The problem with most philosophical works aimed at proving God exists is that, at most, they prove a creative force or intelligence. However, they failed to bridge that entity with the god of any particular religion, particularly Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Whether it is the apologetic works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anslem, or more modern Christian philosophers like Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga, they can't seem to fill the chasm between the intelligent vague being they are attempting to prove and the *SPECIFIC* God they want us to believe in. When I was an atheist, I found these arguments to be wholly insufficient. I became a believer, not because of their sophisticated polemic. I became a believer because of how empty my life was without belief.
Very true, but to someone who doesn't believe there is a maker, we must first show them there is a maker in the first place. Funny enough, the best argument that I heard to prove the Abrahamic God was from a Muslim trying to disprove the Trinity. He said something along the lines of if there was multiple gods, there would most likely not be order in the universe and the similarities between order on earth and order in the universe. Mainly because multiple gods with individual consciousness would disagree on a lot of things like we humans do. So if there was a sun god and a lightning god, they could disagree with each other at any point and it would collapse the whole universe. It didn't hold in disproving the Trinity for me because it's not three gods (which a lot of Muslims tend to believe).
I think the best and most efficient way to prove which God exists (this is not trying to convert anybody, be atheist into theist or a non-Christian theist into a Christian), is how that god is close to being a failure (or even some cases an abomination) or the spiritual elevation of the God of that religion, for example, the Gods that usually require human sacrifice, specially of children are demons, and I won't budge on this, then there is gods who are usually reprobates, they were usually good leaders in military or beautiful persons, but had a lot of problems, then, there is the normal gods(usually leaders of stablity), then there is sage gods, usually sages, priests or virtuous philosophers or the best leadership of a nation(be a tribe, country, city, etc) then, there is the gods who were close to a total virtuous life, and they had ways to back up the way they live, and Jesus of Nazareth excels in this last category, where other ultravirtuous persons would be similiar and conclude in the same way, usually they didn't claim to be a god in their contexts if you read their stories, Jesus did, the proof about Jesus claiming to be a God is the behaviour of the apostles, the writings of the earliest of earliest of Church Fathers who usually were direct disciples of the 12 apostles, the way they lived their lifes compared to Jesus Christ, the fact that they died in horible ways imaginable(be the earliest church fathers or the apostles), and the logical and philosophical ways they behave, not only, God is not contingent to the limitations of this world, so, questions like saying "if he created something heavier than him" doesn't work because it is trying to put an incontigent into a contigent, not only, but usually followers of a cult leader are usually disloyal and violent towards the autority, even when it favours it, my objective is not converting, debating, fighting, or calling anybody ignorant, so, I will not debate this with anybody and you are free to not accept this claim I'm making, I'll listen to arguments against what I've said only if you are catholic and you are trying to correct my point of view based on church fathers, scholastics, documents of the church and catholic theologians/priests(and please, if you are doing this, post the source of your claim), I'm just showing my point
It’s all the same God just various different understanding of the nature of God. Is the the Christian triune God or the nature that Islam understands and even within Christian denominations there are differences much more nuanced than Judaism or Islam But those nuanced differences exist. So they are not arguing over whether God exists in reality they are arguing over the nature of God
@@catholicguy1073 that's what I believe is happening between the three Abrahamic religions. Some people believe we aren't worshipping the same God the Muslims do, but how do we know we aren't, but are simply looking at him from two different perspectives. Something I think about a lot.
@@SquidwardsangryfaceActually evolutionary theory doesn’t hold humans came from monkeys but that the two came from a common ancestor. There is strong evidence for theistic evolution.
@@Squidwardsangryface Well, that's an oversimplified and inaccurate view of evolution, or "natural selection". In fact, the Catholic Church accepts evolution. The "first cause" is understood to be God.
@@bman5257Humans literally are monkeys according to monophyletic classification. All classifications are ultimately nominal though, since in reality every organism differs from every other one. Monophyletic classification exists for the convenience of humans.
It is intuitive to think that everything has a cause because we never see anything not have a cause. Well, you are right. This argument only makes sense with that intuitive presupposition. But that is a very high and impractical level of scepticism that you need to have to reject this presupposition. You don't live with that much skepticism. Let me give you an example: Your girlfriend/boyfriend tells you in a very romantic moment: "I love you". What would you do? Would you reject their statement? Because you can not and will never absolutely know if they truly love you in that moment. You can't know their hormones for sure. You don't even have a very good definition of love. But still you would believe them. It is intuitive to believe them because all the evidence of their behaviour points towsrds love. And for the cosmological argument all evidence of the observable universe points towards being caused. Therefore everything has a cause that is outside of itself. Therefore the universe has a cause.
@SamoaVsEverybody814 That is totally irrelevant for the discussion as by the cosmological argument you only establish a very open image of god. The cosmological argument only shows that there is a god. How he behaves and what his goals are is another story but in the first place no one asks about what humans can conceive or not. It is irrelevant for this argument to work.
Why is it prayer seems to be a one-way street? I've prayed, sought His 'help', asked for that 'joy unspeakable and peace that etc' yet I NEVER get ANY RESPONSE, SILENCE!!! I have sought his 'face' for 50 + years and = NOTHING! WHY? if he desires a relationship why is it a 1 way street? Where is my Abba?
Because it's all Lies. The bibles even have verses where their god says specifically says -- "whoever searches for him WILL FIND him"... Proven nothing more than Lies. Their excuses never end. If only they would READ their bibles with an Open Mind.
@@LennyChildOfJesus -- You said -- "You don’t ask for a good life you ask for his forgiveness and love. " According to the bibles, you can ask for ANYTHING. Do you disagree with that "god" when he said that? Also remember, it says many times that you are not to Add, Take Away, or even Interpret his word. So what it says... it means. It says ANYTHING... so it means ANYTHING. Face it, religion LIED to all of us. Do yourself a Huge favor = Read the bibles with an Open Mind, ask all the tough questions, and you will be Freed of those Plagiarized Lies. “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov
@@jaegercat6702 that's not what was said at all. A god who exists outside of space and time. And is not measurable by any means. Is the same thing as a god that doesn't exist. Addendum: it's not that we can't see god. It's that there's no method to demonstrate that a god exists. We can't see air. But we can measure it. You can't do this with a god. Science can neither prove. Nor disprove the existence of a god.
Universe wasnt created because there is no previous instance to be possible without time. So we can exclude God based on this crucial fact. No matter the argument, the time is the answer. Without time nothing is created. We live inside time. You can measure what happens within a time, but time itself cant be measured because we are inside it.
Sorry, but there are no proofs. Those are just justifications based on ones preconceived concepts. All religion is based on faith alone, if there is proof, there is no need for faith.
@skarpheinnsmundsson9741 That is NOT what I hear from Christians routinely. Many of them claim that by faith, this 'God' reveals itself to them. Have you not heard this before?
@@Theo_Skeptomai What you hear from Christians doesn't change the fact that belief without evidence cannot reveal anything to be true. It's just wishful thinking.
And scarcely anyone is a Christian because of those "arguments". He even admits that they're mainly meant as rationalizations for already existing belief.
Two things are abundantly clear: • There is no good evidence fore the existence of a god or gods. • There are no non-fallacious arguments for the existence of a god or gods. Also, you can't argue something into existence.
I've seen a watchmaker in action. Your god has never provably made a watch or a blade of grass. I can prove my claim with evidence? You, got a feeling.
Well, of course you have because a watchmaker is a human making a watch in our world. If there were tiny beings and galaxies being created by the same watchmaker insidethat watch, chances are the tiny beings wouldn't be able to physically find their maker in their world. The evidence of their maker is themselves and their world.
@@Squidwardsangryfacethat was not a good analogy. Sorry. But speculation such as. "If there were tiny beings inside the watch". Brings the discussion to a halt. And it certainly doesn't add to the watchmaker argument. That just adds a worse argument/premise. To an already poor argument/premise.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I don't think you understand anything I said if that's what you got from my explanation. My explanation is demonstrating a creator outside his creation. For example, the characters of Harry Potter do not know JK Rowling exists, since she is not physically present in their world. What is present in these characters' world is her intellect and creativity, and without her these characters wouldn't exist.
What is the cause of the God? 1. God made of what materials 2. Why God created the universe 3. What are duties and responsibilities of the God 4. What is the relationship between God and us 5. Why God created human And many more questions I have.
My dear friend, in my quest to be a "good atheist" as per your definition I respectfully have to point out that the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas are merely logically unsound wordplay that no one should ever use and that your propagation of these bad arguments as if they had not been shown to be fallacious does not reflect well on your position at all.
My dad was a mathematician. He used to say that you can't study mathematics without coming to an understanding that God exists. The basis of the universe is ordered from the start and at its heart is orderly. He used to say that numbers are the basis of everything and order is at the base of everything.
Nonsense. If your father was mathematician,he would never say anything close to that. .. maybe you meant to say "substitute math teacher at religious school",not an actual mathematician?
@@thinboxdictator6720why this harshness? You didnt even show a point, you just disrespected someone you dont know. Anyway, study some math, so maybe next time you wont behave so rudely. There are many papers talking about this topic, relating god and math. Maybe if you will ever be able to read something, you wont state nOsEnSe without any point apart from your rudeness. Byeeee
@@spaghettinoo I don't think I was harsh. if I told you that my father was a physicist and got proof of Illuminati faking globe earth,what would you say? btw saying there are "many papers" is making it sound like it's something legitimate,on level of actual mathematical proofs/conjectures .. meanwhile it's just some people trying to get to some specific conclusion ( instead of figuring it out and see where it goes ), which is ridiculous on it's face to everyone who at least partly understands the topic they try to base their argument on. this one might have been a bit harsh,previous one wasn't.
The cosmological argument has a small but non-negligeable weakness, the fact that everything that is was caused by something that is itself acausal does not necessarily means that it is god.
This is true, but the apologist is attempting a sleight of hand in hopes that you will make an intuitive leap toward the specific god they are presenting without demonstration.
Obviously a god created everything because humans created the wristwatch and the building. This is the logic religious people use to prove their god created stuff.
Point One) OK Something came first. Prove it was a god, then prove it is your god and then prove you have understood your god correctly. Point Two) By your own admission this is NOT a proof of god's existence, but one of how a god must be IF a god exists at all. This "proof", therefore, is not a proof of a god's existance. Point Three) Even if morality is something given to us by an external force, you have failed to prove that force is a god.However, you are wrong to say we are not taught morals. Of course, we are taught them. Have you not heard of bad parenting? It happens when parents don't teach the moral code to their kids. In truth, we have the same morals as others, because we benefit from them morals in the same way as others do. As tribes, nations and communities, we have all come to the same conclusions about what is best for us morally. It's a theory, anyway. For you to say our morals have ONLY come from god you would have to do two things: Prove a god exists (still waiting for that) and that my theory cannot be true. Point Four) The puddle argument! I need say nothing more. A whole life of belief gone with one YT comment!
Personally, the way to prove God's existence I like the most is the cosmological one - the other ones are, for me, too difficult to prove, although they're possibly true. So, I'll only answer the point 1). First, notice this principle: if we have a chain of things or events, the first element by definition must depend on an element which is external to the series and exists. If there is, for example, a row of dominoes and every domino is knocked over by the previous one, the first domino cannot be knocked over by another domino, but by an element that is external to the domino chain. If it's true, it's obvious that the chain of the things caused by other things must depend on a substance which caused itself, because this first element must exist and not be part of the chain of the things caused by others. So, we now have proved the cosmological necessity of the existence of something which causes itself. This substance also caused other things (the chain of substances caused by others); but its only necessity is to cause itself. So, if it doesn't have to cause other things but causes them, this substance is free to cause them or not. So, it's not something, it's someone who trascends what is caused by others and has free will. So this is why I think theism is rational and necessary. I could continue explaining you why, in my opinion, the most rational thing to believe is Catholicism, but I think you wanna discuss my argomentation
@@truthdrome looks like the OP doesn't wanna discuss your argomentation. But they already granted your first cause, so most of your argument is redundant. Rather, they asked for proof that the first cause is a god, and specifically the God worshipped by Catholics. You smuggle in the element of personhood by a mere sleight of language where you assert, "It's not something, it's someone who..." You have offered no evidence whatsoever that this first cause has the characteristics of a person, far less a "god." And no evidence whatsoever that this thing is the God of Catholicism.
@@shinywarm6906 I've already offered an argumentation for the personhood of this first cause: ontologically, this cause is free to cause other things or not to cause them; so, if it's free, it's not something, but someone. If you fino fallacies in this very argumentation, tell me. So, he's someone free to cause and not to cause: but being the first cause, the only substance that must exist, he doesn't cause the world by modificating something else (in this case, we would have 2 first causes, and also the other first cause would be personal, and so on); so, he creates the world ex nihilo; therefore, he's a god. Yes, I belief that this god is the one of the Catholic Church: this is an only act of faith, but we could discuss, if you want, the plausibility of this act
@@truthdrome thanks. Your criteria for "personhood" seem rather nebulous. Clearly, you don't see the development of a rock crystal as involving a "choice", so the creation of a novel entity in itself cannot be sufficient justification. You further assert that the First Cause makes this "choice" "freely". But you offer no justification for this assertion at all. In what way is invoking a supernatural "person" who "choses" to cause the universe different to the way that, prior to meteorology, people might believe that weather is caused by the choices of a "personal" weather god, who, at time T2 "freely" "decides" they want to cause a thunderstorm? By contrast, what we can observe or extrapolate from physics gives us other options that do not require gratuitous assertions about magical persons. For example, it appears that some events at quantum level seem to occur at random and spontaeneously. This might imply the space-time continuum comes into existence (alongside the law of causation itself) spontaeneously at T2 (there is no T1). Alternatively, other models hypothesise an eternal cosmos - like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology. Here, infinite iterations are caused by nothing but the result of continuing expansion. Again, no mysterious "person" is required.
@@shinywarm6906 1. I'm not able to cpmpletely define "personhood", but I know that personhood necessarily implies freedom. So, if a thing is free, is a person. 2. What we mean when we say something exists, is that has some effects. Now, if the First Cause exists, it generates itself by definition. So, if the First Cause exists, it is its own effect. And, if it's its own effect, it doesn't have the necessity to cause something else. Therefore, the Universe is contingent for the First Cause. So, the Universe could not be created by this Cause, but it is. Therefore, the First Cause is free, and is personal. After that, you say that some phenomema at quantum level seem to occur spontaneously, so this could disprove the divine origine of the Universe. But this cannot be applied to the Universe, because physics is about the material things that exist, while even a not divinely created Universe trascends this field of study
1) Demonstrate that your intuitions of causality extend beyond space and before time, and that there is a "beyond and before spacetime" in which for things to exist. 2) For the ontological argument to even start to make any sense, there has to be an absolutely objective definition of "greatness", down to exacting detail. Otherwise the greatest thing to me is different than your greatest thing and now we have billions of necessarily existing gods roaming the heretofore undemonstrated "beyond and before spacetime" 3) Saying "many people agree that X is true" is not equal to saying "X is true" . Morality is subjective in the same way favorite foods are, just to a different degree. If you polled many cultures and found that children ages 5 to 10 most preferred frozen treats as dessert, would that make frozen treats the objectively correct dessert choice? No, it just means humans are similar, and so act similarly. In the same way, wanting to increase wellbeing is just popular because we and our societies are similar. It doesn't mean it's the absolute and objectively correct choice for what we ought to care about. (That said, once a goal is chosen, moral facts can be found. If I want to maximize wellbeing, I ought not unalive people for fun, for example. I think it's this part that makes people think morality is objective. It's not, it only is once you agree on goals. I could go on with other objections to this, but I'm trying (and failing) to be brief) 4) First, before this argument can even get off the ground, demonstrate that the universal constants are able to change. Bonus points if you can quantify their ranges, gradations, relationships, and probability distributions. But so far, we don't even know that they could be different than what they are. You don't just get that for free. Bonus quibbles cuz I can't shut up: 7:10 You don't see objects acting in patterns *towards ends*, you see objects acting in patterns *and assume there's an end they're acting towards*. In reality, they're being pushed forward by prior events, not pulled towards future ones desired by some designer. Your car didn't start because you wanted to get to work, it started because you turned the key. In the conclusion, you saying you need faith to accept these arguments is tantamount to saying the arguments are worthless. Your side is gonna believe what they believe because they think they have a relationship with a god, not because of these hobbled arguments. And my side isn't gonna be convinced by these hobbled arguments to believe in a god. So what's their point? What value do they add to anything?
Dude! I'm sure the spam detecting bot would have silenced me for a message that long. I'm sure glad you are here to make all those important quibbles :)
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I wish I was more brief, I saw a guy a lil lower down say everything I did, in better wording, and in like 1/3 the text. I'm just such a chatterbox and it's a problem lol
Scientifically thinking people know this, as world is full of evidence for God. On the other hand, no proof is enough for fervent atheists. This has been admitted by famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and others.
That's why the ontological argument fails. A god that has convinced everyone it exists would be greater than a god that has not. No such god has done so, therefore it doesn't exist and contradicts the argument.
@@psilynt1 I like your thought process here, but it depends on what you mean by term greater. From a human's perspective I can imagine that a "greater" god would have to prove itself, but from a god's perspective, wouldn't the greater god be one who didn't have to prove itself and people choose to worship without evidence?
@@goobyboxxton8526 I suppose. Could use the same argument with number of worshippers. Greatest god is the god worshipped by all people. Not all people worship, therefore God is not the greatest. One could argue the God that exists and is worshipped by the fewest is 'greater', but that'd be the God that nobody worships.
@@psilynt1 Thank you, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to elucidate. Without an agreed upon meaning of the word "greater" then any logical conclusion drawn using that word cannot be evaluated.
There is no need for a first cause, since the spacetime continuum is not an effect and cannot be caused since that would be a temporal affair which cannot happen since there was no time before spacetime. And Einstein made it pretty clear that motion in itself needs no cause since that is the whole point of the theory of relativity. Thus the cosmological argument is a non-starter. If you want to have something that existed throughout, then you can take the universe directly, since it existed at any point in time, since it is like I already said spacetime. The ontological argument falls also flat, since being able to imagine something better does not mean that this something better actually exists. And if I take it the other way around, that if your deity has the three omni properties that make it so perfect, how come then that the universe is then not also perfect reflecting that divine nature? Thus it is clear that if the universe has an origin in some entity, that entity is clearly no better than what it could make. For the moral argument there is the Euthyphro dilemma, and worse there is no reason to think that moral realism or divine command theory are even a proper description of morality. Since moral relativism and moral anti-realism are equally valid positions to hold. The theological argument is nonsense, since design is exactly the opposite from what we see. Design is elegance in simplicity not needless complexity. Furthermore that there is some order doesn't mean someone has to made these natural laws, for all we know there simply are no other options and thus all the proposed possibilities are just an illusion. The theological argument would be better if it would be impossible to exist and yet there would be life, and not just on our tiny planet, but everywhere and not relying on chemestry or energy but to be truly independent from any circumstances. Then you would have an argument that this would require some divine input. But as the world presents itself, the theological argument can be handwaved away as just a god of the gaps argument. All those arguments are debunked centuries if not millennia ago. And the "gift of faith" as you call it seems to be what actual rational people would call a conformation bias. Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever you like, but it would have been if you would have also addressed the criticism those arguments have and why they are not considered proof, since a proof has actually be conclusive and cannot be founded just on faith. Also, I find it funny how the video basically dismisses all the followers of religions which also do not adhere to these silly arguments. Guess this is just another case of the typical Christian arrogance that look down on others as not having proper faith. And then they are surprised that so many people rejecting their message...
A god that exists in reality can potentially disappoint me by not complying with my wishes and desires. A god that exists only in my mind can never disappoint me, because I can mold it as I wish. Therefor a God that exists only in my mind is greater than a God that exists in actuality. Logically this proves that God exists only in the minds of believers. Wow, previously I simply was unconvinced by the arguments of theists, but now you've brought me to a place of having definite logical proof that God does not exist in actuality. Thank you for providing that.
As a scientist and not necessarily a believer, I find these arguments very unhelpful. These arguments are not universally accepted by science, so you can't really call them proofs. Presenting them as proof is at best a mistake and at worst deeply misleading.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I don't think so. A proof has to be generally accepted by science to be a genuine proof. Otherwise, it's not a proof, it's just an opinion. To that, you can respond that you believe that it's a proof, or that my criteria for what constitutes a proof are different from yours, but I would find both those responses rather disappointing. If I hear the word proof, I don't want to discover sometime later that experts don't agree that it's a proof. In fact, I read a comment below that basically calls non-believers stubborn for not accepting these kinds of arguments and that's another illustration of why the word proof should not be used. It causes confusion, in this case leading to prejudices stemming from a false belief that these "proofs" are somehow absolute certainties. That's exactly why using these proofs is at best unhelpful and at worst disingenuous. That is, unless you add a disclaimer that these "proofs" are not generally accepted by science and should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt. As my own disclaimer: I don't want to lambast religion, I just criticise bad apologetics. My advice to any apologist would be to point out the benefits of religion to one's personal life and try to identify why lack of religion, or other religions, don't offer these values. Forget proof, focus on people's emotional needs. That's why I'm reconsidering religion after decades of agnosticism anyway.
With all due respect, this is a waste of breath, word salad, click bait. Of course there is no proof of god, and it doesn’t matter- That is the reason why religion is called faith.
Respectfully, I disagree, and I think it might be because you have misunderstood the point. Please, if you haven't, listen to the final paragraph of the video (which is always where the main point will be made.) In it I say that it's not so much about proving to non-believers beyond a doubt, but rather giving logic and coherence to those who already believe. The former is likely not worth our time, but the latter is imperative.
I assume you are intelligent @@BreakingInTheHabit so why your knowingly lie in this presentation ... each of your assertions is logically flawed. Eg, the watchmaker hypothesis. The eye is far more complex and refined than any watch. And we can observe that this has evolved independently 4 times, and amazingly devolved in two cases. But more this is a false correlation: while have millions of watches where we can identify the make there is not a solitary case, he argues of a twig having a designer, let alone a universe ... the exitance of watches cannot be used to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way that a watch has. When I teach: I present leaners with a range of ideas including ones I don't like... be dead easy to include the retort. That would still not disprove a God. Regardless, folk have a human right to practice whatever faith they wish and raise their family as they choose. That is Enough!
Thank you for producing this video. Unfortunately these arguments have been put to bed over and over and should not be convincing. It's still cool to hear how believed see things even if I don't find the claims convincing
Yes. There are countless books, videos, articles, lectures, debates, etc. which demonstrate that the four arguments covered in this video are not proof of the existence of a god. I wonder if Father Casey has paid any attention to them.
@anthonyhulse1248 everything in the Bible is a logical fallacy by definition because they rely on the Bible to confirm the truth of the claim made. That's circular reasoning.
The usual = Can't explain how it is... so there MUST be a god. Also, how convenient that said god is the one you were born into. Nothing more than the God of the Gaps and the Argument from Ignorance. So much for "Proof god exists".
It's amazing how many apologists have been presenting these same arguments (arguments, not proofs, by the way) for hundreds of years, completely ignorant of the fact that the fallacies they are built on have been pointed out and it's been shown that they don't actually point to their specific version of god. It's amazing that they keep making these arguments. Well, the reason is that they are convincing to two groups of people: people who already believe and are looking for ways to justify their already concluded beliefs, or people who desire to believe and have yet to develop critical thinking skills. Sadly for the apologist, they don't do anything to actually "prove" the god they are hoping to demonstrate.
The evidence is so clear, there is so much reasoneble to believe in an intelligent creator than a random explosion caused by nothing, come on think logical here!
7 месяцев назад
No god that is impressed by people who wear silly robes could possibly exist…Neither does one that collects prepuces of infants..
You are openly expressing and appreciating the sin of pride. Don't feel sorry for them, they've made their choice and it is entirely possible they are just as content (or moreso) than you without religion. Belief is not a necessary facet of the human experience, and neither is faith, they may enhance it for some people but for the most part, if a person is trying their best to be a good person, regardless of religion, they are a good person, and they will probably feel content with their lives. I, along with many other Christians, believe that's what God wanted when He free'd humanity: for people to be good of their own volition for the simple reason that it is right, not out of some cosmic threat that they might suffer if they aren't.
I feel bad for you. You have no hope and no purpise without a deity. Thats more sad. Some people can be happy, fullfilled and live great lives without believing in something that boils down to magic.
On the contrary, my life has been far better since I lost my belief. I no longer have people telling me I am sick so they can offer me a cure, for one. No more fear of death/hell either. No more forcing myself to believe lies. etc. Now, instead of pretending to have purpose, I need to create my own. Its great.
'We don't know, therefore God.' has a name: The God of the Gaps. I'm sorry, but there are FAR too many other possibilities. Remember, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is just as plausible that energy has simply always existed, regardless of its form.
"Is There Proof God Exists? Yes" - Why do you need to lie in your title? Yes, in the absence of evidence, people turn to logic... however, logical arguments cannot prove anything in reality. Every one of the arguments he presents have been debunked many, many times over.
*Cosmological arguments* assert that God was the cause of X... they cannot demonstrate the validity of this assertion. It is made in total ignorance. It also engages in special pleading. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" don't know, could there be nothing? Can you show that God did anything? No? this is just an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how/if something happened, so insert God and call it a day.
*Ontological,* God exists at least in our minds... yeah, not going to bother going into this one too deep. If it is convincing to you, you have my sympathy. Does the maximally great pizza exist? Isn't it possible to conceive of something that's even better every time we conceive of a similar thing? Does what you think routinely affect reality around you? No? then why think it does in regards to God?
*Teleological arguments...* I can't understand or am amazed by X... so God did it. Complete arguments from ignorance. Many also assert that, when 2 things share 1 trait (often complexity) they must share another (usually that they were created by intelligence)... this is silly. A horse and motorcycle share the trait of being ridden by people, does that mean that horses must use rubber tires or that motorcycles must eat grass? Of course not, so why think that, since both watches and cells are complex, they must share the trait of being designed?
FTI, no one asserts that things happen ONLY by chance. Basic fundamental forces of matter/energy put limits on chance and randomness, as do processes like natural selection. If you want to assert that God is just the fundamental forces of the universe that's on you, just know that if you do that you need to discard all the stuff that the bible says and stop capitalizing "god" when you write it. FYI 2. We don't assert that watches are created because they are complex, we do so because we have evidence of watches being created. We don't have that for God and the universe.
I'm glad god wrote on our hearts not to covet slaves! You know, like the slaves he told his followers they could buy or trick into being a slave for life.
Dragons and Pegasus do not exist. So God cannot exist, since it would be expected that God would have created such marvelous creatures instead of cancer cells.
The existence of a Universe proves there is no god According to St Thomas Aquinas a God that which no greater can be imagined St Thomas Aquinas also asserts
100 years ago not a single person thought the world was flat. In fact, 2000 years ago no one thought the world was flat. Flat earthers are a modern idea.
Partially correct. When I was in seminary, my theology professor made the point that one person (actually, one being) who would be sure to score 100% in his class would be Satan. Head knowledge--in and of itself--does not lead to salvation. As Jesus said, He wants "circumcision of the heart": for us to repent of our sins and to love and serve Him and love and serve others in His name, through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. For purposes of clarity, however--especially in this day and age of one-sided atheist propaganda and misportrayal of theism in general and Christianity in particular--these proofs of God's existence really need to be presented to counter the intellectual dishonesty in the way Christians are portrayed. Thanks very much to "Breaking In The Habit" for doing so!
@@77Catguy that is so true ... I find it dead easy to bet Christians in Bible quiz. It is like they never read the sacred word of their own god. Pretty weird.
When I get into my car to drive to the mall I always fasten my seatbelt. Why? Because blunt force injury resulting from a sudden stoppage could kill me. Blood loss could kill me as well. I'm mortal, I'm incapable of shapeshifting and I'm incapable of flight. Contrast this with my natural enemy, the vampire. The vampire can do all the things I can not and the only way you can kill it is my driving a wooden stake through its heart. Why did God make vampires so powerful and humans so weak?
Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!" Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?" Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is." Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
Oh did the other scientist, who apparently has no name, turn to Newton and say "because I've seen mechanical toys being built by humans, have you seen a stellar body shop creating a sun in front of your eyes?"
@@WolfA4 I like that! My comment was a copy-and-paste from an article I read. I am pretty sure it was an allegory, because I could find no evidence of who this 'other scientist' was either. I agree more with your comments. It's always problematic for me when we (humans) resort to declaring something a 'miracle' merely because we lack the knowledge to understand. In centuries past, we would have declared it all 'sorcery' (such as the upcoming solar eclipse). It's OK to say 'We don't know ... yet.'
Religious apologists don´t understand what most words mean, it´s the way of the apologists to not know them and never ever learn and just continue to parrot the script.
None of these arguments stands up to even a cursory analysis. You have to start by believing in god to consider these “proofs”. ( i.e. they’re really post-hoc rationalizations, not proofs).
There are also miracles, events that don't make sense when observed scientifically but make sense when you look at them with faith. I am extremely impressed by what happened at Fatima in Portugal and this is a thing that strengthened my faith.
You have to prove that it was a work of divine intervention and nothing else. Which you can't. And miracle therefore god is a false correlation. It could be chance or simply something else. You can't prove otherwise.
One thing people tend to forget is that, by definition, you can't prove or disprove a miracle scientifically. Scientific inquiry requires repeatability, and since a miracle is defined as a conscious intervention by God into the natural order of things, it would be like trying to get someone to react to you the same way twice, who is already aware of you observing them. And to those who say that such and such thing can't happen, that's kinda the point. An analogy I like to use is that it's like using a cheat code in a video game. The regular rules are being suspended in this case, so of course things don't behave as they normally otherwise would in a testable environment. To be certain, it's a fine thing to still try to test these things and determine if they do happen to fit into the laws of physics (something the Church generally tries to do, with help of field experts, with any new claims of miracles), but to simply say that something can't happen on the basis that something doesn't normally happen can be itself fallacious, and is in its way a statement based on nothing but faith (albeit faith in the absolute order of the universe).
It's that a problem as well. St Thomas Aquinas hypothesis proposed demons, zombies, exorcism, levitation, ghosts and goblins. Be honest here; if Father Casey started talking about vampires and smiting folk dead with prayer - all part of Roman Catholics doctrine - you'd not consider him the most authoritative advice of the origins of the universe. Perhaps ask a physicist rather than a magician
The issue very surface level discussions of these arguments run into is that there have been counter points and further work done on all of these arguments which means presenting them in their most basic forms doesn't really cut the mustard. The cosmological argument requires you to swallow an entire Aristotelian metaphysics of causes, which you don't have to just accept and other theories of causation exist. Additionally, you could posit a non-intelligent "purely actual" force and get the same result. Kant neatly dealt with the Ontological argument by pointing out that "'being' is evidently not a real predicate" The Moral Argument presupposes there cannot be a natural explanation for social animals to develop certain behavioural patterns...which is question begging (or 'assuming the antecedent', for those more academically inclined), and incidentally the teleological argument makes the same mistake. Frankly, these are just not very strong arguments; which you'd come to expect given that these are being presented in essentially the same forms they were created in, with the oldest being around 1300 years old.
Used Car Salesman in a weird dress tries to sell you a Used Car that cannot be detected by any means whatsoever except for "philosophy". And also he needs lots of your actual physical money.
How marvelous that there is proof of a Magic Unicorn who created a septillion stars, designed the human brain, and has a Master Plan for our entire existence, in spite of being strangely unable to stop the wars, or feed the starving children in the 14 billion years since the universe began. Has this amazing proof been submitted to scholarly journals and scientific publications for peer review? Has the Nobel Prize been announced?
Proof would be a compromise to faith. If everyone knew god was real, it would be just a matter of doing right and wrong as if you were following a law.
It is an accurate, if not condensed, recanting of most of the a priori arguments for a god ever made. The fact that they are so weak is why atheism is such a strong position: atheism lives and dies on the inability of theists to prove their god(s), and the fact that even the best arguments are weak ones is ongoing demonstration that atheism is a belief that is more parsimonious with logical coherence than theism.
@@V0idFace There can be weaker and stronger arguments in favour of a proposition that is false. You said it yourself by saying these ones are weak, so I'm curious what stronger ones you've heard.
@V0idFace Sounds like you already had your mind made up before clicking on this video. Probably best to put this topic behind you and move on with your life. Stop wasting your own time.
To me the first argument makes the most logical sense. The other arguments are easier to believe if you already agree that there is a god. We are working with a set of 1. While it is valid to observe the seemingly ordered nature of reality and attribute it to god, it would also be valid to point out that we don’t know what potential other species of intelligent life would find moral, maybe our morality is underpinned my the nature of scarcity. Also we don’t know what all the other permutations of the universe would be like if we altered its structure and laws. If the speed of light was slightly faster or gravitational force more present in respect to the other forces, we cannot imagine the results. That’s why I think infinite regression is the hardest devil to advocate for. You can theorize all day but you still have the question why hanging over it all. Why something rather than nothing. The answer is that the start was set in motion by something not confined by our nature of reality. God.
Father Casey, your videos consistently bring me joy and help me in my spiritual journey. Even though I'm not Catholic, I'm now seriously exploring the priesthood in my own tradition (Orthodox Christian) thanks to your videos.
@@danielgalvez7953 I use to feel most Apologist held sincerely felt views that they wanted to shared. I merely had a passing interest in early church history - it is a fascinating topic. I had my father's old books as he was likewise interested. I honestly didn't look at such things deeply. During our long lock down I took a few online courses on the topic. Language is not a strong point so I found Greek and Hebrew hard. Regardless, I met some wonderful folk with excellent language skills. I certainly learnt much about Biblical texts had emerge, translated and developed. I also realised that Aplogiticist had study such to a high level in seminaries and university. They were not make mistakes - they seemed to be purposely misrepresenting texts, selectively citing texts and avoiding much. The sincerest ones seem to feel that there were things they might never know. Others stated things as facts that they clearly knew were not. They weren't stupid.
@@russellmiles2861 interesting. That isn't my experience, but perhaps I haven't looked into things as deeply as you. I'm a fan of a lot of apologetics, just not these arguments.
If as you say: "god is by his very nature Perfect", then we wouldn't exist. Honestly, take a step back and think about a Truly Perfect and Flawless being. It would want = Nothing. it would need = Nothing. Why? Because it is Perfect and Truly Flawless. Think about that. If that being were real, we would not exist. Why would such a being make us? Some say to have a "relationship" with us. So he did Lack something. If one lacks anything, it is not Perfect or Complete. Besides all that, going by what he himself called Flaws and Sin, the "god" of the bibles is FAR from Perfect and Flawless.
I just got out of a philosophy of religion class where we were debating the existence of God, feeling frustrated - and this was the first thing I saw. Deo gratias!
I would have assumed that any proper philosophy course would have ripped these arguments to shreds... must have been heavily leaning towards belief in god bias.
If you thought that was a good argument for your god you need to turn around and go right back into that philosophy class! Such bad epistemology! What if it were a Muslim video? Or an atheist one? You would believe those? No. This is confirmation bias.
We Hindus too believe in the same concept of God: He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc, as followers of abrahamian religions do. Swami Vivekananda said that even if someone does not want to believe in God, it is okay. All they have to do is be speculative instead of living in complete denial. This way, there'll be a time when such an agnostic will realise that the purpose of life is beyond the regular, mundane chores: 'Self realisation is God realisation.'
@@bariumselenided5152 I might build a house to live in. God doesn't need a house. I might create a painting to sell and earn some money. God doesn't need money. I might create a sculpture to win an award and receive praise. God has no need of praise or awards. I might write a novel just to see how good I could make it. Anything God created would be perfect. I might write a song to seek stardom and the admiration of others. God doesn't need stardom or admiration. I might try to make others happy. Okay, why doesn't God make people happy?
@@bariumselenided5152 he created the heavens and the earth and saw that it was good. He created man in his image so that we may partake in the glory of his creation. We have mind; we have the capacity to create. And so, our relationship with our Lord is ever more apparent when we tend to our talents, and when we use our cognitive faculties to ponder about things. For those who are suffering, they can partake in Christ’s passion as to suffer with him and to know him better. God loves us all and his presence is always here - it is just felt less when we abandon him. He wants us to be holy so we can know him more and be his friend.
Have you ever asked yourself why George Lemaître warned the pope not to use the big bang model as a prove of creation? Also how do I get from this strange beeing "proven" by Casey to the God of the good old bible or the catholic church. There is a gap...
The third one. Teleological argument is my thought. That if you look at everything. As small and complex as an atom to heck where the planets are perfectly place with ours being perfectly placed to sustain life itself is proof.
I wonder if this is why a lot of folks like the idea of the multiverse so much, as it's an easy out. With that, one can simply reduce the argument down to the survivor fallacy. I.e., we just happen to live in the one universe, of many, where things worked out this way, where we can even ask the question in the first place. If we are only one of infinite universes, this outcome is simply a matter of inevitability. But if there really is only one universe, let's just say it's pretty weird!
@Descriptor413 Personally........ I leave the whole multi verse thing to DC and Marvel comic books lol. Mainly cause of how, it's like the whole cartoon bear thing of thinking one thing was/is another. The Mandella Effect where folks say (I feel at times jokingly) that we're in another universe.
@@Descriptor413 Even in a single universe, though, the vast number of planets, stars, galaxies etc. out there over the course of billions and billions of years would seem to provide many chances for life to develop.
@@BardicLiving Oh, for certain. But the teleological argument also applies to a number of physical constants which, if slightly different, would make complex life impossible throughout the universe. Naturally, that's still not a hard proof, as the particular configuration of the universe may simply be a foregone conclusion of its existence to begin with, but it's still interesting.
Question. If everything that exists must have been created by something else that exists, then who created GOD? God exists after all, so who created him?
There is also mathematical proof of God, by Kurt Goedel. However, such thoughts don't convince many people. I like Schleiermacher: "Religion is our feeling for the eternal"
Goedel's proof is actually Anselm's proof expressed in formal logic, the only difference being that Anselm is talking about the greatest being, while Goedel is talking about the greatest good. Both suffer from the lack of definition of what greatest being or greatest good mean.
Both Anselm and Goedel are ultimately begging the question. Anselm's argument, more properly expressed, would not look like this: [anselm's agrument for god] But rather like this: If a god exists, then [Anselm's rgument for god] He doesn't prove that god exists. He merely point out that IF a god exists, then his argument must be true.
If an almighty Creator God exists, there is no need for any proof because he will be evident to all without exception. If such a God does not exist, then there will be many believers who will try to prove his existence. 😆😆😆
"4:00 - If god is that which nothing greater can be thought, then god must be omnipresent, all loving, and sufficient." Say what now? I'm going to go with, no. Another thing, maybe stop mentioning " logic" in ANY argument for god, as there is NONE.
In a season of great doubt, I used the Lord's name in vain and requested evidence of His existence. A few moments later, I heard what I believe to be angels singing. I'd never heard anything like it before and I've never heard anything like it since.@@vermontmike9800
@@OGmemegenerator i don’t think the proof I was given would pass the skeptical tests. But here goes. Many years ago, after questioning the existence of God and saying something to the effect of “I would believe if I had proof” in a heated argument with a Christian, I received a private revelation. I heard Angles sing. It was like nothing I had heard before or since. I can’t reproduce this miracle, I can only attest to it. I don’t think this will change your mind and don’t care to argue with you or anyone. And I have no interest in converting you-I don’t think evangelization of this kind works in the modern age. But I will never forget what I saw that day.
For me, the biggest surprise newly coming to faith was the realisation that I did not need to prove to myself that God exists. It was the concept of there being no god was what made no sense.
Oh. That makes total sense. Now that I think about it, if I try to conceptualise the beginning of time I don't even know how time would be created. But for some reason a part of me doesn't want to believe in God for absolutely no reason
@@DoTheFlopp Good attitude. You should not simply believe in God. In fact you should not tell anyone that you believe in god unless circumstances apply. God is the Infinite. God is not the Good or the Evil. God exists Beyond, as it studied by Laws and Order and Change. Following God requires Active action not passive belief. It's about the Hero's Journey. Even the Atheist argument is still following God, since it is on the upwards.
Says it like Atheist's have not heard it all before, and debunked it ad nauseum. Theists, you really need to come up with something new, not the same old crap you have been using for thousands of years. As an Atheist, all this video does is make me yawn.
I heard the explanation of God being outside of space, time and matter explained this way. The inventor of plastic could not have been made of plastic so the inventor of matter cannot be made of matter. The inventor of plastic had to exist before plastic in order to invent it so to did the inventor of matter need to exist before all matter came into being,
To be fair, there's nothing saying that plastic couldn't happen naturally. It's just highly unlikely. Sorta like that natural nuclear reactor they found in a uranium mine in Africa, where the ores just happened to be perfectly arranged to allow continuous fission.
Another way I like to look at it is, when God speaks to Moses, He just says He is. He doesn't define Himself by who He is, what He is, or how He is; He just is, and I think that goes against our limited understanding of existence in general.
When discussing creation I find it amusing that some individuals have no problem accepting spontaneous creation from nothing without cause while calling intelligent design fantasy. 🕊️
Perhaps it is because we can observe something coming from nothing. But to be obtuse: you have a choice of believing in a god or not; before that there is no state of belief-and after an expression on belief. You might call this Free Will. But it is something from nothing. Unless you feel your most sacred belief, nothing much.
@@russellmiles2861 I am fairly literate on cosmology, I don’t think we have witnessed the void. That is, the creation of something from nothing. Please correct me if I am incorrect. There is God or there isn’t. My belief will not change that. An emotional response comes from something, it is a reaction to something. 🕊️
I don't understand what's amusing to you. An atheistic account of the existence of the universe is plausible, and so is an atheistic account of design/non-design. I'm a theist too, but I have trouble piecing together your criticism of these theories.
@@No_Comply It is an individual’s ability to discount one as fantasy while believing in the second as fact that I find amusing. It isn’t the theory itself. I hope this helps explain my OP. I appreciate the reply. 🕊️
@@DavidCodyPeppers. I guess I considering particle physics, where antimatter and matter particles pop into existence destroying each other although leaving a residual - in black holes refer to as Hawkins radiation. I gather this seems to have no cause and effect. But as you would be aware: what was considered a vacuum state only a few generations back - contains massive amounts of energy. So there may be a cause to what we can observe at particle level. Regardless, this does not preclude there may be a god ... I am more suggesting one can't prove such by logic or scientific observation. I may be wrong. I appreciate the conversation.
With all due respect. You do not have proof that god exists. His nature, being supernatural, has no evidence for it. If faith is not enough for you, you've got nothing. Why not take a look at what that means.
The very last part of this post was its best! When I was in the seminary, at the end of my priest-professor ‘s statement, “ There you have the five proof for God’s existence”, I asked him what if I met someone who just denied the actual existence of God. After all, that would have been a normal question brought up by someone who didn’t believe. His response was “you ask too many questions”. Your tieing up the way the strings of the REASONABLENESS of belief would have been a far better response! To wonder and ask questions of things is important. Otherwise your act of faith would be only an act of scientific thought.
How do you like that tree and its beautiful green leaves? Those leaves aren't green. They're purple. Look up to the blue sky. It's not blue. It's purple. And the warm, yellow sun. It's not yellow, it purple. Why do you keep saying that everything's purple? Because everything's purple. How do you know that? Because that's what the Book of Purple says. You mean, because of this book, you don't even acknowledge other colors? Everything;'s purple.
