Can We Ever REALLY Be Sure God Exists? w/ Dr. Peter Kreeft 

To the title: yes. Look up the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe by Christopher Langan

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.

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.

I like that too!!

@toddfry6635 I just read a comment that said "God is an invention...". What would be your immediate response there?

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.

"full episode coming up" is written in description, so yeah

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.

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.

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.

@@CanesCath 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.

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.

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 always wonder how many people can genuinely believe God exists. How many are trying to not lose Pascal's Wager?

@skylinefever I certainly think belief in God is a reasonable position. It's more of a historical question rather than one of science, and based on that, I think there is very good reason to trust what the Apostles preached. Most religions are pyramid schemes and I think can almost immediately be disregarded as such. The issue with Christianity is that unlike religions like Mormonism or Islam where their leaders profited heavily off of it, for the most part, Christianity didn't see that for several centuries. It seems rather likely the Apostles believed what they saw and I think what they all saw was too consistent to dismiss as mere illusion, especially due to the only gain they got out of preaching said message was torture. I believe in Catholicism, but that doesn't mean I don't have questions or doubts. I'm full of them for better or for worse, may God have mercy on me.

@@masterofblabber367I do not think the apostles were historical people.

@kos-mos1127 It's hard to paint a concrete picture without biblical texts but there is definitely sufficient evidence to suggest major players like Peter and Paul were historical figures that died for the faith. We can't verify too much else beyond scripture, but the basic picture is that Christianity had "true believers" who were willing to die for it, whereas I think the only plausible explanations for why they did this is either insanity or they actually didn't believe and made it up. I expect, even if it was a false religion, I would imagine many of the NT events are based in some form of truth that was twisted, for instance this would be my explanation of Islam. I have no doubt Mohammed or his wives or companions named in the Quaran were real people or in some way based on them. I wouldn't say this for Paganism or Judaism because it's not evident the primary sources for either came into existence within a couple decades of their leaders death, if it's within a couple decades legendary developments on the scale needed where Peter or Mary Magdalene were fictional characters would not fly, spread very well or make much sense to create. I could see stuff like Jesus's ressurection or walking on water turn into myth in that level of time, especially since not many were present. The Christian religion and creeds developed throughout the first century and started within a couple years of the crucifixion, the only possible reason I could see for its founding aside from lunacy would be to oppose Rome, but the issue with that is Jesus' whole "render under caeser" thing which would not make sense to include if that was their goal. I would think it would make more sense for the people spreading the Peter myth to self insert themselves rather than make up someone nobody had ever heard of. And as I said I just think the motivations regarding whoever created the supposed Christian myth aren't really all thar reasonable if it wasn't true.

I can‘t answer your question other than to say you‘re absolutely correct. It‘s almost as if the idea of eternal conscious torment is barbaric and false. Ironically, the original Greek text doesn‘t imply eternal conscious torment, rather ultimate universal salvation. The latin translations took nuanced greek terms and applied definite meanings to them which supported eternal hell. The koine greek implied that the purpose of hell (though intensely painful) is rehabilitation and perfection of human nature. In other words, it‘s purgatory. The Catholic church just got the names confused. That‘s the true irony. Purgatory is for everyone who rejects God in this age. Hell is a prison, but a prison whose punishment leads to perfect correction. Everyone will be saved, some just take longer (and require more pain) than others. Gods wants everyone to be saved. Don‘t worry, he gets what he wants. That‘s why he’s sovereign.

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 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!

The ultimate mystery is the Cosmos.

My God, you are insufferable

Not that many people are familiar with Newman - Bishop Robert Barron has some phenomenal talks on him though

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?

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)

Candace Owens husband has a philosophy major and Catholic.

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 RU-vid. 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.

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

Boooo

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.

@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!