Reason involves facts, intuition, and logic. Facts require honest & thorough observation. Intuition is what I think Dr. Kreeft means here by "common sense". It's the experiences that we all have and choose not to deny by our overly sophisticated theories. Self-evident truths might fit into this definition as well. It's an intuition that I do exist and that reality exists and that I experience it through an interface of physical reality. It's an intuition that my choices and actions matter because certain choices bring life, joy, flourishing, and psychological peace while others produce injury, desolation, and psychological distress. It's an intuition that I have free-will. The distinction between a good philosopher and a bad one is that the good one takes the content of his intuition and tries to understand them through the organization of facts and intuitions into what we would call logic and arguments. This is what Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas do. Bad philosophers try to try to distort or deny the obvious senses of our intuitions with clever riddles and arguments. This is what sophists do and the field is virtually dominated by sophists in the modern era.
Couldn’t have said it better. Thomas Aquinas work has really changed the way I think and view the world. Really makes God clear in a time where nothing makes sense.
@@matswessling6600 I'd say intuition *can* lead us wrong, not that it necessarily does. Intuition can reinforce our intellectual understanding of ourselves, the world, and God and vice versa.
@@matswessling6600maybe these different ways of getting at the truth act as correctives to each other's blind spots. It's easy enough to find examples of each going wrong. Mortimer Adler defined 'common sense' as something like the intuition that most of humanity would agree on - based on common experience. But that others might have a different intuition because of specialized or abnormal experience. Someone who grew up in a dysfunctional family might require some faith, philosophy and science to correct their malformed sense of how people relate to one another, for example.
@@chrisshanahan8113 intuition is unreliable. That means that it is not, by itself, ground for knowledge about anything. You need to confirm it with other means.
Crazy, I just found out this man 87 years old. I mean yes he looks a bit old, but not 87 and when you hear him talking, he sounds like his brain is at peak performance. Very impressive.
@@LL-bl8hd He's a well seasoned veteran. It seems age doesn't matter. I recently heard an interview with and Italian 92-year-old woman winning the 200-meters/218.7- yards race record. She looked like being in her 60's. Last year, also, a 90-year-old man took his lawyer degree. There are obviously no limits for what one can do... And after all, isn't Pope Francis 87 himself with his several daily engagements and meetings?
Reason and logic are self-evident. When someone asks the question “Do reason and logic exist?”, the immediate answer is, of course they do. You couldn’t ask the question if they didn’t.
I can’t help but think of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants.”
Words cannot express how much I love Dr Kreeft. Since I won't have a chance to give him a hug in this life, I'll try to be the best person I can so one day I can maybe meet him in Heaven.
I think I remember Matt once saying he worried terribly when he was younger whether he was the only person that actually exists! 😮 That's why he asked Dr Kreeft with a twinkle in his eye, 'Maybe YOU don't exist' 😅
Does God exist? It's easy, we exist and we didn't make ourselves. Ultimately, in order to avoid a reductio ad absurdum, we must conclude, with Aristotle, that God made us, and, as the Church teaches, God is necessary for our continues existence.
I owe a lot to the philosophy of pragmatism- it’s essentially a know something by its fruits approach to truth. William James helped me see what scientism is and actually helped me piece together an epistemic basis to revert. Over time I put that mental framework away but it was an important doorway for me. If you have intellectual atheist friends… introducing them to pragmatic philosophy and its arguments about scientism might be good “pre” evangelization.
There is no such thing as scientism.William James show that you cannot prove God beyond reasonable doubt so if a someone was to deny that God exist they are being reasonable.
I've thought about the common sense argument regarding a lot of modern academics. Sometimes you just have to say some things are true because they are. You shouldn't have to rationize everything because their truth is self evident. It's like a philosopher telling you the chair in front of you doesnt exist when the correct answer simply is, "It does exist"
I take interest because it was like no matter what I did or didn't do, I could not believe. I once argued that I lacked the neurological wiring to believe. It's interesting to see the ASD crowd have a similar situation. Most replies were basically "just pray harder, bro." No wonder I don't like the Southern Baptist convention or their adjacents.
Can I ask where you’re at now with that? Do you find yourself in the same position now or have you come to believe? (And if you did, how did that happen?) I’m always very curious about people’s stories, especially experiences like yours!
@@littledrummergirl_19 I was pascal's Wager'd with hellfire and brimstone sermons at age 10. Not trying to believe at age 16 was a huge benefit to me. It still took another 21 years before the paranoia of hellfire and brimstone went away.
Are you a skeptic still or have you become a Christian now? And if a skeptic, are you someone who would like to believe in God but just can’t? I was an atheist in that position, BTW. Life Is ***unimaginably*** better as a Catholic. :)
Imagine « Cogito ergo sum » as the basis for certainty including certainty about doubt. Now, imagine human beings shifting to « Cogito ergo sum quod cogito ». You now end up with the most illusory ontological premise requiring you to doubt who you are while at the same time claiming that you are sure you are what you think you are. Such is the premise of transgenderism as an ideology. Levy Shalom
To doubt what is certain, as Descartes does, may give the impression of extraordinary keen insight, however, it is foolish exhibitionism, a trap for the unwary, and an excuse for one's libertinism. And the same blame must be given to those who, for the same reasons, create problems that do not exist. Unfortunately, Descartes must be counted among them. Descartes tells us that we can be certain of doubting. Alright, I can have this certainty; but what use is such certainty to me? I am not so interested in the certainty of thinking or doubting as much as in being able to think about the truth of things, what is objectively certain, and not what I decide or want to be certain. True certainty is when the intellect stops oscillating and halts because it is necessitated either by evidence or by the demonstration of the thing, in such a way as to exclude the opposite alternative, and not because I choose one of the two alternatives at my discretion without reason.
5:00 This argument doesnt work. In the past, many things have been thought to be healthy that actually werent, things like smoking. The fact is, you dont intuitively always know what is good for you.
God continuously chose ignorant peasants to spread His Gospel. God knows they are closer to the truth than the educated who pile doubts upon doubts from the complex edifice of thought they've constructed.
@WaterCat5 The fact that you are equating scientific breakthroughs with Truth itself already shows my point. Knowledge that the world is does not come from how the world is. A man of science could unravel the amazing mechanics of the universe and still come away questioning whether he really exists at all. The peasant knows nothing of these things but also knows the truth of his existence by simple experience and intuition. Focusing on the minutiae can lead one away from comprehending the whole. This is why the Pharisees had such trouble accepting the Gospel, because its simple Truth ran up against their own minute conclusions about what could be true. While the apostles by experience walked with Truth Himself and were therefore given it whole.
@@DigitalLogos Yeah, news flash, scientists also have immediate sense experience. You also are implicitly asserting that the scientists are looking at "minutia" but the peasants aren't. Isn't it the peasants who are looking at the minutia since they only apprehend their immediate environment? Feels like you're conveniently defining things to match your outcome.
If you dispute the existence of God you need to prove or disprove His existence. God requires that you invite Him in and and pray to come to know Him. If you do this it is a real possibility He will reveal Himself to you. Once you sincerely invite the Holy Spirit into you He will never leave or abandon you no matter how insane your life gets. Most people pray for 'stuff'. That will not get a response and those people never really know Him. You must pray to know Him. Faith REQUIRES that you trust Him with your life. To have God you need faith and trust. To be saved Works of the Law will never save you but Good Works are a required element to your salvation. Trust as in Your Will Not Mine must be sincerely felt.
This is circular logic. Praying for God to reveal himself to you requires that you already believe in God. Revelation is not knowledge it is a belief in a subjective experience. Then it could be asked why does God only reveal himself in a private subjective way instead of a public objective way. How do I know the experience is not fabricated by me.
I’m not sure this video answered the question in the title. So the answer we can be sure god exists is just “it’s common sense” and don’t doubt it? Not sure about that.
Yes, I'd say instead of debating common sense, they should debate whether belief in God is a part of our common sense the same way as the belief in objective reality is, or not. That would be more suitable for the video's title.
Only a handful of convincing arguments for the existence of God? Imagine that number 200 years ago…a thousand years ago. Why is it that the arguments for God become fewer and more abstract?
Before people go down such paths, it's important to clarify what you mean by "God"....what you don't mean by "God". I'd also suggest, some might say in the 21stC (compared to centuries ago) there are more, not fewer arguments FOR God than against ie, the complexity of a single cell!
@@mmmail1969 single cell complexity is not a good argument for God. The only good arguments left for God are those that are essentially unfalsifiable (fine tuning, the “beginning” of the universe, and abiogenesis). You might be able to throw in consciousness. But, you are correct that these arguments only get you to a sort of deistic god or gods.
Even if there is a celestial supervisor, how does this make him a catholic one, a muslim one a hindu one and the list is extensive,anonymity is his favorite state,,just leave him alone to get on with opening new galaxies and planets..amen
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, yet today’s philosophy students are far from being considered wise-quite the contrary. I think Hume and Kant and Descartes represent mental traps that encourage us to get stuck on stupid questions rather than unpacking any sort of mysteries. I believe someone doubting the faith on account of these philosophies needs a more practical solution than a rational one but I don’t know what that is.
That’s my issue. How can I have a relationship with someone/something that we don’t even know exists? I’m a Christian by the way, I just struggle with the whole relationship concept especially when I hear people say “my relationship with God is strong.” What exactly does that mean? Thank you
I’d like to try to answer your question… are you Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox? Also, it sounds like you’re perhaps not very solid in your belief in God…am I reading that right?
Murder is more understandable than divorce? Seriously hope that he doesn't teach that in class. The problem of pain is not the ONLY objection to God. The sheer lack of evidence is a more logical argument, but the problem of pain is more visceral/relatable. And Christians have yet to adequately answer it.
I think the problem is that some people are capable of believing the answers and some aren't. I say that because some motivational corporate slogans sound like "Praise God and Jesus and thank them for your BS in life" minus the God and Jesus parts. Question is, how many people can actually be motivated by corporate motivational BS?
This may end up sounding a bit Jungian, but I think common sense might be fairly taken as the same as intuition. Intuition would be the unconscious part of our psyche, developed over the entire history of the evolution of the human brain. Rationality is a newer addition to our psychology, so the amount of time it’s had to collect data and form its self around them is less. Therefore, when rationality is taken over common sense, you’re drawing conclusions from a smaller pool of data. Idk…
I think you're overcomplicating things, speaking of common sense. Fact is, we have tools and data that support intuition is often wrong and that rational thinking is generally superior for ascertaining truth. Don't need armchair philosophy. Just look at the data.
@@WaterCat5 Hey, I appreciate the input. I’m sure I’m wrong. I was mostly just spitballing and posted the first thing that came to mind. God bless and have a great day!
Well, three extremely famous saints appeared to me at an age long before I knew who they were. Therefore I could *NOT* have been hallucinating. Therefore the belief in an after, for me, is *NOT* the intellectual exercise it is for the brainer people of the world. What you need to believe in the afterlife is *NOT* a bigger brain but a more transcendent mind
The existence of God is not at all "common sense." If God exists, he follows literally none of the common sense ways by which we confidently assume the existence of anything else. He allegedly is all powerful and wants us all to know he exists and loves us and wants a relationship with us, yet he doesn't show up in any of the common sense ways that anyone else would if any of us had those traits. So whether you think God exists or not, it's rather absurd to say his existence is a conclusion of common sense.
Heliocentrism has caused more fear, misunderstanding and doubt than anything I can think of. Return to Biblical Cosmology to help restore your faith and be thankful to God for the very air you breath and the Son He sent to save us.
This reminds me of standards of measurement in science. The gram, as a unit of weight, is based on a physical object that the scientific community agrees to accept as the standard definition of the gram. In this way, it's objective in the sense that we all agree to accept a certain object as the standard. But it is sort of arbitrary. In a similar way, reason is a standard that we all agree on. It's arbitrarily in the sense that there is nothing external to human experience to dictate that we must use reason as a standard for anything. Reason is a rule that we all intuitively feel compelled to play by. This thing that compels us is a mystery. This mystery is ultimately God. Empiric certainty is a phantom. It doesn't exist. And yet, we are certain about many things. The deepest knowledge is not empiric. In a mysterious may, it just is.
Feels very strange hearing 2 people who ascribe to a religion that explicitly states it has access to ""The Truth"" admit that epistemological certainly is for the birds. Matt's health example is actually so instructive for seeing the cognitive bias at play work. He assumes 'his' reaction to something is the arbiter of healthy Vs unhealthy simpliciter; rather than just a subjective experience that, at best, tells him something about how his particular body works. I don't feel any 'sickness' at the idea of casual sex (which I assume is coterminous with Matt's concept of fornication), but Matt will privilege his feelings as "accurate" and use that to insist mine are disordered; as opposed to the equally plausible idea that we're just arguing over flavours here. De gustibus non te disputam.
I often think about how many people only held out for marriage because of hellfire and brimstone purity sermons. They finally marry, and sex still does not work, because of flashbacks.
Yes. That was quick. No, but seriously belief in God is not only rational, it's more or less inescapable unless you only take in a little knowledge, but don't follow up. Also if Christianity weren't true you would expect to find less certainty the more we know, but every discovery lends more credibility to it.
I. Know that when I was born. My Father God gave me an angel. Along with everyone, plus he, God knows every Hair on my head . We live by Faith and not by Sight I won't even argue with an intellectual person . I won't argue with anyone ! Because Jesus , Says to Love oñe another like Christ loved his Church and his people , we are his deciples . To spead the Good News , Pray and Pray Pray more . To be like children if you harm any of his little ones. You'd be better to put a builder around your neck . And be throughen in the Sea . Please can you tell me. What si difficult about reading Scriptures. You don't need intelligence !!! Only the Holy Spirit . Amen
It is illogical to conceive of a God that didn't have to reason out good and exil, and try to isolate the best and worst definitions thus far, and discover better metrics to grade all that lay between
Short answer: You can't How can mortals, who by definition lack the characteristic of God, figure God out in its tiny little ape brain? If somehow one gains 100% knowledge of God's existence, then where does faith go? The core tenet of Christianity crumbles.
No some have absolute certainty based on evidence. Mary knew Jesus was the son of God because an Angel told her. She could have doubted even then but didn’t. The apostles knew Jesus was able to perform miracles and that he was the son of God … they just didn’t think he would come back from the dead. For others it’s having faith that is both tangible and intangible. Things you learn through private revelation, things you feel based on your interaction with God, relics the church possesses, historicity of the bible, discoveries of archaeological nature that relate to stories or places in the bible, personal spiritual experiences when exposed to places of deep religious importance, real life experiences where reliance on God has had a transformative effect on your life, kindness of strangers and likely many more events people experience or hear about
@@enderwiggen3638 Where is faith then? I know I exist with 100% certainty. I don't need faith to know that I exist. If i know God exists with 100% certainty, how do I still use faith to know that God exists?
Your argument is a non-sequitur. Stating that humans are not God, so we cannot know that he exists does not follow. There are plenty of things that humans are not, and yet we know that they exist. Rational numbers for instance. Humans are not rational numbers, yet we know that they exist. Even with your qualifier that the concept of Godness is too vast for a human to fully comprehend, your statement is still a non sequitur. There are things that humans do not fully understand, and yet we know they exist. For instance, the subject experiences of others. A human cannot fully understand the subjective experience of another person, yet we know that it exists. Your statements about faith are equally confounding. You say that certainty about the existence of God removes the necessity of faith. You seem to equate faith with belief. That is not how Christians define faith. Christians have faith _in_ someone. We have faith _that_ things will happen. Jesus constantly tells his disciples to have faith. They know he exists. They see his miracles. Yet they still at times lack faith in Him. If faith was merely the certainty that something exists, then why would Jesus tell the disciples to have faith in Him after they already know he exists and works miracles? If faith was merely the certainty that something exists, then how could the disciples lack faith when they are with the very person of Christ while he works miracles? It seems obvious to me that faith is not merely the belief in the existence of God but must be a radical disposition toward trusting the persons of God.
@@batglide5484 This is a high level comment, probably one of the best I've ever read here on TH-cam. Thanks for taking the time to engage. I know that rational numbers and subject experiences exist because they are integrated into a chain of things that make up my reality. I can build a logical chain backwards from rational numbers to the concept of counting to my own experience of being able to count, of which I'm certain exists. I know that subject experience of others exists because their experiences can overlap with mine. I can take any person in the world, say a person living in Ethiopia who likes wearing jean jackets because of Michael Jackson. I may not know anything else about this person but I know that his experience with the jean jackets is true because I experienced the phenomenon myself, which I'm certain exists. I know that things outside of myself exists because through inference, I know they are connected in my web of reality. I find it impossible to place God inside this web of reality where I can draw logical inferences from God to myself because I don't perceive God as a thing, a being, or a figure. All I can be sure exists are accounts and interpretations of God from others but not God himself. On faith, I believe Jesus was telling the disciples to have faith in his divinity. The disciples knew that he exists as a person, that certainly doesn't take faith. But for Jesus to say have faith in me as a divine figure, messiah; God, the disciples can surely lack faith in that while being certain that he exists as a person right in front of them.
One trip to the afterlife usually solves that. The problem is that so many need to experience other afterlives before they can understand their role in highest heaven
OK, well having made the statement, please set out 1) Why it is poor reasoning? 2) The specific arguments that make it poor reasoning? and 3) Your alternative considered positions? (Personally, I don't think you'll produce a half-a-dozen paragraphs, but I very much look forward to you proving me wrong....God Bless)
@@mmmail1969 Dr Kreeft makes the claim in response to Matts question about why common sense has anything to do with understanding (1:57) that, it's "the foundation our feet are on no matter where we run or fly to", but he gives no justification for why common sense should, or would, provide any reasonable path to truth. And it's demonstrably untrue. Common sense, once upon a time, told use that the sun rotates about the Earth, that lightning was the anger of the gods, that disease was caused by spirits rather than poor hygiene. Yet we know that through reason and investigation that none of those common sense assumptions are true. He seems to imply that, because we are forced to accept our reality as it appears to us out of necessity, that a common sense approach is enough to establish that we are not, in fact, brains in a vat (at least me, obviously the rest of you don't exist if I am). But that's absurd. No one has, or likely could, solve the problem of hard solopsism, and certainly nothing about personal experience or common sense can establish that. If I'm being generous, I can accept that for the most part we must rely on our experience of the world as it seems to survive and engage with the world and each other. But that's not the argument he's making. He's talking about truth, and how we come to know it. But he's provided no justification for why common sense is a better way to truth than reason, and it is clearly reason that has revealed so much truth about our reality to us, not common sense, which would have us still living in the middle ages or earlier. He emphasis this poor reasoning at 2:33 where he states, "ignorant peasants are really more reliable than super intelligent philosophers". If that is true, show me the list of esteemed peasants who have discovered any truth about reality other than those that pertain specifically to their narrow engagement with the world in so far as it pertains to survival. He says, "they speak the truth, they know the truth, they live the truth", but that is bollocks. They live their limited understanding of the world, but in order to say it is truth, Dr Kreeft must demonstrate that what they believe IS true, and that requires more than common sense. Again, if I'm being generous, perhaps what Dr Kreeft means by truth is simply what appears to be effective for a person, but that's not the impression I got from him and I really doubt that's what he meant. At 3:00 he argues against using reason to validate reason. This is, of course, a problem that we are all faced with and is an ongoing debate in philosophical circles. But he gives no justification or reason as to why common sense is better. At 4:35, Dr Kreeft talks about trusting our thoughts. But our thoughts have been proven time and time again to be faulty as a measure of truth. I could go on. I stopped at 5:00 because I think I've made my point and the rest is really much the same. And with this paragraph I've managed to get to half a dozen and I wouldn't want to exceed your expectations too much. If you feel I've been unfair, or am just wrong, I'd love to hear your perspective.
@@mmmail1969 What kind of response is that? You complained that I didn't provide any context for my objection, then when I do you provide a flippant, inconsequential response. I don't think I'm the one lacking common sense here. How about you do for me what you asked me to do for you and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you can't? Perhaps you are stunted by your common sense and lack the reason to seriously consider and respond to them? So much for having a better path to truth.
@@mmmail1969 I shall, reasonably, and also using my common sense, take your continued silence as an acknowledgement that you concede that I was correct in my original assertion that Dr Kleeft applied "extremely poor reasoning" and that you now see the truth of that. You're welcome. I'm always happy to help those with limited reasoning capabilities.
@leebennett1921 Invention? And who's the inventor? Wow!, sooo stupid comment! Who have been your teachers from childhood? You must be an "invention" never patented!
"To draw a limit to God, namely limiting God inside the mind of believers, one must think both sides of the limit"-I learned that line in Wittgenstein.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp Which God did Humans believe in 300k years ago plus I will ask you if there was no heaven or hell and God didn't answer prayers would you believe in him Believe in God because is Gives them comfort Because people cannot accept that they will no longer exist anymore so they invent an Afterlife
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
Goes live tonight th-cam.com/video/N9_cDPjar_k/w-d-xo.htmlsi=mUDLknZo5b1N527M
To the title: yes. Look up the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe by Christopher Langan
"There are many intelligent people who are much smarter than you who lack common sense" - love this quote
Reason involves facts, intuition, and logic. Facts require honest & thorough observation. Intuition is what I think Dr. Kreeft means here by "common sense". It's the experiences that we all have and choose not to deny by our overly sophisticated theories. Self-evident truths might fit into this definition as well. It's an intuition that I do exist and that reality exists and that I experience it through an interface of physical reality. It's an intuition that my choices and actions matter because certain choices bring life, joy, flourishing, and psychological peace while others produce injury, desolation, and psychological distress. It's an intuition that I have free-will. The distinction between a good philosopher and a bad one is that the good one takes the content of his intuition and tries to understand them through the organization of facts and intuitions into what we would call logic and arguments. This is what Plato, Aristotle, and St. Thomas do. Bad philosophers try to try to distort or deny the obvious senses of our intuitions with clever riddles and arguments. This is what sophists do and the field is virtually dominated by sophists in the modern era.
Couldn’t have said it better. Thomas Aquinas work has really changed the way I think and view the world. Really makes God clear in a time where nothing makes sense.
and yet philisophy and science has shown again and again that the intuition leads wrong.
@@matswessling6600 I'd say intuition *can* lead us wrong, not that it necessarily does. Intuition can reinforce our intellectual understanding of ourselves, the world, and God and vice versa.
@@matswessling6600maybe these different ways of getting at the truth act as correctives to each other's blind spots. It's easy enough to find examples of each going wrong.
Mortimer Adler defined 'common sense' as something like the intuition that most of humanity would agree on - based on common experience. But that others might have a different intuition because of specialized or abnormal experience. Someone who grew up in a dysfunctional family might require some faith, philosophy and science to correct their malformed sense of how people relate to one another, for example.
@@chrisshanahan8113 intuition is unreliable. That means that it is not, by itself, ground for knowledge about anything. You need to confirm it with other means.
Crazy, I just found out this man 87 years old. I mean yes he looks a bit old, but not 87 and when you hear him talking, he sounds like his brain is at peak performance. Very impressive.
I hope to be as sharp as him at 87, or any age!
@@LL-bl8hd
He's a well seasoned veteran. It seems age doesn't matter. I recently heard an interview with and Italian 92-year-old woman winning the 200-meters/218.7- yards race record. She looked like being in her 60's.
Last year, also, a 90-year-old man took his lawyer degree. There are obviously no limits for what one can do...
And after all, isn't Pope Francis 87 himself with his several daily engagements and meetings?
he looks older than my Pop and he is 90
@@johnpro2847
did you read my previous commenT?
@@johnpro2847 Then your pop is very lucky, congratulations to him.
Hi Matt, love your videos, you and Trent got me back into the church life and into apologetics. I will forever be thankfull. ❤🇪🇸
You gotta love the man. Prayers for Dr. Kreeft.
Man I cannot wait! Another Kreeft episode! These are treasures from God.
Dr. Kreeft is so satisfying.....just want more! Thanks for this interview. You know how to ask some great questions, Matt.
Yaaaaay another Dr Kreeft episode coming!! Excellent!!!
Dr. Kreeft is our Gandalf 🧙♂️
God bless our wonderful Peter Kreeft.
Reason and logic are self-evident. When someone asks the question “Do reason and logic exist?”, the immediate answer is, of course they do. You couldn’t ask the question if they didn’t.
@toddfry6635
I just read a comment that said "God is an invention...". What would be your immediate response there?
Thank you for Dr Peter. Old is totally wisdom ❤
Absolutely fantastic!
Your talks with Dr. Kreeft have been some of my favorites-thank you so much for having him on again. Can;t wait to see the whole episode.
I can’t help but think of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew: “At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and have revealed them to infants.”
I like that too!!
My favorite, Dr. Kreeft❤🙏👍
Love these with dr Kreeft
Please tell me there’s a five-hour talk with this wonderful man coming up 🙏
"full episode coming up" is written in description, so yeah
Wonderful conversation 👏👏
the wisdom that comes to the humble and poor of hart
Words cannot express how much I love Dr Kreeft. Since I won't have a chance to give him a hug in this life, I'll try to be the best person I can so one day I can maybe meet him in Heaven.
Did you read any books from him? If so could you recommend me one?
@@blubblurb For me it was "Christianity for modern pagans". Don't let the title fool you. Get to know Pascal.
@@chetciancarelli144 Oh that’s a GREAT one, “Christianity for Modern Pagans”!!!
“Heaven, the Heart’s Deepest Longing”
“The God Who Loves You”
“Jesus Shock”
Reason cannot be proved by reason, skepticism in thought itself is self-contradictory 😂 God bless!
Divorce Italian Style is hysterically funny and brilliantly directed. Love that movie!
Thank you
My favorite Matt question to Dr Kreeft in a prior interview: “are you an Angel?”
Dr Kreeft “you’ll never know.”
There is difference between “know” and “proof of an assertion”.
Gotta love Peter Kreeft... Enjoying immensely "Why Does Everything Come in Threes?"
I participate in Being as a contingent being and so since I am such I think about it!
I think I remember Matt once saying he worried terribly when he was younger whether he was the only person that actually exists! 😮
That's why he asked Dr Kreeft with a twinkle in his eye, 'Maybe YOU don't exist' 😅
Thanks much for this video.
I found myself taking the long way home so I could listen to this whole thing
That was really FUN!
I wish I was this cool.
Does God exist?
It's easy, we exist and we didn't make ourselves. Ultimately, in order to avoid a reductio ad absurdum, we must conclude, with Aristotle, that God made us, and, as the Church teaches, God is necessary for our continues existence.
Louisiana's fried oysters are the best in the world! What a shout out!
I owe a lot to the philosophy of pragmatism- it’s essentially a know something by its fruits approach to truth. William James helped me see what scientism is and actually helped me piece together an epistemic basis to revert. Over time I put that mental framework away but it was an important doorway for me. If you have intellectual atheist friends… introducing them to pragmatic philosophy and its arguments about scientism might be good “pre” evangelization.
There is no such thing as scientism.William James show that you cannot prove God beyond reasonable doubt so if a someone was to deny that God exist they are being reasonable.
Great tip… thank you! God bless you & yours.
Based Camp talk about howut pragmatism, I find them kind of interesting.
I've thought about the common sense argument regarding a lot of modern academics. Sometimes you just have to say some things are true because they are. You shouldn't have to rationize everything because their truth is self evident.
It's like a philosopher telling you the chair in front of you doesnt exist when the correct answer simply is, "It does exist"
Please watch the warning or illumination of conscience by Christine Watkins. Then Following Padre Pio.
“How do you justify reason? By reason? No, reason justifies itself” - Classic Kreeft
TH-cam's algorithm for the win! Excellent snippet.
I take interest because it was like no matter what I did or didn't do, I could not believe. I once argued that I lacked the neurological wiring to believe. It's interesting to see the ASD crowd have a similar situation.
Most replies were basically "just pray harder, bro." No wonder I don't like the Southern Baptist convention or their adjacents.
Can I ask where you’re at now with that? Do you find yourself in the same position now or have you come to believe? (And if you did, how did that happen?) I’m always very curious about people’s stories, especially experiences like yours!
@@littledrummergirl_19 I was pascal's Wager'd with hellfire and brimstone sermons at age 10. Not trying to believe at age 16 was a huge benefit to me. It still took another 21 years before the paranoia of hellfire and brimstone went away.
Are you a skeptic still or have you become a Christian now? And if a skeptic, are you someone who would like to believe in God but just can’t?
I was an atheist in that position, BTW. Life Is ***unimaginably*** better as a Catholic. :)
@@Antonia_D I guess I am in an unfixable state of spekticism. I was never to believe anything without doubt.
Imagine « Cogito ergo sum » as the basis for certainty including certainty about doubt. Now, imagine human beings shifting to « Cogito ergo sum quod cogito ». You now end up with the most illusory ontological premise requiring you to doubt who you are while at the same time claiming that you are sure you are what you think you are. Such is the premise of transgenderism as an ideology.
Levy Shalom
To doubt what is certain, as Descartes does, may give the impression of extraordinary keen insight, however, it is foolish exhibitionism, a trap for the unwary, and an excuse for one's libertinism. And the same blame must be given to those who, for the same reasons, create problems that do not exist. Unfortunately, Descartes must be counted among them.
Descartes tells us that we can be certain of doubting. Alright, I can have this certainty; but what use is such certainty to me? I am not so interested in the certainty of thinking or doubting as much as in being able to think about the truth of things, what is objectively certain, and not what I decide or want to be certain.
True certainty is when the intellect stops oscillating and halts because it is necessitated either by evidence or by the demonstration of the thing, in such a way as to exclude the opposite alternative, and not because I choose one of the two alternatives at my discretion without reason.
5:00
This argument doesnt work. In the past, many things have been thought to be healthy that actually werent, things like smoking. The fact is, you dont intuitively always know what is good for you.
God continuously chose ignorant peasants to spread His Gospel. God knows they are closer to the truth than the educated who pile doubts upon doubts from the complex edifice of thought they've constructed.
If that's true, why have most of our biggest scientific breakthroughs come from the well educated?
@WaterCat5 The fact that you are equating scientific breakthroughs with Truth itself already shows my point.
Knowledge that the world is does not come from how the world is. A man of science could unravel the amazing mechanics of the universe and still come away questioning whether he really exists at all. The peasant knows nothing of these things but also knows the truth of his existence by simple experience and intuition. Focusing on the minutiae can lead one away from comprehending the whole.
This is why the Pharisees had such trouble accepting the Gospel, because its simple Truth ran up against their own minute conclusions about what could be true. While the apostles by experience walked with Truth Himself and were therefore given it whole.
@@DigitalLogos Yeah, news flash, scientists also have immediate sense experience. You also are implicitly asserting that the scientists are looking at "minutia" but the peasants aren't. Isn't it the peasants who are looking at the minutia since they only apprehend their immediate environment? Feels like you're conveniently defining things to match your outcome.
If you dispute the existence of God you need to prove or disprove His existence. God requires that you invite Him in and and pray to come to know Him. If you do this it is a real possibility He will reveal Himself to you. Once you sincerely invite the Holy Spirit into you He will never leave or abandon you no matter how insane your life gets. Most people pray for 'stuff'. That will not get a response and those people never really know Him. You must pray to know Him. Faith REQUIRES that you trust Him with your life. To have God you need faith and trust. To be saved Works of the Law will never save you but Good Works are a required element to your salvation. Trust as in Your Will Not Mine must be sincerely felt.
This is circular logic. Praying for God to reveal himself to you requires that you already believe in God. Revelation is not knowledge it is a belief in a subjective experience. Then it could be asked why does God only reveal himself in a private subjective way instead of a public objective way. How do I know the experience is not fabricated by me.
I’m not sure this video answered the question in the title. So the answer we can be sure god exists is just “it’s common sense” and don’t doubt it? Not sure about that.
Yes, I'd say instead of debating common sense, they should debate whether belief in God is a part of our common sense the same way as the belief in objective reality is, or not. That would be more suitable for the video's title.
Because being precedes thinking as the Angelic doctor himself taught
Jesus…have faith.
Us…how sure can we be?
Only a handful of convincing arguments for the existence of God? Imagine that number 200 years ago…a thousand years ago. Why is it that the arguments for God become fewer and more abstract?
Before people go down such paths, it's important to clarify what you mean by "God"....what you don't mean by "God". I'd also suggest, some might say in the 21stC (compared to centuries ago) there are more, not fewer arguments FOR God than against ie, the complexity of a single cell!
@@mmmail1969 single cell complexity is not a good argument for God. The only good arguments left for God are those that are essentially unfalsifiable (fine tuning, the “beginning” of the universe, and abiogenesis). You might be able to throw in consciousness. But, you are correct that these arguments only get you to a sort of deistic god or gods.
@@kimmyswanExcellent points, kimmy.
Even if there is a celestial supervisor, how does this make him a catholic one, a muslim one a hindu one and the list is extensive,anonymity is his favorite state,,just leave him alone to get on with opening new galaxies and planets..amen
Philosophy is the love of wisdom, yet today’s philosophy students are far from being considered wise-quite the contrary. I think Hume and Kant and Descartes represent mental traps that encourage us to get stuck on stupid questions rather than unpacking any sort of mysteries. I believe someone doubting the faith on account of these philosophies needs a more practical solution than a rational one but I don’t know what that is.
Candace Owens husband has a philosophy major and Catholic.
That’s my issue. How can I have a relationship with someone/something that we don’t even know exists? I’m a Christian by the way, I just struggle with the whole relationship concept especially when I hear people say “my relationship with God is strong.” What exactly does that mean? Thank you
I’d like to try to answer your question… are you Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox? Also, it sounds like you’re perhaps not very solid in your belief in God…am I reading that right?
@@Antonia_D I sometimes wonder if my perspectives would be different if I was not stuck with the Southern Baptsit Convent adjacent types.
In Louisiana, we definitely know why oysters exist!😂
Answer is yes. When we die we will be sure.
Murder is more understandable than divorce? Seriously hope that he doesn't teach that in class.
The problem of pain is not the ONLY objection to God. The sheer lack of evidence is a more logical argument, but the problem of pain is more visceral/relatable. And Christians have yet to adequately answer it.
My God, you are insufferable
I think the problem is that some people are capable of believing the answers and some aren't.
I say that because some motivational corporate slogans sound like "Praise God and Jesus and thank them for your BS in life" minus the God and Jesus parts. Question is, how many people can actually be motivated by corporate motivational BS?
This may end up sounding a bit Jungian, but I think common sense might be fairly taken as the same as intuition. Intuition would be the unconscious part of our psyche, developed over the entire history of the evolution of the human brain. Rationality is a newer addition to our psychology, so the amount of time it’s had to collect data and form its self around them is less. Therefore, when rationality is taken over common sense, you’re drawing conclusions from a smaller pool of data. Idk…
I think you're overcomplicating things, speaking of common sense. Fact is, we have tools and data that support intuition is often wrong and that rational thinking is generally superior for ascertaining truth. Don't need armchair philosophy. Just look at the data.
@@WaterCat5 Hey, I appreciate the input. I’m sure I’m wrong. I was mostly just spitballing and posted the first thing that came to mind. God bless and have a great day!
Why doesn't anyone advere to Newmans Grammar of Assent, destroying Locke?
Not that many people are familiar with Newman - Bishop Robert Barron has some phenomenal talks on him though
this discussion went over my head 😐
Well, three extremely famous saints appeared to me at an age long before I knew who they were. Therefore I could *NOT* have been hallucinating. Therefore the belief in an after, for me, is *NOT* the intellectual exercise it is for the brainer people of the world. What you need to believe in the afterlife is *NOT* a bigger brain but a more transcendent mind
The existence of God is not at all "common sense." If God exists, he follows literally none of the common sense ways by which we confidently assume the existence of anything else. He allegedly is all powerful and wants us all to know he exists and loves us and wants a relationship with us, yet he doesn't show up in any of the common sense ways that anyone else would if any of us had those traits.
So whether you think God exists or not, it's rather absurd to say his existence is a conclusion of common sense.
Heliocentrism has caused more fear, misunderstanding and doubt than anything I can think of. Return to Biblical Cosmology to help restore your faith and be thankful to God for the very air you breath and the Son He sent to save us.
This reminds me of standards of measurement in science. The gram, as a unit of weight, is based on a physical object that the scientific community agrees to accept as the standard definition of the gram. In this way, it's objective in the sense that we all agree to accept a certain object as the standard. But it is sort of arbitrary. In a similar way, reason is a standard that we all agree on. It's arbitrarily in the sense that there is nothing external to human experience to dictate that we must use reason as a standard for anything. Reason is a rule that we all intuitively feel compelled to play by. This thing that compels us is a mystery. This mystery is ultimately God.
Empiric certainty is a phantom. It doesn't exist. And yet, we are certain about many things. The deepest knowledge is not empiric. In a mysterious may, it just is.
The ultimate mystery is the Cosmos.
Feels very strange hearing 2 people who ascribe to a religion that explicitly states it has access to ""The Truth"" admit that epistemological certainly is for the birds.
Matt's health example is actually so instructive for seeing the cognitive bias at play work. He assumes 'his' reaction to something is the arbiter of healthy Vs unhealthy simpliciter; rather than just a subjective experience that, at best, tells him something about how his particular body works.
I don't feel any 'sickness' at the idea of casual sex (which I assume is coterminous with Matt's concept of fornication), but Matt will privilege his feelings as "accurate" and use that to insist mine are disordered; as opposed to the equally plausible idea that we're just arguing over flavours here.
De gustibus non te disputam.
I often think about how many people only held out for marriage because of hellfire and brimstone purity sermons. They finally marry, and sex still does not work, because of flashbacks.
Why do we fear God, we believe he exists; otherwise, there can be no fear?
Short answer: No.
Keeft may be the GOAT.
Who or what is God?
love your music man :) God bless
and yes, i do always turn up the volume when listening xd
@@edwardgreven7454 God bless brother, thanks for the kind words 🙏 Turn that volume up!! (but also please protect your ears)
I frequently discuss what would happen if weebs and otakus believed in shinto and zen Buddhist gods.
He is 87!!!
Yes. That was quick.
No, but seriously belief in God is not only rational, it's more or less inescapable unless you only take in a little knowledge, but don't follow up. Also if Christianity weren't true you would expect to find less certainty the more we know, but every discovery lends more credibility to it.
The more we discover the more doubt it cast on Christianity. It is not at all rationale to believe in God.
@@kos-mos1127 Do you still wear Velcro shoes?
Chief Kreeft
Pints do you really believe
If you ever doubt that GOD AND JESUS CHRIST exist there is no eternal hope for you.
“Peasants speak the truth” go talk to some at any point in history and get back to me.
Comment for traction
I. Know that when I was born. My Father God gave me an angel. Along with everyone, plus he, God knows every Hair on my head . We live by Faith and not by Sight I won't even argue with an intellectual person . I won't argue with anyone ! Because Jesus , Says to Love oñe another like Christ loved his Church and his people , we are his deciples . To spead the Good News , Pray and Pray Pray more . To be like children if you harm any of his little ones. You'd be better to put a builder around your neck . And be throughen in the Sea . Please can you tell me. What si difficult about reading Scriptures. You don't need intelligence !!! Only the Holy Spirit . Amen
🤠
It is illogical to conceive of a God that didn't have to reason out good and exil, and try to isolate the best and worst definitions thus far, and discover better metrics to grade all that lay between
Short answer: You can't
How can mortals, who by definition lack the characteristic of God, figure God out in its tiny little ape brain?
If somehow one gains 100% knowledge of God's existence, then where does faith go? The core tenet of Christianity crumbles.
No some have absolute certainty based on evidence.
Mary knew Jesus was the son of God because an Angel told her. She could have doubted even then but didn’t.
The apostles knew Jesus was able to perform miracles and that he was the son of God … they just didn’t think he would come back from the dead.
For others it’s having faith that is both tangible and intangible. Things you learn through private revelation, things you feel based on your interaction with God, relics the church possesses, historicity of the bible, discoveries of archaeological nature that relate to stories or places in the bible, personal spiritual experiences when exposed to places of deep religious importance, real life experiences where reliance on God has had a transformative effect on your life, kindness of strangers and likely many more events people experience or hear about
@@enderwiggen3638 Where is faith then? I know I exist with 100% certainty. I don't need faith to know that I exist. If i know God exists with 100% certainty, how do I still use faith to know that God exists?
Your argument is a non-sequitur.
Stating that humans are not God, so we cannot know that he exists does not follow. There are plenty of things that humans are not, and yet we know that they exist. Rational numbers for instance. Humans are not rational numbers, yet we know that they exist. Even with your qualifier that the concept of Godness is too vast for a human to fully comprehend, your statement is still a non sequitur. There are things that humans do not fully understand, and yet we know they exist. For instance, the subject experiences of others. A human cannot fully understand the subjective experience of another person, yet we know that it exists.
Your statements about faith are equally confounding. You say that certainty about the existence of God removes the necessity of faith. You seem to equate faith with belief. That is not how Christians define faith. Christians have faith _in_ someone. We have faith _that_ things will happen. Jesus constantly tells his disciples to have faith. They know he exists. They see his miracles. Yet they still at times lack faith in Him. If faith was merely the certainty that something exists, then why would Jesus tell the disciples to have faith in Him after they already know he exists and works miracles? If faith was merely the certainty that something exists, then how could the disciples lack faith when they are with the very person of Christ while he works miracles? It seems obvious to me that faith is not merely the belief in the existence of God but must be a radical disposition toward trusting the persons of God.
@@batglide5484 This is a high level comment, probably one of the best I've ever read here on TH-cam. Thanks for taking the time to engage.
I know that rational numbers and subject experiences exist because they are integrated into a chain of things that make up my reality. I can build a logical chain backwards from rational numbers to the concept of counting to my own experience of being able to count, of which I'm certain exists. I know that subject experience of others exists because their experiences can overlap with mine. I can take any person in the world, say a person living in Ethiopia who likes wearing jean jackets because of Michael Jackson. I may not know anything else about this person but I know that his experience with the jean jackets is true because I experienced the phenomenon myself, which I'm certain exists. I know that things outside of myself exists because through inference, I know they are connected in my web of reality. I find it impossible to place God inside this web of reality where I can draw logical inferences from God to myself because I don't perceive God as a thing, a being, or a figure. All I can be sure exists are accounts and interpretations of God from others but not God himself.
On faith, I believe Jesus was telling the disciples to have faith in his divinity. The disciples knew that he exists as a person, that certainly doesn't take faith. But for Jesus to say have faith in me as a divine figure, messiah; God, the disciples can surely lack faith in that while being certain that he exists as a person right in front of them.
@@batglide5484The existence of rationale numbers is debatable. Humans have been arguing over what events for ages and continue to do so.
One trip to the afterlife usually solves that. The problem is that so many need to experience other afterlives before they can understand their role in highest heaven
It is so unscientific to say that God exists. Everyone knows that the universe created itself. That is science!
Science does not address the origin of the universe. Nor does science know the initial state of the Cosmos to conclude that there was a beginning.
@@kos-mos1127I think they were being ironic/sarcastic
All I know is that anybody CAN prove the "GOD" does NOT exist.
The problem of evil argument doesn’t hold. So it’s 25 to 0. Check out The Best Argument for God by Patrick Flynn
Extremely poor reasoning
OK, well having made the statement, please set out 1) Why it is poor reasoning? 2) The specific arguments that make it poor reasoning? and 3) Your alternative considered positions? (Personally, I don't think you'll produce a half-a-dozen paragraphs, but I very much look forward to you proving me wrong....God Bless)
@@mmmail1969 Dr Kreeft makes the claim in response to Matts question about why common sense has anything to do with understanding (1:57) that, it's "the foundation our feet are on no matter where we run or fly to", but he gives no justification for why common sense should, or would, provide any reasonable path to truth. And it's demonstrably untrue. Common sense, once upon a time, told use that the sun rotates about the Earth, that lightning was the anger of the gods, that disease was caused by spirits rather than poor hygiene. Yet we know that through reason and investigation that none of those common sense assumptions are true.
He seems to imply that, because we are forced to accept our reality as it appears to us out of necessity, that a common sense approach is enough to establish that we are not, in fact, brains in a vat (at least me, obviously the rest of you don't exist if I am). But that's absurd. No one has, or likely could, solve the problem of hard solopsism, and certainly nothing about personal experience or common sense can establish that. If I'm being generous, I can accept that for the most part we must rely on our experience of the world as it seems to survive and engage with the world and each other. But that's not the argument he's making. He's talking about truth, and how we come to know it. But he's provided no justification for why common sense is a better way to truth than reason, and it is clearly reason that has revealed so much truth about our reality to us, not common sense, which would have us still living in the middle ages or earlier.
He emphasis this poor reasoning at 2:33 where he states, "ignorant peasants are really more reliable than super intelligent philosophers". If that is true, show me the list of esteemed peasants who have discovered any truth about reality other than those that pertain specifically to their narrow engagement with the world in so far as it pertains to survival. He says, "they speak the truth, they know the truth, they live the truth", but that is bollocks. They live their limited understanding of the world, but in order to say it is truth, Dr Kreeft must demonstrate that what they believe IS true, and that requires more than common sense. Again, if I'm being generous, perhaps what Dr Kreeft means by truth is simply what appears to be effective for a person, but that's not the impression I got from him and I really doubt that's what he meant.
At 3:00 he argues against using reason to validate reason. This is, of course, a problem that we are all faced with and is an ongoing debate in philosophical circles. But he gives no justification or reason as to why common sense is better.
At 4:35, Dr Kreeft talks about trusting our thoughts. But our thoughts have been proven time and time again to be faulty as a measure of truth.
I could go on. I stopped at 5:00 because I think I've made my point and the rest is really much the same. And with this paragraph I've managed to get to half a dozen and I wouldn't want to exceed your expectations too much.
If you feel I've been unfair, or am just wrong, I'd love to hear your perspective.
@@_the__void_ Yes, I can see you'd struggle with Common Sense!
@@mmmail1969 What kind of response is that? You complained that I didn't provide any context for my objection, then when I do you provide a flippant, inconsequential response. I don't think I'm the one lacking common sense here. How about you do for me what you asked me to do for you and actually address my arguments. Or is it that you can't? Perhaps you are stunted by your common sense and lack the reason to seriously consider and respond to them? So much for having a better path to truth.
@@mmmail1969 I shall, reasonably, and also using my common sense, take your continued silence as an acknowledgement that you concede that I was correct in my original assertion that Dr Kleeft applied "extremely poor reasoning" and that you now see the truth of that. You're welcome. I'm always happy to help those with limited reasoning capabilities.
Misusing “devil’s advocate” and “begging the question” in one breath, or did I misunderstand? God bless Dr. Kreeft for not pouncing.
Boooo
God may very well exist ...dont mean hes ever spoken to xtians or jews or muslims
God is man's invention and exists no where other than is the heads of believers
@leebennett1921
Invention? And who's the inventor? Wow!, sooo stupid comment! Who have been your teachers from childhood? You must be an "invention" never patented!
"To draw a limit to God, namely limiting God inside the mind of believers, one must think both sides of the
limit"-I learned that line in Wittgenstein.
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp Which God did Humans believe in 300k years ago plus I will ask you if there was no heaven or hell and God didn't answer prayers would you believe in him Believe in God because is Gives them comfort Because people cannot accept that they will no longer exist anymore so they invent an Afterlife
@@PaoloGasparini-ux2kp
Indeed. That's what unbelievers learned... and now they instead believe that God is an invention! Brain's ability! 😂
@@leebennett1821
One cannot believe in God with "unsound reasoning". That's what you are just doing... jumping to fixed mindset conclusions!