Or, you know, any of the myriad of interspecial entities required to actually prove evolution. We didn't evolve from apes, we didn't walk out of a bog, and there is no evidence that supports that claim. The arrogance to claim mathematics is something we've developed rather than discovered flies in the face of the most historically renowned mathematicians in all of human history. "Math works, therefore God" is not a "lazy leap" it is the logical conclusion that, again, is the same argument you're making in your 1st and 4th points, so really 1, 3 and 4 are the same point aren't they? If you think the zoroastrians were "stargazing" I implore you to do more research and you will see the mathematical and scientific history behind the religion, these aren't "check my horoscope" bros. Finally, explain the big bang without a miracle. I'll wait.
I would like to demystify evolution with three arguments, the first biological, the second mathematical physics and the third genetics, preceded by an introduction and postponed by my conclusion. Introduction. The world project is of the dominant classes - political, cultural, social, etc. - of those who have the fate of humanity in their hands. It is clearly an intramundane project, that is, a life project of a society, of a human existence where there is no God, as if it decided to exclude the sun from life on Earth. This decision, matured over time, started in Europe with the ideology of evil, which Saint John Paul II spoke of, with Nazism and Communism. Supplanted in turn by the ideology of evil that was born in the post-war period with the new totalitarianism, that is, a vision of life based on materialism, the eclipse of the religious sense and evolutionism. With a clear definition of man as a being that comes from matter for the reasons of chance and necessity, with the emptying of human dignity of its greatness, spirituality, of its transcendence with respect to matter and also a closing of horizons, in the sense that life is closed, the being is annihilated at the moment of death. This is an ideology that is imposed. In countries like China, for example, it is imposed through a capillary control in a population of about a billion men, whose vision of life is in the key of mass dialectical materialism, for which man is his body. The vision of life is at the levels of cybernetics, of the control of thought and of education in a very authoritarian form. At the same time in the West the control of all the messages that reach the person is a control that excludes God, already from childhood we are introjected into the atheistic and materialistic vision of life in which there is no God. Today's kids do not ask themselves the question of the existence of God, as if it were something of little interest. This is the project, now become global. It is so incisive in society that the Madonna in Medjugorje now speaks of a world without God, of humanity that does not want God, therefore of a humanity that has decided for death. 1) General scientific topic The great myths of modern science, we have seen, are three: mechanism, evolutionism and the marginalization of the human. The second myth, the evolutionary one, has had a history of failures from the beginning, because it has not shown any predictive or applicative capacity. It is a unique case in the history of natural science for its epistemic, technological and economic nullity. How is it that a metaphysical postulate, dressed up in scientific garb, has enjoyed such a warm and enduring reception in academia? Darwin started from the hypothesis that existing species arose from one or a few primitive species through chains of descent extending over millions of years. Even leaving aside the mechanisms by which differentiation would have occurred, it is clear that Darwin conceived of biological evolution as a gradual process involving innumerable intermediate forms, many if not most of which should be recorded in the fossil record. Instead, except for a handful of very dubious specimens, there is no trace of intermediate types. Stephen J. Gould abandoned Darwinian continuism for precisely this reason: “Most species show no change during their existence on earth. They appear in the fossil record as they disappear; the morphological changes are usually small and without direction.” Normally in experimental science this gap would be enough to falsify the myth, and Darwin had already resigned himself to the possibility, in the absence of new fossil discoveries... Not Gould, however, who remained a Darwinist until his death, nor the majority biology of our days, according to which the "fact" of evolution would have happened at such a speed and in such very special conditions that the intermediate forms would have disappeared without leaving a trace. Evolutionism passes Popper's test like recommended students pass the entrance exams: it is not allowed to fail! Mathematically then, evolution "sustains itself on dozens and dozens of thousands of miracles" (Marcel-Paul Schützenberger). Even a child understands this. Let's consider the bacterial flagellum, a sort of oar used by bacteria to move in water and moved by a molecular rotary machine powered by an acid. Depending on the microbe, its functioning involves several dozen and even hundreds of types of proteins, which must all be present at their place of work at the same time for the flagellum to carry out its function. This is the “simplest” example of what Schützenberger called “functional complexity”: an organized system of many components, interacting with each other so as to perform a function and such that the lack of a single component nothing prevents the system from carrying it out. This notion is crucial to understanding why Darwinism is an infinite set of “miracles”. Thus, it will have no weight for a Darwinist, because myth is the last thing a man can give up. It is therefore natural that, for example, the Italian Society of Evolutionary Biologists chooses as president not a researcher from a chemical-biological laboratory nor a physicist or a mathematician, but a philosopher with strong popularising skills. The more implausible myths are, the more they demand story-telling rhetoricians. And it is understandable that biology departments organize lessons for students held by a journalist, a fan of Tolkien and a science fiction writer. For this novelist, the idea of missing links in the chain between the great apes and man is “misleading”, misunderstands the “true functioning” of evolution and, finally, supports “a whole series of erroneous narratives about the place that man occupies in the universe”. The peculiarities of the human being from bipedalism to symbolic language would all be "errors" in DNA transcription and the evolution that occurred would have been only one possibility among many equally probable ones: "the Truth" - with a capital T, specifies this Lord of the missing rings - would be in the "deep time of evolution, an infinite dark corridor, without any sign that marks a scale of reference" and where anything can happen. Including the series of miracles, which are not facts that happened in an "infinite dark corridor", but fantasies assigned to a finite interval of 10^17 seconds, measured by paleontology and carbon physics. (1/2)
2) Physical argument "There is no equation that describes the theory of the origin of life and the Biological Evolution of the Human Species. Nor are there experiments reproducible in the laboratory that can be used as a mathematical basis to give scientific credibility to theories on the origins of life. A theory, until someone manages to formulate it in a rigorously mathematical way, remains outside of Science. Therefore, the claim that the origin of life and the Biological Evolution of the Human Species (EBSU) are scientific truths is without scientific foundation. We are faced with theories formulated using words, not mathematical language made of formulas. And that's not all. At the basis of these "words" there are no reproducible results and that is experiments that are at the first level of scientific credibility as Archimedes and Galileo teach. The dominant culture has placed the theme of the biological evolution of the human species on the pedestal of a great scientific truth in total contrast with Faith. Yet, the biological evolution of the human species would never have brought man to the Moon. Nor to travel at supersonic speeds. Much less to discover Science. The biological evolution of the human species has done very little. Indeed, absolutely nothing. Man is exactly as he was ten thousand years ago. Evolutionists say that this is obvious and that they have always said and repeated that the typical times of human evolution are millions, tens of millions of years. Evolutionists talk as if a million or ten million years were the result of a theoretical prediction linked to an equation. If evolutionary theory had a serious scientific basis, it should be able to predict the exact value of the times that characterize human evolution. There are hundreds of laboratories in the world today, some of them even secret, where “The problem of minimal life” is studied; the problem called “of minimal life”. What does it mean? It is very difficult to study how to go from stone to swallow. Stone and swallow are extremely complicated realities. Going from stone to cat, to bird, to less complex life forms, such as flies and other smaller living beings is always too complicated. “The problem of minimal life” is the passage from a very small piece of inert matter to the simplest type of living matter. The problem boils down to studying how many small pieces of very small inert things we must have to produce the simplest example of a living cell. Is there anyone who knows how to do it? No one. Evolutionists claim to know that man is certainly an animal like many others. This is not the case. The animal species to which we belong is endowed with a unique privilege: Reason. It is thanks to this privilege that we were able to invent collective memory (writing), to discover rigorous logic (mathematics), and to discover that we are not children of chaos but of a formidable logical structure. The bases of which are: three columns and three fundamental forces. A strong argument of evolutionism are the characteristics common to the innumerable animal species. There is one far more important. It is common, not only to forms of living matter, but also to those of inert matter…. A stone, a tree, an eagle, a man are made of the same particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. This does not mean that we physicists draw the conclusion that stones, trees, eagles and man are identical realities. The diversity of our species is extraordinarily unique: no one can rigorously deduce it from fundamental principles linked to equations and reproducible experiments. This is why no one can claim to have "discovered the true origin of our species". No one who knows what Science means would dare to make such statements. The Dominant Culture has led the general public to believe that the origin of life and the biological evolution of the human species are scientific truths of Galilean origin. Let us point out that scientific truths of Galilean origin have three levels of credibility and that the biological evolution of the human species has always been and still is today below the minimum level of scientific credibility. ”(Antonino Zichichi, Radici Cristiane, n.184, April-June 2024) 3) Genetic argument There is irrefutable proof that comes from molecular biology and genetics: chromosomal macro-mutations make it impossible (or sterile) for individuals who possess them. It is not possible to go from the 37 chromosomes of the monkey to the 36 of man. Conclusion I would like to mention finally my favorite enemy, which has to do with evolutionism. “The concept of value is my favorite enemy.”(Remi Brague, interview by Solène Tadié, Osservatore Romano, December 16, 2016). Mine is transhumanism. What is transhumanism, if not the super-myth that condenses in itself mechanism, evolutionism and Copernicanism? If for transhumanists machines will never be able to have sensitivity and consciousness, it matters little: in a decreed evolution without direction, the overtaking of the machine over man can also occur downwards, with people deprived of humanity and increasingly slaves to technology.(2/2)
Take a look at the Universe in all of its wild and radical complexity, and all of its stunning mathimatical complexity.To say that all that came spontaneously from nothing is ludicrous.God is non contigent ground of contigency.That whos very nature is to be cannot be limited or imperfect in its being.Because its very nature is to exist.Atheist believe in infinity-always been there. Astomical evidence has shown that the universe had a beggining.Big bang theory points to exactly what Christians have always believed.There was a begining.
@@b00g3rs21 Let’s take it step by step: Interconnectedness as evidence of design: Reality being interconnected doesn’t imply design-it implies consistency in natural laws. The existence of straight lines (or the lack thereof in nature) doesn’t point to a designer either; it points to geometry, a concept we use to understand spatial relationships. Natural occurrences, like crystal formations or the paths of light, often mimic straight lines without divine intervention. You’re starting with the assumption that design is required, but that’s the very point you’re supposed to prove, not assume. Evolution and Bigfoot: Ah yes, the classic "find Bigfoot" argument. Evolution doesn’t rely on mythical creatures-it relies on observable evidence, such as fossil records, genetic similarities, and observed speciation events. We share a common ancestor with apes, not a direct lineage from them, and no one claims we ‘walked out of a bog.’ This caricature of evolution shows you haven’t studied the basics. Pro-tip: interspecies transitional fossils do exist. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and many others are well-documented. Google them. Mathematics as discovery vs. invention: Mathematics is both discovered and developed. It’s a human-created framework to describe natural phenomena. The Pythagorean theorem, for example, describes relationships that exist regardless of our awareness of them. However, how we represent math-symbols, systems, axioms-is human invention. Just because it aligns with the universe’s structure doesn’t mean it’s divine; it means it’s useful. Zoroastrians and stargazing: You’re conflating early scientific observations with religious mysticism. Yes, some ancient cultures made significant astronomical and mathematical advances, but they often interwove them with myths and superstitions. The Magi story, however, remains a theological tale, not a scientific breakthrough. They weren’t calculating orbital mechanics; they were following a story. The Big Bang and miracles: The Big Bang theory doesn’t require a miracle; it’s supported by evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift observations. The fact that we don’t yet fully understand everything doesn’t mean “God did it.” That’s a textbook example of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Science seeks to explain the unknown through evidence, not plug gaps with untestable assertions. Now, let me flip it back: If you claim design, who designed the designer? Or is your explanation conveniently exempt from the logic you demand of everyone else? Try again.
I know what you are saying but why do you think the guy who put the math in everything is so ashamed to tell us himself , instead of using intelligent animals to tell us ?
He revealed Himself many times since the beginning of time. For example, in the Garden of Eden, then before the flood to Noah who was then able to warn everyone who then ignored him, in destroying the tower of Babel, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Then by the encounter Moses had with God on Mount Sinai. Then there was the coming of Jesus when all of that had been ignored. Humanity destroyed that Jesus Christ. We have been warned and put on notice for all of our sins. Jesus had come partly to warn us (again). The Bible suggests this is our final chance when the judgement comes up, and we might be very close to it now.
imagine yourself as a conscious being living in a world that was truly random, there would be zero intelligibility to it. The universe we live in is understandable, therefor it is not random
Yes and no one is claiming that it's random, this is a strawman of what scientists think is happening. It's the same as people claiming Evolution is random, which it isn't because it depends on the environment which is not random. Some aspect's of it seem "random" (mutations), but we just don't have enough information on the location of all rays that interact with particles in genes causing the mutation so we call it random for now (and forever since we will not have infinite knowledge).
It is so sad to see people as aetheists for they are preventing themselves from knowing God. How could they acknowledge a Supreme Intelligent Mind if they are so full of themselves and unknowingly aware that they could not have all the answers to every human or life inquiry but they act as if they do. 😢😢😢
Because, it is a deeply rooted and internal necessity to maintain control over themselves and their own lives. It is very difficult as a human race who is bound to such a destructive and painful place to see that a Loving, Kind and Good One is running the show, and then to surrender to that is a terrifying thing for most people. By not believing, we get to maintain our own sense of structure, control, self authority and power and That false sense of security, peace and comfort actually makes people happy.
The killer question I was expecting the priest to ask was "How can the an ordered low entropy universe like this one create/invent itself out of absolutely nothing for no reason or purpose?" To which they inevitably distract, prevaricate and quibble about the meaning of words but have absolutely no answer.
Hindus: Ishwar, the cause for Creation, is the Eternal Energy of Infinite Space.😅 What actually is Arabs' creator Allah?😮 What actually is Europeans' creator God?😮
Ephesians 2:4 KJV "But GOD, who is rich in mercy, for HIS great love wherewith HE loved us, 5 even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us (made us alive) together with CHRIST, by grace you are saved; 6 and has raised us up together, and made us (true believers) sit together in heavenly places in CHRIST JESUS: 7 that in the ages to come HE might show the exceeding riches of HIS grace in HIS kindness toward us through CHRIST JESUS. 8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of GOD: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast."
@@terrysaunders1269 No, God gave us the church started by Jesus Christ - the only Church. No mention of Romans being the seat and dictator of all of Christianity under a 'pope'.
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, "existing" refers to the act of "being" itself, meaning that existence is the most fundamental aspect of a thing, and for God, existence is not separate from his essence - God is pure existence, essentially "existing itself.
This is merely saying that existence has to exist before any object can exist. This is like claiming that a cat cannot be black unless a universal concept of blackness exists beforehand. The truth is that as our understanding of the universe has advanced there is progressively less space for God, and the only way to maintain the claim of his existence to make him continually more attenutated until he becomes a mere theological abstraction. Most the arguments presented here seem to be variations of the watchmaker argument.
Absolute HYPOCRISY comes from the mouths of apologists e.g., the priest, EVERY TIME they try to "prove" their - or any - god's existence as some actual reality in this universe. How IGNORANT of his or her faith is this god-believer who claims to have proof of god's existence. There is ONLY ONE REQUIREMENT to believe a god exists: FAITH. And FAITH REQUIRES NO PROOF!!! These apologists are RIDICULOUS in their futile attempts to box their god.
Your comment is absurd. When you state, "FAITH REQUIRES NO PROOF" you are describing BLIND FAITH. When a Christian embraces faith, it is most often predicated on EVIDENCE. There are a number of extremely compelling arguments for God's very real existence as He has revealed Himself via Natural Revelation and Special Revelation. You simply are ignorant about these arguments, and I would wager you are not interested in changing your position. And this is very unfortunate for you ultimately.
I think that the complexity of our existence where we are in the universe is so overwhelmingly impossible to wrap your head around. to this day, we have no explanation for how the universe came into existence so for individuals like these professors and others for them to think that the Lord was capable of bringing into existence all that is here and around us is virtually impossible for them to admit. In doing so they would destroy their own professions, and this is complete through the majority of the sciences and particularly anthropology and geology..
"To this day we have no explanation for how the universe came into existence" Is that the reason ignorant early man invented an imaginary god. Solved all his questions. We are no longer early man!
The more I hear about the aetheists argument about God, the more I learned that their argument is just running in circles with nowhere to go, defending the same idea over & over again without any further explanation and that is reasoning & logic.
Wouldn't it just be easier for God to reveal himself for sake of humanity and make the world a better place and settle the argument of his existence for once and all.
No. You would not believe him. Something coming on a plate (you do not have to struggle with, put effort into ) is either disdained and mocked or rejected as something forced on you. You would be deprived of your free choice. Only a super naive and simplistic mind can ask this question.
@@kbeetles Why would being able to make a fully informed decision impede free will? One would think hiding vital information would be intentionally influencing the choice far worse
How is it possible to obtain order out of chaos unless there is an underlying order? So there must be an underlying order. Mathematics shows that monkeys, as numerous as the stars, on typewriters cannot produce a single page of Shakespeare let alone a complete work, so from whence do these marvelous works arise?
One young priest v five or more atheists, Well done to him.
@marlogue53
He was never truly alone. However, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
I was in a Church where the congregation sung a song: "We walk by faith and not by sight". Why are there so many "Faiths" when there is supposed to be overwhelming evidence for the existence of a divine being without any physical properties ? It seems to me people have a tendency to think that their pet beliefs are true.
Randomness to me is equivalent to chaos and mathematics is far from chaos. Chaos is by default disarrayed, disorganized, cannot be fitted into equations or laws.
And here I thought “professors” are supposed to be intelligent people, but Bishop Barron blew that misconception right out of the water!
Professors are often blinded by ego. Universities are losing respect today with all the scientific information we can derive from the internet and now through AI. They are definitely behind the times with evolution. Just review mathematicians, Oxford's John Lennox and David Berlinski along with Discovery Science's Stephen Meyer. and see what they have to say.
study the cell and then see if you can believe a simple cell is the result of a random unguided process.
Priest and bishop just using the “god of the gaps “argument AGAIN !
Pretty sure this is a young Rowan Atkinson
The reason this 2,000 year old argument can never be settled. Is because the argument is ignorant both sides.
You lost me at “accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior.” This may be true, but this language has been overused by nondenominational Christians. Catholics believe that people need to be Baptized by water and the Spirit, ordinarily by a Catholic priest. Accepting Jesus is already intrinsic to our faith through Baptism in water and the Spirit.
1st Guy:
a) The other guy probably didn't say that he can't be influenced by culture, that would be dumb, and yes if he lived in the past the cultural pressure would be so great that he would be religious, but only if he was raised in that time, not if he went there as an adult with his knowledge.
b) Intelligent people back then BELIEVED there was evidence for God, whether their beliefs were justified that is a separate question. I've heard so many people try and give evidence for god but the "evidence" is never valid, and when that is pointed out they construct arguments which are not sound, then they think of reasons which are illogical, then they claim they have knowledge of God which is impossible (A finite thing can't contain knowledge of the infinite). In the end they admit they just feel it, which is totally understandable, but just because you feel something within does not mean it exists without.
c) If Anthony said there is overwhelming evidence against God, what he said was dumb. There is no evidence against or for God. God is by definition is beyond existence, so it's by extension unfalsifiable so it can never be proven to exist or otherwise.
d) When we look at something like a watch, we don’t conclude it had a creator just because it’s complex. Instead, we figure that out by examining its parts and noticing how similar they are to things we already know were made-using methods we understand-by creators we know exist: people. It’s not the complexity alone that tells us it was created, but the connection to what we’ve seen and experienced before. For the world (universe) we don't have that.
e) Why not invoke a mind that is beyond the universe for the universe as a watchmaker for a watch. Because the watch and the watchmaker are part of the same system, there are only 2 objects because our evolved brains "find it useful" to distinguish between objects even though it's all interacting particles with no boundaries. God is by definition beyond the system, so it cannot interact or even observe our universe, let alone create it. A non interacting creator is a contradiction, so God is illogical if presented this way. If he wants to claim that God is beyond logic, go ahead, but he cannot then make arguments for an illogical thing.
f) Another guy asks him how does an immaterial being create a material world, and he jumps to say that he BELIEVES his mind is immaterial before he got interrupted. He thinks of himself intuitively as a mind (he would call it soul) controlling the body, but even if it feels like that, there is overwhelming evidence that our "mind" is a product of our bodies and the environment in general, and that thoughts are a consequence of previous states in your brain. In short, there is no free will in a material sense, but only as an illusion produced by brain states. So if we are to compare God as Mind and Universe as Body, God would just be an illusion produced by universal states. That God would not be all powerful, although it would still be an interesting thing that occurs even though it would be unfalsifiable.
g) The microphone was a part of nature just in a different way. When we make something we are not creating it out of nothing, we are using existing particles in the system and rearrange them into an "object". God would by definition have to create the universe out of nothing because if something existed before God created the universe, that thing was the universe.
h) *If God knows something it is real*. That's just a claim, we have no reason to believe that without any reasoning behind it.
Your interjection:
Imagine a world with me where we have Gods body (the universe) but Gods mind doesn't exist for some reason (I know it sounds crazy but it's a hypothetical), but we as humans have bodies and minds. There would still be interconnectedness, connection and unity to be observed by our minds, so it only makes sense that in this hypothetical we would still be able to reason and do science right? Gods mind being real or not being real doesn't change anything when you think of it this way does it?
Nothing is random, the world is deterministic and when we use our models to analyze it we see that it plays out in a predictable manner. Maybe there are some truly random quantum things, but until we have a theory of everything (Which we never will, because we are not God) we can never know.
I think you're trying to say the universe is deterministic not the world. But that's also not true in regards to Humanity. To claim human behavior is deterministic is to deny the dignity of man and even deny the passion of Jesus. We indeed have free will and make our own choices.
This is the very best explanation i've ever read about "God" or any religion for that matter ! Beyond BRILLIANT ! Thank goodness i was never indoctrinated as a child that you MUST believe in only the "Christian "God" ! I'm a very happy and content ATHEIST!
Very well said, so well done.l! Thank you
I cant find anywhere in genesis where god says in the beginning was s the word as the
Bishop claims
Read the Gospel of John.
Where does the relation of elements arise? How did the periodical table come into existence? How does DNA tell a bird how to fly or build a nest?
More to the point, why not a universe containing only photons? Or hydrogen atoms? Why the complexities of physics needed for complex atoms, never mind covalent bonds and molecules? You don't even need to go as far as living things to notice that something is very strange and special about this universe.
Same with mystical theological assumptions. Extreme especially in all religions, the Kabbalah and the mystics of islam and Roman orthodox churches. One good example is the bible code book by Michael drosinin same method using a mathematical sequenced that proved the hidden future events.
2025 years ago he came he said so
Go Bishop Barron ur wonderful, Debra Logan in Waterbury CT
Really
It shouldn't ; but it DOES
Oh boy, where do I even begin? First off, I love how you frame this as atheists somehow “borrowing” a religious worldview every time we reason, as if reason is exclusive to belief in a deity. Spoiler alert: it’s not. You don’t need a supernatural entity to explain the effectiveness of mathematics or the connectivity of the universe. Mathematics isn’t some divine secret code; it’s a human-developed language to describe patterns we observe in the natural world. The reason it works so well in science is that it’s tailored to describe reality-not because some cosmic mathematician ordained it so.
Also, the idea that atheists are “forced” to accept randomness is absurd. Science doesn’t rely on randomness alone-it relies on mechanisms, evidence, and natural laws, which have been discovered and tested. Just because something seems random doesn’t mean it lacks order or explanation. Evolution, for instance, isn’t pure randomness; it’s a combination of random mutations and non-random selection. No God required.
As for Eugene Wigner’s “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,” it’s only “unreasonable” if you start from the premise that it must point to something supernatural. It’s reasonable if you consider that the universe operates in consistent, observable ways, and mathematics is the language we’ve crafted to describe that consistency. Saying “math works, therefore God” is a lazy leap. Why assume there’s a divine mathematician instead of accepting that the universe simply behaves in ways that allow for mathematical description?
Finally, this whole “atheists can’t reason without borrowing from religion” argument is nonsense. Reason, logic, and critical thinking predate Christianity by centuries. Ever heard of ancient Greek philosophers like Democritus or Epicurus? They were reasoning and exploring natural explanations for the world long before your religion showed up.
The Magi? Cool story, but let’s not pretend stargazing equals scientific reasoning. Following a star because you think it points to a divine baby doesn’t exactly scream “natural theology.” It screams confirmation bias.
At the end of the day, we don’t need a magical being to make sense of the universe. The more science uncovers, the less room there is for gods of the gaps.
Your 1st and 4th points are the same so I'll address it as 1. The claim he's making is that just by inherently relying on your reason to connect objects, you are already conceding that their is an interconnectedness to reality which points to a design. The logical conclusion being that a design most likely has a designer a la there are no naturally occuring striaght lines.
Your 2nd assertion, frankly, doesn't even warrant discussion. Evolution? Go find me a big foot and then we can talk about evolution. Or, you know, any of the myriad of interspecial entities required to actually prove evolution. We didn't evolve from apes, we didn't walk out of a bog, and there is no evidence that supports that claim.
The arrogance to claim mathematics is something we've developed rather than discovered flies in the face of the most historically renowned mathematicians in all of human history. "Math works, therefore God" is not a "lazy leap" it is the logical conclusion that, again, is the same argument you're making in your 1st and 4th points, so really 1, 3 and 4 are the same point aren't they?
If you think the zoroastrians were "stargazing" I implore you to do more research and you will see the mathematical and scientific history behind the religion, these aren't "check my horoscope" bros.
Finally, explain the big bang without a miracle. I'll wait.
I would like to demystify evolution with three arguments, the first biological, the second mathematical physics and the third genetics, preceded by an introduction and postponed by my conclusion.
Introduction.
The world project is of the dominant classes - political, cultural, social, etc. - of those who have the fate of humanity in their hands. It is clearly an intramundane project, that is, a life project of a society, of a human existence where there is no God, as if it decided to exclude the sun from life on Earth.
This decision, matured over time, started in Europe with the ideology of evil, which Saint John Paul II spoke of, with Nazism and Communism. Supplanted in turn by the ideology of evil that was born in the post-war period with the new totalitarianism, that is, a vision of life based on materialism, the eclipse of the religious sense and evolutionism. With a clear definition of man as a being that comes from matter for the reasons of chance and necessity, with the emptying of human dignity of its greatness, spirituality, of its transcendence with respect to matter and also a closing of horizons, in the sense that life is closed, the being is annihilated at the moment of death.
This is an ideology that is imposed. In countries like China, for example, it is imposed through a capillary control in a population of about a billion men, whose vision of life is in the key of mass dialectical materialism, for which man is his body. The vision of life is at the levels of cybernetics, of the control of thought and of education in a very authoritarian form. At the same time in the West the control of all the messages that reach the person is a control that excludes God, already from childhood we are introjected into the atheistic and materialistic vision of life in which there is no God. Today's kids do not ask themselves the question of the existence of God, as if it were something of little interest.
This is the project, now become global. It is so incisive in society that the Madonna in Medjugorje now speaks of a world without God, of humanity that does not want God, therefore of a humanity that has decided for death.
1) General scientific topic
The great myths of modern science, we have seen, are three: mechanism, evolutionism and the marginalization of the human.
The second myth, the evolutionary one, has had a history of failures from the beginning, because it has not shown any predictive or applicative capacity. It is a unique case in the history of natural science for its epistemic, technological and economic nullity. How is it that a metaphysical postulate, dressed up in scientific garb, has enjoyed such a warm and enduring reception in academia? Darwin started from the hypothesis that existing species arose from one or a few primitive species through chains of descent extending over millions of years. Even leaving aside the mechanisms by which differentiation would have occurred, it is clear that Darwin conceived of biological evolution as a gradual process involving innumerable intermediate forms, many if not most of which should be recorded in the fossil record. Instead, except for a handful of very dubious specimens, there is no trace of intermediate types. Stephen J. Gould abandoned Darwinian continuism for precisely this reason: “Most species show no change during their existence on earth. They appear in the fossil record as they disappear; the morphological changes are usually small and without direction.” Normally in experimental science this gap would be enough to falsify the myth, and Darwin had already resigned himself to the possibility, in the absence of new fossil discoveries... Not Gould, however, who remained a Darwinist until his death, nor the majority biology of our days, according to which the "fact" of evolution would have happened at such a speed and in such very special conditions that the intermediate forms would have disappeared without leaving a trace. Evolutionism passes Popper's test like recommended students pass the entrance exams: it is not allowed to fail!
Mathematically then, evolution "sustains itself on dozens and dozens of thousands of miracles" (Marcel-Paul Schützenberger). Even a child understands this. Let's consider the bacterial flagellum, a sort of oar used by bacteria to move in water and moved by a molecular rotary machine powered by an acid. Depending on the microbe, its functioning involves several dozen and even hundreds of types of proteins, which must all be present at their place of work at the same time for the flagellum to carry out its function. This is the “simplest” example of what Schützenberger called “functional complexity”: an organized system of many components, interacting with each other so as to perform a function and such that the lack of a single component nothing prevents the system from carrying it out. This notion is crucial to understanding why Darwinism is an infinite set of “miracles”. Thus, it will have no weight for a Darwinist, because myth is the last thing a man can give up. It is therefore natural that, for example, the Italian Society of Evolutionary Biologists chooses as president not a researcher from a chemical-biological laboratory nor a physicist or a mathematician, but a philosopher with strong popularising skills. The more implausible myths are, the more they demand story-telling rhetoricians. And it is understandable that biology departments organize lessons for students held by a journalist, a fan of Tolkien and a science fiction writer. For this novelist, the idea of missing links in the chain between the great apes and man is “misleading”, misunderstands the “true functioning” of evolution and, finally, supports “a whole series of erroneous narratives about the place that man occupies in the universe”. The peculiarities of the human being from bipedalism to symbolic language would all be "errors" in DNA transcription and the evolution that occurred would have been only one possibility among many equally probable ones: "the Truth" - with a capital T, specifies this Lord of the missing rings - would be in the "deep time of evolution, an infinite dark corridor, without any sign that marks a scale of reference" and where anything can happen. Including the series of miracles, which are not facts that happened in an "infinite dark corridor", but fantasies assigned to a finite interval of 10^17 seconds, measured by paleontology and carbon physics. (1/2)
2) Physical argument
"There is no equation that describes the theory of the origin of life and the Biological Evolution of the Human Species. Nor are there experiments reproducible in the laboratory that can be used as a mathematical basis to give scientific credibility to theories on the origins of life. A theory, until someone manages to formulate it in a rigorously mathematical way, remains outside of Science. Therefore, the claim that the origin of life and the Biological Evolution of the Human Species (EBSU) are scientific truths is without scientific foundation. We are faced with theories formulated using words, not mathematical language made of formulas. And that's not all. At the basis of these "words" there are no reproducible results and that is experiments that are at the first level of scientific credibility as Archimedes and Galileo teach. The dominant culture has placed the theme of the biological evolution of the human species on the pedestal of a great scientific truth in total contrast with Faith. Yet, the biological evolution of the human species would never have brought man to the Moon. Nor to travel at supersonic speeds. Much less to discover Science. The biological evolution of the human species has done very little. Indeed, absolutely nothing. Man is exactly as he was ten thousand years ago. Evolutionists say that this is obvious and that they have always said and repeated that the typical times of human evolution are millions, tens of millions of years. Evolutionists talk as if a million or ten million years were the result of a theoretical prediction linked to an equation. If evolutionary theory had a serious scientific basis, it should be able to predict the exact value of the times that characterize human evolution. There are hundreds of laboratories in the world today, some of them even secret, where “The problem of minimal life” is studied; the problem called “of minimal life”. What does it mean? It is very difficult to study how to go from stone to swallow. Stone and swallow are extremely complicated realities. Going from stone to cat, to bird, to less complex life forms, such as flies and other smaller living beings is always too complicated. “The problem of minimal life” is the passage from a very small piece of inert matter to the simplest type of living matter. The problem boils down to studying how many small pieces of very small inert things we must have to produce the simplest example of a living cell. Is there anyone who knows how to do it? No one. Evolutionists claim to know that man is certainly an animal like many others. This is not the case. The animal species to which we belong is endowed with a unique privilege: Reason. It is thanks to this privilege that we were able to invent collective memory (writing), to discover rigorous logic (mathematics), and to discover that we are not children of chaos but of a formidable logical structure. The bases of which are: three columns and three fundamental forces. A strong argument of evolutionism are the characteristics common to the innumerable animal species. There is one far more important. It is common, not only to forms of living matter, but also to those of inert matter…. A stone, a tree, an eagle, a man are made of the same particles: protons, neutrons and electrons. This does not mean that we physicists draw the conclusion that stones, trees, eagles and man are identical realities. The diversity of our species is extraordinarily unique: no one can rigorously deduce it from fundamental principles linked to equations and reproducible experiments. This is why no one can claim to have "discovered the true origin of our species". No one who knows what Science means would dare to make such statements. The Dominant Culture has led the general public to believe that the origin of life and the biological evolution of the human species are scientific truths of Galilean origin. Let us point out that scientific truths of Galilean origin have three levels of credibility and that the biological evolution of the human species has always been and still is today below the minimum level of scientific credibility. ”(Antonino Zichichi, Radici Cristiane, n.184, April-June 2024)
3) Genetic argument
There is irrefutable proof that comes from molecular biology and genetics: chromosomal macro-mutations make it impossible (or sterile) for individuals who possess them. It is not possible to go from the 37 chromosomes of the monkey to the 36 of man.
Conclusion
I would like to mention finally my favorite enemy, which has to do with evolutionism.
“The concept of value is my favorite enemy.”(Remi Brague, interview by Solène Tadié, Osservatore Romano, December 16, 2016). Mine is transhumanism. What is transhumanism, if not the super-myth that condenses in itself mechanism, evolutionism and Copernicanism? If for transhumanists machines will never be able to have sensitivity and consciousness, it matters little: in a decreed evolution without direction, the overtaking of the machine over man can also occur downwards, with people deprived of humanity and increasingly slaves to technology.(2/2)
Take a look at the Universe in all of its wild and radical complexity, and all of its stunning mathimatical complexity.To say that all that came spontaneously from nothing is ludicrous.God is non contigent ground of contigency.That whos very nature is to be cannot be limited or imperfect in its being.Because its very nature is to exist.Atheist believe in infinity-always been there. Astomical evidence has shown that the universe had a beggining.Big bang theory points to exactly what Christians have always believed.There was a begining.
@@b00g3rs21 Let’s take it step by step:
Interconnectedness as evidence of design:
Reality being interconnected doesn’t imply design-it implies consistency in natural laws. The existence of straight lines (or the lack thereof in nature) doesn’t point to a designer either; it points to geometry, a concept we use to understand spatial relationships. Natural occurrences, like crystal formations or the paths of light, often mimic straight lines without divine intervention. You’re starting with the assumption that design is required, but that’s the very point you’re supposed to prove, not assume.
Evolution and Bigfoot:
Ah yes, the classic "find Bigfoot" argument. Evolution doesn’t rely on mythical creatures-it relies on observable evidence, such as fossil records, genetic similarities, and observed speciation events. We share a common ancestor with apes, not a direct lineage from them, and no one claims we ‘walked out of a bog.’ This caricature of evolution shows you haven’t studied the basics. Pro-tip: interspecies transitional fossils do exist. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, and many others are well-documented. Google them.
Mathematics as discovery vs. invention:
Mathematics is both discovered and developed. It’s a human-created framework to describe natural phenomena. The Pythagorean theorem, for example, describes relationships that exist regardless of our awareness of them. However, how we represent math-symbols, systems, axioms-is human invention. Just because it aligns with the universe’s structure doesn’t mean it’s divine; it means it’s useful.
Zoroastrians and stargazing:
You’re conflating early scientific observations with religious mysticism. Yes, some ancient cultures made significant astronomical and mathematical advances, but they often interwove them with myths and superstitions. The Magi story, however, remains a theological tale, not a scientific breakthrough. They weren’t calculating orbital mechanics; they were following a story.
The Big Bang and miracles:
The Big Bang theory doesn’t require a miracle; it’s supported by evidence like cosmic microwave background radiation and redshift observations. The fact that we don’t yet fully understand everything doesn’t mean “God did it.” That’s a textbook example of the god-of-the-gaps fallacy. Science seeks to explain the unknown through evidence, not plug gaps with untestable assertions.
Now, let me flip it back: If you claim design, who designed the designer? Or is your explanation conveniently exempt from the logic you demand of everyone else? Try again.
I know what you are saying but why do you think the guy who put the math in everything is so ashamed to tell us himself , instead of using intelligent animals to tell us ?
He revealed Himself many times since the beginning of time. For example, in the Garden of Eden, then before the flood to Noah who was then able to warn everyone who then ignored him, in destroying the tower of Babel, in destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. Then by the encounter Moses had with God on Mount Sinai. Then there was the coming of Jesus when all of that had been ignored. Humanity destroyed that Jesus Christ. We have been warned and put on notice for all of our sins. Jesus had come partly to warn us (again). The Bible suggests this is our final chance when the judgement comes up, and we might be very close to it now.
Mind-behind= reason
No longer watching Trump supporters
SECULAR explanations
Good and bad in any areas of human knowledge.
imagine yourself as a conscious being living in a world that was truly random, there would be zero intelligibility to it. The universe we live in is understandable, therefor it is not random
Yes and no one is claiming that it's random, this is a strawman of what scientists think is happening. It's the same as people claiming Evolution is random, which it isn't because it depends on the environment which is not random. Some aspect's of it seem "random" (mutations), but we just don't have enough information on the location of all rays that interact with particles in genes causing the mutation so we call it random for now (and forever since we will not have infinite knowledge).
It would resemble the imperfect AI images. Everything couldn’t possibly fit together perfectly without an intelligence
In theory a reality governed by literally nothing but complete randomness should probably just be nothing
@@Chronodesic The woman on the video (Nigella Lawson) was talking about randomness.
It is so sad to see people as aetheists for they are preventing themselves from knowing God.
How could they acknowledge a Supreme Intelligent Mind if they are so full of themselves and unknowingly aware that they could not have all the answers to every human or life inquiry but they act as if they do. 😢😢😢
Because, it is a deeply rooted and internal necessity to maintain control over themselves and their own lives. It is very difficult as a human race who is bound to such a destructive and painful place to see that a Loving, Kind and Good One is running the show, and then to surrender to that is a terrifying thing for most people. By not believing, we get to maintain our own sense of structure, control, self authority and power and That false sense of security, peace and comfort actually makes people happy.
The killer question I was expecting the priest to ask was "How can the an ordered low entropy universe like this one create/invent itself out of absolutely nothing for no reason or purpose?" To which they inevitably distract, prevaricate and quibble about the meaning of words but have absolutely no answer.
No one makes the claim such a universe did, so... maybe try asking an honest question instead?
Perhaps you should provide some actual evidence of the existence of your god? That is the killer.
@@paulmarcil6221 ---The evidence is everywhere. But you prefer to remain blind.
Hindus: Ishwar, the cause for Creation, is the Eternal Energy of Infinite Space.😅
What actually is Arabs' creator Allah?😮
What actually is Europeans' creator God?😮
Ephesians 2:4 KJV "But GOD, who is rich in mercy, for HIS great love wherewith HE loved us, 5 even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us (made us alive) together with CHRIST, by grace you are saved; 6 and has raised us up together, and made us (true believers) sit together in heavenly places in CHRIST JESUS: 7 that in the ages to come HE might show the exceeding riches of HIS grace in HIS kindness toward us through CHRIST JESUS. 8 For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of GOD: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast."
rcc this and that. such pride and ego
Such great love for God, who gave us the Catholic Church, which gave us the Bible, and which God the Holy Spirit guides and teaches.
@@terrysaunders1269 No, God gave us the church started by Jesus Christ - the only Church. No mention of Romans being the seat and dictator of all of Christianity under a 'pope'.
@@terrysaunders1269 Do you really think the pope is 'infallible'?
Nothing new same old narrative
Modifier
According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, "existing" refers to the act of "being" itself, meaning that existence is the most fundamental aspect of a thing, and for God, existence is not separate from his essence - God is pure existence, essentially "existing itself.
Aquinas makes grand claims about God's essence and existence, but none of it is backed by evidence-just philosophical wordplay.
Utter nonsens !!!
So God is all of this without the things? Well that's nothing, but nothing can't exist by definition so God doesn't exist per this argument.
This is merely saying that existence has to exist before any object can exist. This is like claiming that a cat cannot be black unless a universal concept of blackness exists beforehand. The truth is that as our understanding of the universe has advanced there is progressively less space for God, and the only way to maintain the claim of his existence to make him continually more attenutated until he becomes a mere theological abstraction. Most the arguments presented here seem to be variations of the watchmaker argument.
Absolute HYPOCRISY comes from the mouths of apologists e.g., the priest, EVERY TIME they try to "prove" their - or any - god's existence as some actual reality in this universe. How IGNORANT of his or her faith is this god-believer who claims to have proof of god's existence. There is ONLY ONE REQUIREMENT to believe a god exists: FAITH. And FAITH REQUIRES NO PROOF!!! These apologists are RIDICULOUS in their futile attempts to box their god.
Your comment is absurd. When you state, "FAITH REQUIRES NO PROOF" you are describing BLIND FAITH. When a Christian embraces faith, it is most often predicated on EVIDENCE. There are a number of extremely compelling arguments for God's very real existence as He has revealed Himself via Natural Revelation and Special Revelation.
You simply are ignorant about these arguments, and I would wager you are not interested in changing your position. And this is very unfortunate for you ultimately.
I think that the complexity of our existence where we are in the universe is so overwhelmingly impossible to wrap your head around. to this day, we have no explanation for how the universe came into existence so for individuals like these professors and others for them to think that the Lord was capable of bringing into existence all that is here and around us is virtually impossible for them to admit. In doing so they would destroy their own professions, and this is complete through the majority of the sciences and particularly anthropology and geology..
"To this day we have no explanation for how the universe came into existence" Is that the reason ignorant early man invented an imaginary god. Solved all his questions. We are no longer early man!
@@oldgolfer7435 So what is your explanation?
The more I hear about the aetheists argument about God, the more I learned that their argument is just running in circles with nowhere to go, defending the same idea over & over again without any further explanation and that is reasoning & logic.
Wouldn't it just be easier for God to reveal himself for sake of humanity and make the world a better place and settle the argument of his existence for once and all.
No. You would not believe him. Something coming on a plate (you do not have to struggle with, put effort into ) is either disdained and mocked or rejected as something forced on you. You would be deprived of your free choice. Only a super naive and simplistic mind can ask this question.
No.study the Catholic Faith and its HOLINESS.
@@kbeetles
Why would being able to make a fully informed decision impede free will?
One would think hiding vital information would be intentionally influencing the choice far worse
Interconnectedness is real and true but please don’t try to define God He is beyond our imagination- it’s a futile exercise if you still try-
AMEN
How is it possible to obtain order out of chaos unless there is an underlying order? So there must be an underlying order. Mathematics shows that monkeys, as numerous as the stars, on typewriters cannot produce a single page of Shakespeare let alone a complete work, so from whence do these marvelous works arise?
If you don't seek God you will not find him. I find the atheist argument to be full of an over sized ego.
That's called confirmation bias. You'll find any god if you search hard enough. You'll find leprechauns, too.
I'm pretty sure that modern physics agrees that the universe sprang forth from nothing
so modern physics is god? something created from nothing?
The 'big bang theory' is called that for a reason - it is a theory.
Evolution has never been proven either.
Life is a miracle. The atheist and there is nothing they can do about it. But to shut yourself off from Gods grace is blasphemy.
Darkness will follow.
but not believer ungodly people are believing in a lie there is no evidence and doesn't make sense what they saying