Also, it is ironic and at times depressing just how incredibly incurious this leaves the devotees of scientism--though they think of themselves as deeply curious, intellectually speaking. In truth because almost none of them are actual scientists, their own scientism leaves them cut off from any really profound or interesting insight into the nature of reality. Reality for them is the subject of a specialized set of disciplines about which they will never know much of anything.
Fr. Barron's experience accords with my own in these discussions. Most people I talk to have such an iron-clad commitment to materialism, that they don't believe that there is any other conceivable way of knowing anything. They aren't even aware that this stunted view of reality is subject to serious philosophical challenge. So Fr. Barron is right--YouTube discussions are remarkably non-productive, because everything always reduces to epistemological questions on which there is no agreement.
Show me one 'perfect' institution here on earth, where every member is perfect and never violates the institution they serve. Show me just one. The True One will endure and even thrive in the face of adversity and persecution. That One IS The Catholic Church.
for more information about 'scientism', give the 1930s Logical Positivism a look. Purely philosophical version of the same. Imperialistic, unverifiable, outmoded and outdated.
@Judas130 Yes! No one (except for very few) in the community of analytic philosophers buys its 2 central theses about verfiability anymore. Logical positivism was very short lived.
For a fun quiz, can anybody tell me what those 2 central theses are, and why philosophers abandoned them?
However, analytic philosphers have since held onto Positivism's rigorous logico-linguistic methodology because it is very powerful too that cuts through conceptual error fast.
@grunderlyme As a non-believer myself, I do recognise both this Enlightenment 'faith' in both the secular humanism ideal of progression, redemption, salvation through science: that it could deliver us from ourselves (e.g., the fiction and practical impossibility of digital immortalisation) and the other side to the coin: iconoclasm, a preoccupation with debunking what was once solely the monopoly of orthodox religion. Of course faith and science can work, and do work, together.
@Judas130 I applaud your identifying the Enlightenment for what it was: a cultural attempt to replace the religious spirit w/ the secular spirit. The STRATEGY behind it was to hijack everything "intelligent/rational" for themselves, while leaving the "superstition" to us poor believers,--just as the "big 3" today call themselves the "brights" as if all religious persons were by default "not bright." But this is false, so the distinction is not very "bright" to begin with. How ironic.
@grunderlyme One thing contributing to this idea might simply be the elitist self-presentation of secular academics. Dawkins respects those Oxford elites in the Anglican church, as well as the importance of vernacular hymns and the KJ Bible. I feel the same way about Cistercian + Roman chant, and scholarship. But in debate - and the Anglicans have noted this too - R.D jumps to debunking the straw men deities of the classics. 'You wouldn't worship Zeus.' Exactly, neither of us would.
@Judas130 I know, right? What always fascinated me was the radical difference between pagan and judeo-christian religion. Modern science supplanted the pagan, but not the judeo-christian world view for a reason. The pagans attributed the weather and the daily course of the sun to the caprices and whims of the deities like Poseidon and Apollo, since these deities were PART of the natural world. But in Western religion God is distinct from it, as seen in Genesis.........
@Judas130 ......No doubt the Judeo-christian God intervenes now and then in his creation, and is responsible for the natural laws themselves, but NO christian, from Irenaeus to Aquinas ever used "God" as the direct explanation for what science now takes to be the underlying causes and conditions of regularity and change. Christian understanding right from the start was based on the natural philosophy of Aristotle,........
@Judas130 ....which attributed the workings of the natural world to underlying modal properties contained with things and to the natural laws or "principles" governing their interaction. No doubt Aristotle is no longer seen as an authority of the natural world, but modern science has not exactly supplanted him. His rational framework is still there which provided the bedrock from which science sprang.......
@Judas130 ....Christianity never challenged this rational framework, but embraced it. So I never understood the reason for the apparent conflict between science & religion. It is an entirely modern development, much of which comes from the unsubstantiated fears of Fundamentalists who think science somehow poses a threat to man's dignity before God. But if they applied themsleves a bit, they would realize there is no basis for this. And it's sad ppl like Dawkins catch the same virus.
@grunderlyme The atheist nowadays holds it to be true that there is not one explanation left for the origins of our species, our planet, our cosmos, of which requires the Aristotelian deus ex machina. This assertion becomes confused when applied to what is conceptually supra-natural, meta-physical, beyond and outside our realm of entropy, having, in my opinion, no conflict with our understanding of that realm. Where I get confused is with where Jesus stands in relation to all this.
@Judas130 But that claim by atheists is obviously false. Do you see why? If there was nothing left to explain, then we would already know everything. But anyone both arrogant and stupid enough to think this is out of his mind.
@grunderlyme Indeed, but the point is more about the current state of theories (verified against the rigours of the method, in consensus): are the more sufficient explanations for our place in the cosmos. It is certainly true that ideas and theories are and have been subject to revision and scepticism, yet an appeal to the unknown (which a good scientist and atheist should recognise) might be in danger of reverting back to a God 'of the gaps'. Deism to Theism is the confusing issue.
@Judas130 I'm still confused. Are you just saying something like "God is not needed to explain anything"? But notice, if the argument from contingency is logically valid and sound, then God is needed. The proposition about his existence follows logically and necessarily from premises about the whole of contingent existence, because anything contingent cannot, in principle, explain itself--precisely because it is "contingent."
@Judas130 Let me quickly illustrate with an example why a scientific theory does not sufficiently explain our existence. We can explain the origin and predominance of the species alive today with random mutation and natural selection (evolution). But....[next]
@Judas130 [next]...what evolutionary theory cannot explain is why molecules in the earliest primordial soup started replicating in the 1st place. It's a huge mystery, and appears to be some "brute fact" about the universe. (Even Dawkins explicitly acknowledges this "unknown" on page 15 in Chaper 2, "On Replicators," of his book, The Selfish Gene.) But is it brute? I have to ask, why did these molecules start replicating? So RM and NS does not sufficiently explain why we are here
@grunderlyme [part two]. To clarify, 'design' is the buzzword. Because from a supra-natural Designer, is the move to the theistic conceptions of God as man, God who answers prayers, enables miracles: transubstantiation, resurrections, healings, virgin births, redemption, ad infinitum. These are very 'personal' ideas of a deity. The deistic Prime Mover doesn't get us there, or does it? I guess its down to liberal/literal interpretations of Church practice
@Judas130 I know grunderlyme doesn't need my assistance here but I've been following your interesting dialogue. I think you are absolutely correct in saying the deistic Prime Mover does not get us to the God you describe in your previous sentence. The Catholic Church holds that the God who is Prime Mover can be known by the light of natural reason (though more clearly by the light of Faith). The God and the mysteries of faith you list can only be known by revelation i.e. faith.
@GordonSou (2) I should perhaps have qualified my comment by saying, of course, while miracles/healings can't be scientifically explained (othewise they would not be miracles) the fact of these miracles occurring (e.g. in the process of beatification or canonization) is verfied by most rigorous processes and we do not require faith to believe in them.
@grunderlyme Thanks for fleshing out my somewhat simplified statement. Rigorous logic is helpful especially when dealing with hostile antagonists. But I didn't feel that is the case with this person. I guess if my paranthetic comment was taken without qualification there would be milliions of "miracles" all the time even though natural phenomena, simply because science had not yet discovered an explanation.
Nice to see rational discussion here and your insistence on logic.
@GordonSou I understood Judas was being sincere. I only posted for others because it is too easy for many who ARE antagonistic to jump to the wrong conclusion about what you said. I know I sound pedantic sometimes, but what I said is probably needed here because I'm confident many would have accused you of pushing a "gaps" argument, which is untrue. I'm trying to help, truly.....Ugh. I hate this pendantic appearance I picked up from academia! I'm trying to change it. Cheers :-)
@grunderlyme I appreciated your clarification and agree entirely with the need for tight argument, especially in a public forum, for the reasons you give. I don't consider your rigorous approach at all pedantic. Although I am not a professional philosopher I recognize in the rigour of your logic a commendable esteem for reason and truth.
As this site is clearly still being viewed by many after 3 years I think the use to which you are putting your philosophical training must
@GordonSou (2) surely advance and enhance Fr Barron's objectives on these forums.
Be assured that you don't come across as pedantic and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I hope the sort of dialogue you are engaging here will encourage others to participate in this vein. Truly a breath of fresh air - fumigation even - after the stifling spirtually and intellectually toxic smoke of the recent past. It is certainly
putting an edge on my understanding on the issues.
@grunderlyme (2) surely advance and enhance Fr Barron's objectives on these forums.
Be assured that you don't come across as pendantic and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I hope the sort of dialogue you are engaging here will encourage others to participate in this vein. Truly a breath of fresh air - a fumigation even - after the stifling spiritiually and intellectually toxic smoke of the recent past. It is certainly putting an edge on my own understanding here. .
@GordonSou You're right about miracles. I just wanted to clarify something, however. That science cannot explain a phenomenon is not sufficient reason to believe "just-any-old-miracle" happened, even if this condition is necessary. We need to show that the miracle hypothesis under consideration does, in fact, explain it, or explain it better than any alternative natural hypotheses competing for it.
@Judas130 Yes. The contingency argument does not conclude the existence of a personal God. It concludes the existence of an unconditioned being which exists in virtue of the power of its own essence. So we need more. How about the Argument from the Tine-Tuning of the constants and laws of the universe which is a sure indication of intelligence, and hence--a person? I have defended this argument at great length in several places under Fr. Barron's vidoes if you can find it. :-)
@Judas130 That the supernatural performs miracles, we would need empirical evidence for this on a case by case basis. This can be done with those tools found in Bayesian Probability and Confirmation Theory. William Lane Craig uses it to show the Resurrection Hypothesis is the best explanation of the documented facts, for instance. Though the following link does not address miracles, you can read about Bayesianism here: plato [dot] stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/
@grunderlyme [part two] but I'm sorry to bring up Jesus. I'll get some more knowledge about that (God as Man) in particular. That's precisely why I am here: to learn. I will never rudely shun, or else I betray honest scepticism. Rather than an argument where we create point-scoring negatives of each other (another cause of the problem), we are in dialogue with mutual interests. Thank you for your time.
@Judas130 I hear you :) We may not always see eye-to-eye, but at least we can respect eachother like brothers with inquiring minds. We can find more answers to questions working together than working alone. We help eachother understand. I have an atheist friend at school with whom I disagree about much. We will spend hours at a chalk-board logically quantifying stuff, re-hashing things we read, trying to help eachother articulate our thoughts...then have a beer later. Good times
WARNING: There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity & question-evading; ignores counterarguments & attacks your credentials in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000000
Anyone else who wants to sign this petition, I encourage you to email Fr. Barron with "I sign grunderlyme's petition." If you want to see what I wrote, I can send you a PM.
These screen-names are sockpuppets of the same uneducated troll talking w/ himself as if he were different people. He refers to himself as a "PhD Scientist," or any variation thereof, delivering the same empty filler & unsubstantiated "scientism" on Barron's videos, who name-drops intelligentsia while attacking your credentials in place of reasoned engagement:
@Mrmentalmadness123 Congratulations!! By becoming an official "heretic" you join an elite group of the finest minds---the best scientists, the most creative artists, the best mathematicians! Fortunately, those who declare "heresy" are no longer empowered to torture and burn heretics at the stake as just punishment for their terrible sins of declaring supernaturalism to be exactly what it is! Heresy---it's not your father's dogma any more!
@sciencelives2000 So we're getting paranoid? You might have been a bit more creative than to use three names with musical connotations when you keep reminding us that you are a "professional musician". When do you find time to practice?
@GordonSou Does this asshat seriously think we are the same person? LOL! So much for his hermeneutical skills in deciphering the personality behind the text!....
@grunderlyme Not familiar with the epithet "asshat" down here. I was interested in its etymology but couldn't find it in my American Oxford so I have figured out it probably means one who wears his bottom on his head. If that is so it would explain a great deal about the quality of Mr Hyde's comments here.
@GordonSou Nice. Yeah, I forget you have the luxury of not being exposed to the stupid things us Americans say. If that locution is not in the American Oxford yet, I promise you it will be because there are so many American asshats using it. I'd like to think I'm not one of them, but then again, encountering an asshat like Mr. Asshat turns you into an asshat--a contagious epidemic of Large American proportions, I gather. Or is that "portions"?
@GordonSou Nice. Yeah, I forget you have the luxury of not being exposed to the stupid things us Americans say. If that term is not in the American Oxford yet, I promise you it will be because there are so many American asshats using it. I'd like to think I'm not one of them, but then again, encountering an asshat like Mr. Asshat turns you into an asshat--a contagious epidemic of Large American proportions, I gather. Or is that "portions"?
@sciencelives2000 The list isn't for heretics, but for for frauds, like yourself, and those who maliciously obstruct sensible discourse, like you're doing right now. Notice, no one else is on this list except YOU.
Heresy in itself is fun because we enjoy debunking it, can't you tell?
@grunderlyme I only discovered this site about three weeks ago and noticed that science2000 is the same person as Biologist1947 - both obsessed with the "verifiable evidence" mantra and "scientist-cum-professional musician". One does not need to be a literary critic to see the identity. Another commenntator, Stallion4life pointed out the identity of science2000 and ContrabassClar.
It's not a crime I guess, but it is pathetic. You've done a service to this forum.
Sainthood is crucial to the Roman Church. Why should we therefore accept blindly the reality of canonisation when the Church making the decision relies so heavily on miracles and Saints. There is too much vested in miracles being true for the decisions on these by the Vatican over the years to be rational. Without the resurrection, transubstantiation and verifiable miracles the game is up for Catholicism Father and yet you have no proof whatsoever of the reality of any of it.
I agree with you on the limits of science...It can prove that NaOH added to HCl will produce salt and water...But can it prove that a Shakespeaean Sonnet is a thing of beauty, or just gibberish? What became of all the souls who were cast into Hell for eating meat on Friday after the Church deemed eating meat on Friday was no longer Sin?
For those who believe in God ,and have faith, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe in God, no explanation will suffice."Good Video Father Barron.
@DrewAnti1960 Because they(people of faith) have been sufficiently brain-washed to not be able to accept logical argument or views contrary to what they are told to believe. Pray and believe and follow your religion sincerely that is your right - just dont expect to do it publically and attack people like me who ask questions. Fr Barron I presume is okay with a challenge and is always civil. Religious belief is akin to sex for most rational thinkers - best done privately! Cant take the heat.....
@Mrmentalmadness123 I didnt attack you ,what are you talking about ,or are you just looking for trouble?Because I only left a comment.seems like you're worried .and I'm not brain washed ,so you can either chill,or go awayif i was attacking you, you would have seen @Mrmentalmadness in front of my comment,so now it looks like you're attaking me,because i see a @drewanti1960 in front of yours,Growup
I would suggest you read his life story before making ridiculous statements.You would do well to do just a little research.The church just does'nt cannonize someone a Saint until they have a proof positive albeit a miracle etc.You might want to explore his curing of a blind girl with no pupils who can see through his intercession.Also he was a very Pious man who never made any claims.Do your homework before you make blind statements.All the best
@arate419 Good grief The CC canonised Mother Teresa for running filthy badly resourced hovels for the dying after taking millions for the task that miraculously never ended up being spent on the poor they were allegedly raised for. Pull the other one - you expect me to be convinced that the process of canonisation is somehow a guarantee of evidence of miracles? The Church has a vested interest in that process - can you not see that? You'll have to do a lot better than that!
Second heresy, (and it's a heresy in your mind not mine) I think where people have a problem is that if an organization is one of thousands of 'devinely inspired' institutions around the world (yes, one of the major ones of course) and the leaders who should have been following the teachings, and leading by example, can be responsible for such horrible crimes, over the centuries,I think that would cause a rational person to doubt the validity of their claims. (at the very least)
First 'heresy' is a strawman. Who says that reality is only what science can explain? Not a rational thinking person. It doesn't make sense. We know that new things are discovered all the time, and science expand to encompass it. Like bacteria, science didn't know about them, we find them, now science can explain them. That's the point, we want science to explain everything, and strive to make it happen. We know it probably never will, and that's ok.
Father, I have told you many times, we cannot deny the imaginary, the philosophical, but you cannot prove it either. Your arguments are esoteric in that they hold no substance that we can measure. It is simply a belief system for social control that intelligent folks see through now! God is contingent on us believing he exists!
@Mrmentalmadness123 And that's just more name-calling. Please answer the argument. Until you do, I can only conclude that you find it logically compelling.
@HolyknightVader999 You really do say some rubbish. How can a God be bored? Isn't that a very human condition? You may as well say God is jealous or angry or disappointed. He shares our emotions because we invented him?
@Mrmentalmadness123 Can you deny Padre Pio??It may be worth your time to explore his life.He bore the wounds of God's Son as well as many other phenomona,They are documented.All the best
@arate419 Yes because many people believe he was a fraud and his claims wer never verified by anyone other than close friends and he himself. Ths alleged story of this man adds nothing to the arguments needed to prove a God.
@Mrmentalmadness123 His claims were verified by other historians and yes atheists will debate even the credibility of those writings. Not only do we have the testimony of his friends but we also have the evidence that each one of them was so convinced that they died for what they testified to be true, which would be extremely compelling in a court of law. From their persuasions and writings it is evident that they were not insane.
@MrStealthninja1000 The girl he allegedly cured had "hysterical blindness" acondition which can spontaneously correct itself or can respond to the entreties of friends and trusted family members. He(Pio) useed a number of chemicals to stop the self inflicted stigmata from healing and a topical anti-coagulant to maintain near constant bleeding. Historians have simply repeated the stories of his miraculous deeds. As for Pio's friends and family what do you expect them to say. No mystery!
@Mrmentalmadness123 Excellent points, as always. The evidence is overwhelming that Pio was a total fraud. Re: M. Teresa---imagine if she'd invested her considerable sums in creating state of the art hospitals which would actually relieve pain rather than merely tolerating it?
Another great example of the political usefulness of canonization is Thomas More. Remember that he burned Protestant heretics---but is now the patron of politicians. What irony in that?
@sciencelives2000 What sort of gutless wimps are you and the person you address here to attack the Missionaries of Charity whom you know would not attempt to defend themselves even if they had the means (they don't have electric typewriters, never mind computers).
For the record there are about 5,000 MC Sisters in about 140 countries enduring risks, poverty and hardships that you and your ilk would not endure for a week bringing relief, comfort, hope and dignity to the...
@sciencelives2000 (2) poorest of the poor. While you spend your lives in your middle class US suburban bubbles swanning around on the internet MC Sisters are lovingly tending to children and the destitute e.g. in the slums of Manila where only they and the poorest dare to live or in the hills of Timor Leste where, apart from the wretched locals sufffering from malaria, TB and encephalitis, not to mention the mental scars of their recent holocaust, only peacekeeping soldiers .
@sciencelives2000 (3) dare to go. One of the first AIDS hospices in the world was in your own country, New York, run by MC Sisters at the invitation of Cardinal O'Connor. The Sisters run a much larger hospice, I think in Washington. When you or your kids end up in skid row having scattered your brains sniffing coke or using meta-amphetamines the Sisters are therel to feed and cheer you, visit your hovels, clean them and not least, befriend you and remind you of your dignity.
@sciencelives2000 (5) stupid. How do you build a state of the art hospital in the bustees of Howrah (one of the worst slums in Kolkata) or in the hills of Niki Doy in Timor or on an island off Aparri where people live in grass huts - I could go on endllessly. You criticize others here for making, in your view, uninformed statements. Your ignorance here is of Himalayan proportions.
Not far from where you presumably live are innocent children in Jamaica and Haiti desperately
@sciencelives2000 (6) suffering as no human should. What you throw away in your garbage could keep perhaps not a few alive. Missionaries are there of course - not just for the short haul. A number of your fellow countrymen and women who, I suspect, are much more likely to make this world a better place than you and your kind, go there and do voluntary work. Sure you can send a cheque and that's good - but let me tell you from experience - the poor also need our love and
@sciencelives2000 (7) friendship. I have come across American doctors who give up their holidays to do surgery for the poorest in Latin America and in the Philippines US doctors who do surgery on the terrible hair lips which deform the faces of beautiful children. Why not, in however small a way, try to follow the example of these truly "enlightened" humans in your country - it would be a good antidote to the parody of what you seem to think is human existence.
@GordonSou And not all of the Dr's giving their time for free will be religious folks - I would hazard a guess that the majority of them as rational "enlightened" scientists will be doubters if not atheistic? We do not need religion to know and do good things. You have preseneted a very silly and self defeating argument.
@Mrmentalmadness123 My experience is that supernaturalism is often a force that militates AGAINST doing real good in the world. Arguably, science, with its quest for verifiable evidence, has done more to help more people in more ways than all of the supernaturalist missionaries who have ever lived. As you point out, perhaps we should work much harder to alleviate the UNDERLYING causes of poverty rather than simply band-aid folks by giving them a cot but no morphine as they die.
Since when are science and religion competing? Granted, some religious individuals are anti-science -such as the Creationists- but this doesn't logically carry over to the whole of religion now, does it?
Science and religion aren't at odds anymore than physics (science) and metaphysics. The two are in their own spheres.
@AgApE010 You're correct that there's no competition. Self-correcting science relies on verifiable evidence that leads to robust, broad, falsifiable, predictive, yet provisional explanations. Explanations involving supernaturalism, magic, and superstition are disallowed.
Supernaturalism in its myriad forms and belief systems relies on revelation and authority. It does not make accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos. Its dogmas are not provisional but rather absolute / immutable.
@sciencelives2000 "It does not make accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos."
It's not meant to make predictions about the behavior of the cosmos. That's the job of science. I can't think of any serious theologian who tries to make predictions about the behavior of the cosmos using theology. Whether the cosmos is expanding, contracting or whatever is the job of scientist to figure out.
@TheFutureengineer20 Did I say that it was the "job" of supernaturalists? As with most supernaturalists, you expand on simple statements to create a disagreement where none exists at all.
Actually, personally, I have no quarrel with supernaturalism, just as I have no quarrel with magic or superstition, as long as we recognize them exactly for what they are.
@sciencelives2000 I wasn't trying to make a disagreement. My comment shows that I agree w/ you. The comment just gave me the impression that you were saying that fact made science superior. If that is the case that would be like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are superior to the Rams b/c they've won a world series.
@TheFutureengineer20 Supernaturalism, like magic and superstition, cares not at all about verifiable evidence. Science is fueled---indeed,it is utterly reliant upon----verifiable evidence.
My only quarrel with supernaturalism, magic, and superstition is when adherents make claims without verifiable evidence but ADAMANTLY MAINTAIN that those claims are based on verifiable evidence. As long as supernaturalism, magic and superstition are clear about their origins, I'm cool with it.
@sciencelives2000 What hypocriscy. If you were" that cool with it" why would you cllaim that the greatest threat to humanity is two theocracies - Israel (sic) and Iran, make the absurd claim that the New Testament and Christians teach that 1.2bn Hindus are condemned to an eternnity in hell, or repeatedly make uninformed and offensive remarks about religion and religious people etc? We know the answer,of course, all of your multiple personalities are disaffected Catholics.
@TheFutureengineer20 Thanks for the message and introducing me to Dr Craig. While this fellow's repetitiveness was merely boring, grunderlyme's revealing today that he has nine diffferent identities on Fr Barron's YouTube (including three musical ones:)) brings a new and refreshing dimension of pure farce not unlike Dr Craig's experience with his repetitive atheist. I also found grunderlyme's preamble to the list of identities remarkably perceptive.
@GordonSou Ok, so I sent a petition to Fr. Barron this morning requesting a permanent ban on this guy. I gave 4 reasons for it: (1) misleading people by lying about his credentials & manufacturing support for falsehoods w/ his different aliases, (2) discouraging others from participating by lowering morale, (3) consistently impeding intelligent discourse, (4) maliciously obstructing the WordOnFire Mission which is to charitably & unambiguously present Church Teachings to the public
You say it "does not make accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos" as if that is a mark against religion. Again, that simply is not its purpose. What you're doing is like condemning epistemology for not giving us the computer.
@AgApE010 Do you think that supernaturalism makes accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos? If you do not, then we have no quarrel. Mine was an accurate, statement, was it not? Why to you make an interpretation which is not there? Do you think that your supernaturalistic beliefs are ill-founded?
@AgApE010 Did i say otherwise? I would be the LAST PERSON ever to claim that science in any conceivable way could possibly resemble supernaturalism----or superstition or magic.
@Mrmentalmadness123 Do you really believe that the point of my comment was that the Drs I mention are all religious or is this an evasion on your part of the clear thrust of my comments - your cowardly and uninformed attack on a religious Order which alleviates enormous suffering in the world. My point in mentioning the Drs was that you and your back-slapping "scientist" would be more of a credit to yourselves, your country and the world at large if you followed the example
@Mrmentalmadness123 (2) of your more mature countrymen/women rather than trying to undermine what is good.
Two other points. To claim MC "houses" are filthy demonstrates either that you have never been near one or there are no depths to which you will not sink to further your sad agenda or, worse, both. There are a number of "houses' and hospices in USA so people can judge for themselves or pop across the boarder to Tijuana. The cleanliness of the MC refuges would put
@Mrmentalmadness123 (3) many nursing homes in the Western World to shame. Or let's take the other extreme and go to Bengal. Kolkata is perhaps one of the most disease-ridden places in the world. Whether children's homes, homes for the desititute and the dying, for profoundly handicapped poor or the lepers at Titigarh the hygiene is one of the most striking features. Every bed is stripped every morning, mattress covers washed, children or adults bathed and dressed with
@Mrmentalmadness123 (4) clean clothing. Floors are scrubbed with disinfectant in water. After meals children's metal top tables are thoroughly washed as are the small children etc etc If it were otherwise, especially the volunteers who come from more sterile environments, would be wiped out with disease.
The other point - if M Teresa's beatification (not canonisation) was CC propoganda did CC also arrange her Nobel Peace Prize?
@sciencelives2000 (4) It is a travesty to suggest MCs are somehow hoarding money. They are scrupulous with benefactors money but you would know that as I suspect you would be an unlikely benefactor. Don't cry your pathetic matra " verifiable evidence" - you are clearly impervious to it.
You understand nothing of missionaries' work - they lovingly help people, not statistics. Your suggeston that money should be used on state of the art hospitals is as naive as it is unfair and
@sciencelives2000 Not at all. As usual, I'm just confronting you with the facts to demonstrate to you what a very sad place you're in. If there is a note of disgust in my tone this time I admit I despise your brand of bigotry almost as much as your participation in the pathetic and cowardly attack by Mrmentalmadness123 on fine people who would not grace his attack with a response even if they had the time and means.
@GordonSou You express yourself with such kindness, never an ad hominem attack, never any bias, never deriding others' points of view. You always answer direct questions put to you about your biases so that others may be aware of them! You are truly an admirable apologist!
@Mrmentalmadness123 I'm not exactly sure why you replied to me in response to Pio. However, it's evident that you went and looked up the atheistic view point to discredit St. Pio. Google searches are great aren't they? It's a very wikipedish type of response. Explore the facts about his life with an open mind and you will see overwhelming proof of his authenticity. BTW, his stigmata wasn't even considered in his canonization.
@MrStealthninja1000 Because you commented to me! I dont have to denigrate or attack Pio - the burdon of proof is upon yourselves to prove he was filled with the holy spirit. All I am saying is that these sorts of claims by their very nature are one dimentional and cannot be proved. What is more believable, Pio bent the truth in concert with his supporters or the natural laws of the universe were suspended? Why Pio? Why cant God prevent disasters and do other miracles - why the delay?
@MrStealthninja1000 Define "open mind."I suspect you mean believe something without proof because Priests or others say it is the only way? Minds in this position are simply not open but locked tight from the inside. Sia Baba is credited with many miracles but sadly the story is the same - nothing is ever demonstrated under even reasonably scientific conditions that cannot be explained away as hearsay or fanaticism. You will believe what your religion tells you to believe? Escape is possible!
@Mrmentalmadness123 Hysreical Blindness?????She has no "PUPILS" and she still has no "PUPILS"Kindly explain that.Science can't maybe you could enlighten the board.All the best
@arate419 Who said she had no pupils? You have to stop accepting this rubbish on someone else's say so when they have lots of interest invested in this being a real honest to goodness miracle. Stop being so damn gullible!
@arate419 She had a medical condition - probably aridina where her irises never fully developed. She was declared blind but so are many partially sighted people even today when they see reasonabley well. Pio claimed to give this woman pupils. She always had them. The rest is just wish believing rhetoric. You are no further forward. If Pio could carry out miracles why could he not do it at will to end the argument? The same stands for God.
Arguments for the existence of God need to be demonstrated scientifically. They need to be evident and provable rather than being subject to this esoteric nonsense reliant upon the intervention of someone prepared to interpret the message for us. If a God exists why doesn't he talk to us directly?
@Mrmentalmadness123 I've offered the argument from contingency several times, and you've never even begun to answer it. I fail to see how this argument involves any "appeal to esoteric nonsense." It's a rational demonstration. Show me precisely where you think it fails.
Science deals solely with the natural world whilst God is by definition supernatural. Thus you cannot prove God's existence scientifically. It is outside of the abilities of science.
You don't even know what you're asking. Why don't you internet atheists take the time to learn a few basic things instead of posting a bunch of comments on videos?
This guy has a real knack for explaining concepts in a very lucid way. These videos should be required viewing for all dogmatic YouTube atheist neckbeards who presume to school anyone about anything.
@Roper122 In fact I am! I'm schooling dogmatic YouTube atheist neckbeards by advising them to listen to this man, because he has a very clear and lucid way of explaining why they're wrong! :)
@stallion4life Like Roper, I also wonder whether you're thinking that you actually have verifiable evidence for supernaturalism. If you do, I'd be most interested in that evidence and your documentation. Thank you so much.
@sciencelives2000 It is philosophical evidence. Father Barron and William Lane Craig have several videos explaining this (including the present one.) There is also historical evidence, and personal, experiential, revelatory evidence. Not all evidence is found under the lens of a microscope.
@stallion4life Does philosophy EVER provide verifiable evidence? If it did provide compelling evidence, why do philosophers disagree diametrically and insistently about the existence and character of any deity? The so-called historical reports of Christian claims are not verifiable. Personal, revelatory, and "experiential" (whatever that is) "evidence" are subjective and not at all amenable to confirmatory examination. The most likely explanation for the central claim of Christianity (contd)
@stallion4life (2) viz. the reanimation of a corpse, is not that something "miraculous" happened. Mass hysteria is a common phenomenon and a very reasonable explanation. Many supernaturalists have willingly surrendered their lives as a result of mass hysteria. Hallucinatory "appearances" of deceased loved ones occur frequently as well.
If supernaturalism is to be undergirded by something other than "faith," neither philosophical speculation nor "historical" reports will be satisfactory.
@sciencelives2000 Just because something can't be subjected to empirical scrutiny doesn't necessarily mean it's subjective. Also, there's diametric disagreements int he world of science too... without disagreements, there would be no progress.
You can say supernaturalism is undergirded only by philosophical speculation, but by the same token, naturalism- the belief that there is nothing that isn't physical- would also be based on non-verifiable philosophical speculation.
@stallion4life Let me clarify how science works for you. Scientists do disagree---adamantly, vociferously, even sometimes angrily! But--unlike supernaturalism, verifiable evidence is supreme. Scientists will challenge each other to do better experiments, to make better observations, to think about other interpretations. It is in the challenge that science progresses. Scientists love surprises and we are surprised constantly. But ultimately, conclusions are drawn because of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.
@sciencelives2000 Didn't you just say that science's findings are always provisional? You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't say that science's strength is that conclusions are always open to criticism, and then say that it is unique in its ability to arrive at incontrovertible conclusions.
You still haven't demonstrated why empirical evidence is the only evidence worth considering, or how philosophers disagreeing about God (or about anything) necessarily makes it subjective.
@stallion4life Provisionality of scientific conclusions is a given. Wasn't that clear from my description of scientific debate? Such conclusions are ALWAYS open to new evidence or thinking.
For science, the final arbiter is verifiable evidence. For philosophers, there is NO final arbiter---all is speculation, opinion, argument. That's the huge difference.
The best evidence that verifiable evidence is the gold standard is that using it as such has made science successful. (contd)
@sciencelives2000 "Verifiable evidence" is NOT the final arbiter in science. Verifiable evidence is the set of givens on which scientists construct their theories, and even those givens can be called into question.
People will necessarily always disagree in science, just as they will always disagree in philosophy, religion, etc. None of which says anything about whether these are subjective or objective.
"We've done well-designed studies…"? What are your scientific bona-fides, if I may ask?
@stallion4life As a scientist myself, I know that in my own science, in the science of my colleagues, and as I teach my students, verifiable evidence is the gold standard of "knowing." As we say, show me the data!
Verifiable evidence is the starting point of science. From there, we seek to develop robust, broad, falsifiable, predictive explanations, sometimes called theories, about the Cosmos.
When I use "we," I'm of course referring to the scientific community.
@sciencelives2000 Based on your embarrassingly high-flown language and your single-minded obsession with "verifiable evidence", I'm inclined to believe that you're not a scientist, but just some pimply kid who read some new atheist books and decided to pretend to be some scientific guru on the internet.
We don't disagree about the value of empirical evidence in science. What you have failed to justify is your assumption that this type of evidence is the only type of evidence worth considering.
@stallion4life Verifiable evidence fuels the success of science. There are built-in safeguards in the scientific method. The very success of science is the best evidence for a conclusion that the method is reliable.
You've admitted that philosophy is speculation, opinion, and argument.
We already know that historical evidence, especially from biased observers, is highly subjective, as are the other forms of evidence that you've described.
@sciencelives2000 Oh wow, more high-flown propagandizing for science. You have failed to address any of my points, or answer any of my questions.
Speculation, opinion, and argument can be well-founded, or they can be ill-founded. Unlike you, I'm not committed to the unverifiable belief that empirical evidence is the only evidence worth considering. I've asked you SEVERAL times, and you've still not given me any reason to believe this!
@stallion4life My job is not to give anyone a reason to "believe" that which they don't care to believe. You are welcome to accept whatever kind of evidence makes you happy---subjective or verifiable---concrete or magical.
My point is simple: verifiable evidence is the foundation of science. Science has been enormously successful in inventing theories that predict the behavior of the Cosmos. The continued success of science is the best evidence for its reliability. Quite simple actually.
@sciencelives2000 Pretty much if there was nothing supernatural, nothing should stop me from making human stew, or making a human centipede out of the people I hate. They're just lumps of cells and meat. Rights and personality, in the end, come from a spiritual perspective. Without that, every living being is justifiably, a thing that I can manipulate for my personal gain or to prolong my short life, since living is everything and my existence is ended when I die.
@HolyknightVader999 What an utterly ridiculous argument! Every social animal has rules that govern the interactions within the group. Such rules are essential for the survival of advanced, interactive species. My dog understands that there are rules that govern his interaction with me, other humans, and other dogs. He has a sense of fairness and equity. It's in his genes, buddy. May I suggest that you study just a bit of biology? A bit of knowledge would help you to think.
@sciencelives2000 And all those rules go out the window when shit hits the fan. Those "civilized animals" will eat each other when the chips are down.
@HolyknightVader999 Are you a biologist? Have you studied animal behavior, especially the behavior of large-brained, social animals? Do you have evidence for your assertion? Have you studied the numerous reports of altruistic behavior in social animals? Do you have documentation for even a single report consistent with your assertion? Do you think it wise to make assertions without verifiable evidence of any kind? Do you think that enhances your credibility?
@sciencelives2000 Do you? You're the one who made assumptions that animals look out for each other in an altruistic way. What I was arguing is that though they will cooperate based on the fact that they are the same species, when push comes to shove, they will commit cannibalism and kill each other when shit hits the fan. If there is no such thing as a human soul, then where does the human desire for right and wrong come from?
@HolyknightVader999 Re: altruism in social animals. Recent research in animal behavior is revealing levels of advanced interaction that rival the human. Part of our evolutionary heritage, as big-brained primates, is a whole set of behavioral propensities selected as our species diverged from our common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. All advanced social animals have a sense of the permissible and impermissible---we call it "right" and "wrong." It's in our genes.
@sciencelives2000 Wrong. All animal cooperation is based on mutual need. Put them in the kind of danger that forces them to turn on each other, and they'd tear each other apart for food. They'd have no moral impulse against that.
@HolyknightVader999 Please provide verifiable evidence that "all animal cooperation is based on mutual need." There are several compelling reports in the zoological literature that show the opposite. Please provide the verifiable evidence for your assertion.
@sciencelives2000 I don't need to. All the evidence I can sense for my own. One of the biggest lies is that there are only five senses. As recent science suggests, there are over hundreds.
And where does consciousness come from huh? The very will to live is in itself a gift of the metaphysical.It is not something biological, lest you infer that something biologicla programs us to the will to live, which would imply an intelligent designer.
@HolyknightVader999 Again, I welcome even a scintilla of verifiable evidence for the assertions that you make about "senses," "will to live," and "consciousness" Have you seriously studied any of those concepts? Do you understand the biology of our senses? Do you have verifiable evidence of any kind that consciousness or "mind" exists other than in, through, with and by the 100 billion neurons in our brains? Do you enjoy making assertions without verifiable evidence?
@sciencelives2000 Simple: Try to commit suicide. See how much both your body and mind fight against it. See why people actually need others to help them commit suicide.
@HolyknightVader999 Re: suicide. What evidence do you have that suicidal people require the assistance of others for the act? Do you have the data on numbers of suicides, the percentage carried out by the individual without assistance compared to those with assistance? I am not advocating suicide here. Rather, I do advocate verifiable evidence, careful analysis, nuanced thinking, and well articulated exposition. Your evidence-free assertions do not enhance your credibility.
@sciencelives2000 Evidence is everywhere. The existence of suicide help hotlines is evidence enough; otherwise people would just kill themselves without aid; which is why people campaign for right-to-die services, a movement very alive today. If there were no hardships against suicides, then such organizations and movements WOULD NOT EXIST.
Also, it is ironic and at times depressing just how incredibly incurious this leaves the devotees of scientism--though they think of themselves as deeply curious, intellectually speaking. In truth because almost none of them are actual scientists, their own scientism leaves them cut off from any really profound or interesting insight into the nature of reality. Reality for them is the subject of a specialized set of disciplines about which they will never know much of anything.
smmclaug75 21 hours ago
Fr. Barron's experience accords with my own in these discussions. Most people I talk to have such an iron-clad commitment to materialism, that they don't believe that there is any other conceivable way of knowing anything. They aren't even aware that this stunted view of reality is subject to serious philosophical challenge. So Fr. Barron is right--YouTube discussions are remarkably non-productive, because everything always reduces to epistemological questions on which there is no agreement.
smmclaug75 21 hours ago
Show me one 'perfect' institution here on earth, where every member is perfect and never violates the institution they serve. Show me just one. The True One will endure and even thrive in the face of adversity and persecution. That One IS The Catholic Church.
lisztrestore 1 week ago
You are great! Father Barron.
jkjobies 1 week ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
for more information about 'scientism', give the 1930s Logical Positivism a look. Purely philosophical version of the same. Imperialistic, unverifiable, outmoded and outdated.
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 Yes! No one (except for very few) in the community of analytic philosophers buys its 2 central theses about verfiability anymore. Logical positivism was very short lived.
For a fun quiz, can anybody tell me what those 2 central theses are, and why philosophers abandoned them?
However, analytic philosphers have since held onto Positivism's rigorous logico-linguistic methodology because it is very powerful too that cuts through conceptual error fast.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme As a non-believer myself, I do recognise both this Enlightenment 'faith' in both the secular humanism ideal of progression, redemption, salvation through science: that it could deliver us from ourselves (e.g., the fiction and practical impossibility of digital immortalisation) and the other side to the coin: iconoclasm, a preoccupation with debunking what was once solely the monopoly of orthodox religion. Of course faith and science can work, and do work, together.
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 I applaud your identifying the Enlightenment for what it was: a cultural attempt to replace the religious spirit w/ the secular spirit. The STRATEGY behind it was to hijack everything "intelligent/rational" for themselves, while leaving the "superstition" to us poor believers,--just as the "big 3" today call themselves the "brights" as if all religious persons were by default "not bright." But this is false, so the distinction is not very "bright" to begin with. How ironic.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme One thing contributing to this idea might simply be the elitist self-presentation of secular academics. Dawkins respects those Oxford elites in the Anglican church, as well as the importance of vernacular hymns and the KJ Bible. I feel the same way about Cistercian + Roman chant, and scholarship. But in debate - and the Anglicans have noted this too - R.D jumps to debunking the straw men deities of the classics. 'You wouldn't worship Zeus.' Exactly, neither of us would.
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 I know, right? What always fascinated me was the radical difference between pagan and judeo-christian religion. Modern science supplanted the pagan, but not the judeo-christian world view for a reason. The pagans attributed the weather and the daily course of the sun to the caprices and whims of the deities like Poseidon and Apollo, since these deities were PART of the natural world. But in Western religion God is distinct from it, as seen in Genesis.........
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 ......No doubt the Judeo-christian God intervenes now and then in his creation, and is responsible for the natural laws themselves, but NO christian, from Irenaeus to Aquinas ever used "God" as the direct explanation for what science now takes to be the underlying causes and conditions of regularity and change. Christian understanding right from the start was based on the natural philosophy of Aristotle,........
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 ....which attributed the workings of the natural world to underlying modal properties contained with things and to the natural laws or "principles" governing their interaction. No doubt Aristotle is no longer seen as an authority of the natural world, but modern science has not exactly supplanted him. His rational framework is still there which provided the bedrock from which science sprang.......
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 ....Christianity never challenged this rational framework, but embraced it. So I never understood the reason for the apparent conflict between science & religion. It is an entirely modern development, much of which comes from the unsubstantiated fears of Fundamentalists who think science somehow poses a threat to man's dignity before God. But if they applied themsleves a bit, they would realize there is no basis for this. And it's sad ppl like Dawkins catch the same virus.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Judas130 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grunderlyme The atheist nowadays holds it to be true that there is not one explanation left for the origins of our species, our planet, our cosmos, of which requires the Aristotelian deus ex machina. This assertion becomes confused when applied to what is conceptually supra-natural, meta-physical, beyond and outside our realm of entropy, having, in my opinion, no conflict with our understanding of that realm. Where I get confused is with where Jesus stands in relation to all this.
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 I could try to answer your question about Christ if I knew what it was. Can you be more precise?
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 But that claim by atheists is obviously false. Do you see why? If there was nothing left to explain, then we would already know everything. But anyone both arrogant and stupid enough to think this is out of his mind.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme Indeed, but the point is more about the current state of theories (verified against the rigours of the method, in consensus): are the more sufficient explanations for our place in the cosmos. It is certainly true that ideas and theories are and have been subject to revision and scepticism, yet an appeal to the unknown (which a good scientist and atheist should recognise) might be in danger of reverting back to a God 'of the gaps'. Deism to Theism is the confusing issue.
Judas130 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 I'm still confused. Are you just saying something like "God is not needed to explain anything"? But notice, if the argument from contingency is logically valid and sound, then God is needed. The proposition about his existence follows logically and necessarily from premises about the whole of contingent existence, because anything contingent cannot, in principle, explain itself--precisely because it is "contingent."
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Judas130 Let me quickly illustrate with an example why a scientific theory does not sufficiently explain our existence. We can explain the origin and predominance of the species alive today with random mutation and natural selection (evolution). But....[next]
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 [next]...what evolutionary theory cannot explain is why molecules in the earliest primordial soup started replicating in the 1st place. It's a huge mystery, and appears to be some "brute fact" about the universe. (Even Dawkins explicitly acknowledges this "unknown" on page 15 in Chaper 2, "On Replicators," of his book, The Selfish Gene.) But is it brute? I have to ask, why did these molecules start replicating? So RM and NS does not sufficiently explain why we are here
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme [part two]. To clarify, 'design' is the buzzword. Because from a supra-natural Designer, is the move to the theistic conceptions of God as man, God who answers prayers, enables miracles: transubstantiation, resurrections, healings, virgin births, redemption, ad infinitum. These are very 'personal' ideas of a deity. The deistic Prime Mover doesn't get us there, or does it? I guess its down to liberal/literal interpretations of Church practice
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 I know grunderlyme doesn't need my assistance here but I've been following your interesting dialogue. I think you are absolutely correct in saying the deistic Prime Mover does not get us to the God you describe in your previous sentence. The Catholic Church holds that the God who is Prime Mover can be known by the light of natural reason (though more clearly by the light of Faith). The God and the mysteries of faith you list can only be known by revelation i.e. faith.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou (2) I should perhaps have qualified my comment by saying, of course, while miracles/healings can't be scientifically explained (othewise they would not be miracles) the fact of these miracles occurring (e.g. in the process of beatification or canonization) is verfied by most rigorous processes and we do not require faith to believe in them.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme Thanks for fleshing out my somewhat simplified statement. Rigorous logic is helpful especially when dealing with hostile antagonists. But I didn't feel that is the case with this person. I guess if my paranthetic comment was taken without qualification there would be milliions of "miracles" all the time even though natural phenomena, simply because science had not yet discovered an explanation.
Nice to see rational discussion here and your insistence on logic.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou I understood Judas was being sincere. I only posted for others because it is too easy for many who ARE antagonistic to jump to the wrong conclusion about what you said. I know I sound pedantic sometimes, but what I said is probably needed here because I'm confident many would have accused you of pushing a "gaps" argument, which is untrue. I'm trying to help, truly.....Ugh. I hate this pendantic appearance I picked up from academia! I'm trying to change it. Cheers :-)
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme I appreciated your clarification and agree entirely with the need for tight argument, especially in a public forum, for the reasons you give. I don't consider your rigorous approach at all pedantic. Although I am not a professional philosopher I recognize in the rigour of your logic a commendable esteem for reason and truth.
As this site is clearly still being viewed by many after 3 years I think the use to which you are putting your philosophical training must
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou (2) surely advance and enhance Fr Barron's objectives on these forums.
Be assured that you don't come across as pedantic and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I hope the sort of dialogue you are engaging here will encourage others to participate in this vein. Truly a breath of fresh air - fumigation even - after the stifling spirtually and intellectually toxic smoke of the recent past. It is certainly
putting an edge on my understanding on the issues.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme (2) surely advance and enhance Fr Barron's objectives on these forums.
Be assured that you don't come across as pendantic and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I hope the sort of dialogue you are engaging here will encourage others to participate in this vein. Truly a breath of fresh air - a fumigation even - after the stifling spiritiually and intellectually toxic smoke of the recent past. It is certainly putting an edge on my own understanding here. .
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou I just realized how funny this sounds: "I understood Judas was being sincere." One of the 12, that is....Ha!
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme Good one! That's a classic - the sort of tag you can carry to your grave if your family and friends learn of it!
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Nice! I didn't think of that. Too funny!
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GordonSou You're right about miracles. I just wanted to clarify something, however. That science cannot explain a phenomenon is not sufficient reason to believe "just-any-old-miracle" happened, even if this condition is necessary. We need to show that the miracle hypothesis under consideration does, in fact, explain it, or explain it better than any alternative natural hypotheses competing for it.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 Yes. The contingency argument does not conclude the existence of a personal God. It concludes the existence of an unconditioned being which exists in virtue of the power of its own essence. So we need more. How about the Argument from the Tine-Tuning of the constants and laws of the universe which is a sure indication of intelligence, and hence--a person? I have defended this argument at great length in several places under Fr. Barron's vidoes if you can find it. :-)
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 That the supernatural performs miracles, we would need empirical evidence for this on a case by case basis. This can be done with those tools found in Bayesian Probability and Confirmation Theory. William Lane Craig uses it to show the Resurrection Hypothesis is the best explanation of the documented facts, for instance. Though the following link does not address miracles, you can read about Bayesianism here: plato [dot] stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Judas130 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@grunderlyme [part two] but I'm sorry to bring up Jesus. I'll get some more knowledge about that (God as Man) in particular. That's precisely why I am here: to learn. I will never rudely shun, or else I betray honest scepticism. Rather than an argument where we create point-scoring negatives of each other (another cause of the problem), we are in dialogue with mutual interests. Thank you for your time.
Judas130 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 I hear you :) We may not always see eye-to-eye, but at least we can respect eachother like brothers with inquiring minds. We can find more answers to questions working together than working alone. We help eachother understand. I have an atheist friend at school with whom I disagree about much. We will spend hours at a chalk-board logically quantifying stuff, re-hashing things we read, trying to help eachother articulate our thoughts...then have a beer later. Good times
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Judas130 "Thank you for your time."
--No worries. Thank you for the intelligent dialogue. It's refreshing and delightful.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WARNING: There is a troll stalking Fr. Barron's videos manufacturing fake support for himself w/ multiple aliases as a disguise & lying about his credentials. He obstructs intelligent discourse w/ consistent negativity & question-evading; ignores counterarguments & attacks your credentials in place of reasoned rebuttal. Notice the pattern: Sciencelives2000, BrenttheSkeptic, Nodelusionnow, Biolgist1947, ContrabassClar, theclarinet1234, bassclarinet2000, Mike96727, Nemesis000000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Anyone else who wants to sign this petition, I encourage you to email Fr. Barron with "I sign grunderlyme's petition." If you want to see what I wrote, I can send you a PM.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
These screen-names are sockpuppets of the same uneducated troll talking w/ himself as if he were different people. He refers to himself as a "PhD Scientist," or any variation thereof, delivering the same empty filler & unsubstantiated "scientism" on Barron's videos, who name-drops intelligentsia while attacking your credentials in place of reasoned engagement:
sciencelives2000,
Nodelusionnow,
Biologist1947,
ContrabassClar,
theclarinet1234,
bassclarinet2000,
Mike96727
Nemesis000000
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme I am offended for not being on your heretic list!
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Ok, you're now added.
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Congratulations!! By becoming an official "heretic" you join an elite group of the finest minds---the best scientists, the most creative artists, the best mathematicians! Fortunately, those who declare "heresy" are no longer empowered to torture and burn heretics at the stake as just punishment for their terrible sins of declaring supernaturalism to be exactly what it is! Heresy---it's not your father's dogma any more!
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 It seems to me that grunderlyme was talking about pathetic frauds - not heretics. And you lot call yourselves "Brights"!
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou If anyone would know what Gunderlyme is talking about it would be you. LOL. Except for the possible issue dual personalities.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 So we're getting paranoid? You might have been a bit more creative than to use three names with musical connotations when you keep reminding us that you are a "professional musician". When do you find time to practice?
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Does this asshat seriously think we are the same person? LOL! So much for his hermeneutical skills in deciphering the personality behind the text!....
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme Not familiar with the epithet "asshat" down here. I was interested in its etymology but couldn't find it in my American Oxford so I have figured out it probably means one who wears his bottom on his head. If that is so it would explain a great deal about the quality of Mr Hyde's comments here.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Nice. Yeah, I forget you have the luxury of not being exposed to the stupid things us Americans say. If that locution is not in the American Oxford yet, I promise you it will be because there are so many American asshats using it. I'd like to think I'm not one of them, but then again, encountering an asshat like Mr. Asshat turns you into an asshat--a contagious epidemic of Large American proportions, I gather. Or is that "portions"?
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GordonSou Nice. Yeah, I forget you have the luxury of not being exposed to the stupid things us Americans say. If that term is not in the American Oxford yet, I promise you it will be because there are so many American asshats using it. I'd like to think I'm not one of them, but then again, encountering an asshat like Mr. Asshat turns you into an asshat--a contagious epidemic of Large American proportions, I gather. Or is that "portions"?
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 The list isn't for heretics, but for for frauds, like yourself, and those who maliciously obstruct sensible discourse, like you're doing right now. Notice, no one else is on this list except YOU.
Heresy in itself is fun because we enjoy debunking it, can't you tell?
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@grunderlyme I only discovered this site about three weeks ago and noticed that science2000 is the same person as Biologist1947 - both obsessed with the "verifiable evidence" mantra and "scientist-cum-professional musician". One does not need to be a literary critic to see the identity. Another commenntator, Stallion4life pointed out the identity of science2000 and ContrabassClar.
It's not a crime I guess, but it is pathetic. You've done a service to this forum.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
Sainthood is crucial to the Roman Church. Why should we therefore accept blindly the reality of canonisation when the Church making the decision relies so heavily on miracles and Saints. There is too much vested in miracles being true for the decisions on these by the Vatican over the years to be rational. Without the resurrection, transubstantiation and verifiable miracles the game is up for Catholicism Father and yet you have no proof whatsoever of the reality of any of it.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
I agree with you on the limits of science...It can prove that NaOH added to HCl will produce salt and water...But can it prove that a Shakespeaean Sonnet is a thing of beauty, or just gibberish? What became of all the souls who were cast into Hell for eating meat on Friday after the Church deemed eating meat on Friday was no longer Sin?
bkeay100 2 weeks ago
For those who believe in God ,and have faith, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe in God, no explanation will suffice."Good Video Father Barron.
DrewAnti1960 3 weeks ago
@DrewAnti1960 Because they(people of faith) have been sufficiently brain-washed to not be able to accept logical argument or views contrary to what they are told to believe. Pray and believe and follow your religion sincerely that is your right - just dont expect to do it publically and attack people like me who ask questions. Fr Barron I presume is okay with a challenge and is always civil. Religious belief is akin to sex for most rational thinkers - best done privately! Cant take the heat.....
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I didnt attack you ,what are you talking about ,or are you just looking for trouble?Because I only left a comment.seems like you're worried .and I'm not brain washed ,so you can either chill,or go awayif i was attacking you, you would have seen @Mrmentalmadness in front of my comment,so now it looks like you're attaking me,because i see a @drewanti1960 in front of yours,Growup
DrewAnti1960 2 weeks ago
@DrewAnti1960 Well said!
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
I would suggest you read his life story before making ridiculous statements.You would do well to do just a little research.The church just does'nt cannonize someone a Saint until they have a proof positive albeit a miracle etc.You might want to explore his curing of a blind girl with no pupils who can see through his intercession.Also he was a very Pious man who never made any claims.Do your homework before you make blind statements.All the best
arate419 3 weeks ago
@arate419 Good grief The CC canonised Mother Teresa for running filthy badly resourced hovels for the dying after taking millions for the task that miraculously never ended up being spent on the poor they were allegedly raised for. Pull the other one - you expect me to be convinced that the process of canonisation is somehow a guarantee of evidence of miracles? The Church has a vested interest in that process - can you not see that? You'll have to do a lot better than that!
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
If reality is restricted to the physical realm, then there is no ground for morality.
And in fact, Jesuits and many Catholic clerics have benefitted sciences in ways secular ones have not.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
Second heresy, (and it's a heresy in your mind not mine) I think where people have a problem is that if an organization is one of thousands of 'devinely inspired' institutions around the world (yes, one of the major ones of course) and the leaders who should have been following the teachings, and leading by example, can be responsible for such horrible crimes, over the centuries,I think that would cause a rational person to doubt the validity of their claims. (at the very least)
HugeJohn51 1 month ago
First 'heresy' is a strawman. Who says that reality is only what science can explain? Not a rational thinking person. It doesn't make sense. We know that new things are discovered all the time, and science expand to encompass it. Like bacteria, science didn't know about them, we find them, now science can explain them. That's the point, we want science to explain everything, and strive to make it happen. We know it probably never will, and that's ok.
HugeJohn51 1 month ago
Father, I have told you many times, we cannot deny the imaginary, the philosophical, but you cannot prove it either. Your arguments are esoteric in that they hold no substance that we can measure. It is simply a belief system for social control that intelligent folks see through now! God is contingent on us believing he exists!
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 And that's just more name-calling. Please answer the argument. Until you do, I can only conclude that you find it logically compelling.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 5
@Mrmentalmadness123 Not really. God can just say "I'm bored; they'll all get flooded."
Hell is actually a refuge from the Presence of God. So Hell is heaven from an Atheist point of view.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 You really do say some rubbish. How can a God be bored? Isn't that a very human condition? You may as well say God is jealous or angry or disappointed. He shares our emotions because we invented him?
Mrmentalmadness123 4 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 It is a figure of speech. God doesn't even get bored at all.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Can you deny Padre Pio??It may be worth your time to explore his life.He bore the wounds of God's Son as well as many other phenomona,They are documented.All the best
arate419 3 weeks ago
@arate419 Yes because many people believe he was a fraud and his claims wer never verified by anyone other than close friends and he himself. Ths alleged story of this man adds nothing to the arguments needed to prove a God.
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 His claims were verified by other historians and yes atheists will debate even the credibility of those writings. Not only do we have the testimony of his friends but we also have the evidence that each one of them was so convinced that they died for what they testified to be true, which would be extremely compelling in a court of law. From their persuasions and writings it is evident that they were not insane.
MrStealthninja1000 3 weeks ago
@MrStealthninja1000 The girl he allegedly cured had "hysterical blindness" acondition which can spontaneously correct itself or can respond to the entreties of friends and trusted family members. He(Pio) useed a number of chemicals to stop the self inflicted stigmata from healing and a topical anti-coagulant to maintain near constant bleeding. Historians have simply repeated the stories of his miraculous deeds. As for Pio's friends and family what do you expect them to say. No mystery!
Mrmentalmadness123 3 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Excellent points, as always. The evidence is overwhelming that Pio was a total fraud. Re: M. Teresa---imagine if she'd invested her considerable sums in creating state of the art hospitals which would actually relieve pain rather than merely tolerating it?
Another great example of the political usefulness of canonization is Thomas More. Remember that he burned Protestant heretics---but is now the patron of politicians. What irony in that?
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 What sort of gutless wimps are you and the person you address here to attack the Missionaries of Charity whom you know would not attempt to defend themselves even if they had the means (they don't have electric typewriters, never mind computers).
For the record there are about 5,000 MC Sisters in about 140 countries enduring risks, poverty and hardships that you and your ilk would not endure for a week bringing relief, comfort, hope and dignity to the...
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (2) poorest of the poor. While you spend your lives in your middle class US suburban bubbles swanning around on the internet MC Sisters are lovingly tending to children and the destitute e.g. in the slums of Manila where only they and the poorest dare to live or in the hills of Timor Leste where, apart from the wretched locals sufffering from malaria, TB and encephalitis, not to mention the mental scars of their recent holocaust, only peacekeeping soldiers .
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (3) dare to go. One of the first AIDS hospices in the world was in your own country, New York, run by MC Sisters at the invitation of Cardinal O'Connor. The Sisters run a much larger hospice, I think in Washington. When you or your kids end up in skid row having scattered your brains sniffing coke or using meta-amphetamines the Sisters are therel to feed and cheer you, visit your hovels, clean them and not least, befriend you and remind you of your dignity.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (5) stupid. How do you build a state of the art hospital in the bustees of Howrah (one of the worst slums in Kolkata) or in the hills of Niki Doy in Timor or on an island off Aparri where people live in grass huts - I could go on endllessly. You criticize others here for making, in your view, uninformed statements. Your ignorance here is of Himalayan proportions.
Not far from where you presumably live are innocent children in Jamaica and Haiti desperately
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (6) suffering as no human should. What you throw away in your garbage could keep perhaps not a few alive. Missionaries are there of course - not just for the short haul. A number of your fellow countrymen and women who, I suspect, are much more likely to make this world a better place than you and your kind, go there and do voluntary work. Sure you can send a cheque and that's good - but let me tell you from experience - the poor also need our love and
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (7) friendship. I have come across American doctors who give up their holidays to do surgery for the poorest in Latin America and in the Philippines US doctors who do surgery on the terrible hair lips which deform the faces of beautiful children. Why not, in however small a way, try to follow the example of these truly "enlightened" humans in your country - it would be a good antidote to the parody of what you seem to think is human existence.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou And not all of the Dr's giving their time for free will be religious folks - I would hazard a guess that the majority of them as rational "enlightened" scientists will be doubters if not atheistic? We do not need religion to know and do good things. You have preseneted a very silly and self defeating argument.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 My experience is that supernaturalism is often a force that militates AGAINST doing real good in the world. Arguably, science, with its quest for verifiable evidence, has done more to help more people in more ways than all of the supernaturalist missionaries who have ever lived. As you point out, perhaps we should work much harder to alleviate the UNDERLYING causes of poverty rather than simply band-aid folks by giving them a cot but no morphine as they die.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000
"Science has done more"
Since when are science and religion competing? Granted, some religious individuals are anti-science -such as the Creationists- but this doesn't logically carry over to the whole of religion now, does it?
Science and religion aren't at odds anymore than physics (science) and metaphysics. The two are in their own spheres.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 You're correct that there's no competition. Self-correcting science relies on verifiable evidence that leads to robust, broad, falsifiable, predictive, yet provisional explanations. Explanations involving supernaturalism, magic, and superstition are disallowed.
Supernaturalism in its myriad forms and belief systems relies on revelation and authority. It does not make accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos. Its dogmas are not provisional but rather absolute / immutable.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 "It does not make accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos."
It's not meant to make predictions about the behavior of the cosmos. That's the job of science. I can't think of any serious theologian who tries to make predictions about the behavior of the cosmos using theology. Whether the cosmos is expanding, contracting or whatever is the job of scientist to figure out.
TheFutureengineer20 2 weeks ago
@TheFutureengineer20 Did I say that it was the "job" of supernaturalists? As with most supernaturalists, you expand on simple statements to create a disagreement where none exists at all.
Actually, personally, I have no quarrel with supernaturalism, just as I have no quarrel with magic or superstition, as long as we recognize them exactly for what they are.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 I wasn't trying to make a disagreement. My comment shows that I agree w/ you. The comment just gave me the impression that you were saying that fact made science superior. If that is the case that would be like saying the St. Louis Cardinals are superior to the Rams b/c they've won a world series.
TheFutureengineer20 2 weeks ago
@TheFutureengineer20 Supernaturalism, like magic and superstition, cares not at all about verifiable evidence. Science is fueled---indeed,it is utterly reliant upon----verifiable evidence.
My only quarrel with supernaturalism, magic, and superstition is when adherents make claims without verifiable evidence but ADAMANTLY MAINTAIN that those claims are based on verifiable evidence. As long as supernaturalism, magic and superstition are clear about their origins, I'm cool with it.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 What hypocriscy. If you were" that cool with it" why would you cllaim that the greatest threat to humanity is two theocracies - Israel (sic) and Iran, make the absurd claim that the New Testament and Christians teach that 1.2bn Hindus are condemned to an eternnity in hell, or repeatedly make uninformed and offensive remarks about religion and religious people etc? We know the answer,of course, all of your multiple personalities are disaffected Catholics.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@TheFutureengineer20 Thanks for the message and introducing me to Dr Craig. While this fellow's repetitiveness was merely boring, grunderlyme's revealing today that he has nine diffferent identities on Fr Barron's YouTube (including three musical ones:)) brings a new and refreshing dimension of pure farce not unlike Dr Craig's experience with his repetitive atheist. I also found grunderlyme's preamble to the list of identities remarkably perceptive.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GordonSou Ok, so I sent a petition to Fr. Barron this morning requesting a permanent ban on this guy. I gave 4 reasons for it: (1) misleading people by lying about his credentials & manufacturing support for falsehoods w/ his different aliases, (2) discouraging others from participating by lowering morale, (3) consistently impeding intelligent discourse, (4) maliciously obstructing the WordOnFire Mission which is to charitably & unambiguously present Church Teachings to the public
grunderlyme 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000
You say it "does not make accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos" as if that is a mark against religion. Again, that simply is not its purpose. What you're doing is like condemning epistemology for not giving us the computer.
Please be more logical.
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Do you think that supernaturalism makes accurate predictions about the behavior of the Cosmos? If you do not, then we have no quarrel. Mine was an accurate, statement, was it not? Why to you make an interpretation which is not there? Do you think that your supernaturalistic beliefs are ill-founded?
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000
This is the third time I'm having to tell you that religion is not science and is not there to make scientific predictions.
My goodness...
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
@AgApE010 Did i say otherwise? I would be the LAST PERSON ever to claim that science in any conceivable way could possibly resemble supernaturalism----or superstition or magic.
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Do you really believe that the point of my comment was that the Drs I mention are all religious or is this an evasion on your part of the clear thrust of my comments - your cowardly and uninformed attack on a religious Order which alleviates enormous suffering in the world. My point in mentioning the Drs was that you and your back-slapping "scientist" would be more of a credit to yourselves, your country and the world at large if you followed the example
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 (2) of your more mature countrymen/women rather than trying to undermine what is good.
Two other points. To claim MC "houses" are filthy demonstrates either that you have never been near one or there are no depths to which you will not sink to further your sad agenda or, worse, both. There are a number of "houses' and hospices in USA so people can judge for themselves or pop across the boarder to Tijuana. The cleanliness of the MC refuges would put
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 (3) many nursing homes in the Western World to shame. Or let's take the other extreme and go to Bengal. Kolkata is perhaps one of the most disease-ridden places in the world. Whether children's homes, homes for the desititute and the dying, for profoundly handicapped poor or the lepers at Titigarh the hygiene is one of the most striking features. Every bed is stripped every morning, mattress covers washed, children or adults bathed and dressed with
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 (4) clean clothing. Floors are scrubbed with disinfectant in water. After meals children's metal top tables are thoroughly washed as are the small children etc etc If it were otherwise, especially the volunteers who come from more sterile environments, would be wiped out with disease.
The other point - if M Teresa's beatification (not canonisation) was CC propoganda did CC also arrange her Nobel Peace Prize?
Next time have a go at the Muslims in public!
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 (4) It is a travesty to suggest MCs are somehow hoarding money. They are scrupulous with benefactors money but you would know that as I suspect you would be an unlikely benefactor. Don't cry your pathetic matra " verifiable evidence" - you are clearly impervious to it.
You understand nothing of missionaries' work - they lovingly help people, not statistics. Your suggeston that money should be used on state of the art hospitals is as naive as it is unfair and
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou Did I hit a nerve? My goodness!!
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Not at all. As usual, I'm just confronting you with the facts to demonstrate to you what a very sad place you're in. If there is a note of disgust in my tone this time I admit I despise your brand of bigotry almost as much as your participation in the pathetic and cowardly attack by Mrmentalmadness123 on fine people who would not grace his attack with a response even if they had the time and means.
GordonSou 2 weeks ago
@GordonSou You express yourself with such kindness, never an ad hominem attack, never any bias, never deriding others' points of view. You always answer direct questions put to you about your biases so that others may be aware of them! You are truly an admirable apologist!
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I'm not exactly sure why you replied to me in response to Pio. However, it's evident that you went and looked up the atheistic view point to discredit St. Pio. Google searches are great aren't they? It's a very wikipedish type of response. Explore the facts about his life with an open mind and you will see overwhelming proof of his authenticity. BTW, his stigmata wasn't even considered in his canonization.
MrStealthninja1000 2 weeks ago
@MrStealthninja1000 Because you commented to me! I dont have to denigrate or attack Pio - the burdon of proof is upon yourselves to prove he was filled with the holy spirit. All I am saying is that these sorts of claims by their very nature are one dimentional and cannot be proved. What is more believable, Pio bent the truth in concert with his supporters or the natural laws of the universe were suspended? Why Pio? Why cant God prevent disasters and do other miracles - why the delay?
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@MrStealthninja1000 Define "open mind."I suspect you mean believe something without proof because Priests or others say it is the only way? Minds in this position are simply not open but locked tight from the inside. Sia Baba is credited with many miracles but sadly the story is the same - nothing is ever demonstrated under even reasonably scientific conditions that cannot be explained away as hearsay or fanaticism. You will believe what your religion tells you to believe? Escape is possible!
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Escape is not only "possible," it is becoming far more frequent!
sciencelives2000 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Hysreical Blindness?????She has no "PUPILS" and she still has no "PUPILS"Kindly explain that.Science can't maybe you could enlighten the board.All the best
arate419 2 weeks ago
@arate419 Who said she had no pupils? You have to stop accepting this rubbish on someone else's say so when they have lots of interest invested in this being a real honest to goodness miracle. Stop being so damn gullible!
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Every doctor who examined her.Her name is Gemma di Giorgio.Do some home work.The Truth will set you free...All the best
arate419 2 weeks ago
@arate419 She had a medical condition - probably aridina where her irises never fully developed. She was declared blind but so are many partially sighted people even today when they see reasonabley well. Pio claimed to give this woman pupils. She always had them. The rest is just wish believing rhetoric. You are no further forward. If Pio could carry out miracles why could he not do it at will to end the argument? The same stands for God.
Mrmentalmadness123 2 weeks ago
Arguments for the existence of God need to be demonstrated scientifically. They need to be evident and provable rather than being subject to this esoteric nonsense reliant upon the intervention of someone prepared to interpret the message for us. If a God exists why doesn't he talk to us directly?
Mrmentalmadness123 1 month ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 I've offered the argument from contingency several times, and you've never even begun to answer it. I fail to see how this argument involves any "appeal to esoteric nonsense." It's a rational demonstration. Show me precisely where you think it fails.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 6
@Mrmentalmadness123 He talks every day. We just choose to be deaf.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 I couln't hear what you said!
Mrmentalmadness123 4 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123 Sorry.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@Mrmentalmadness123
Science deals solely with the natural world whilst God is by definition supernatural. Thus you cannot prove God's existence scientifically. It is outside of the abilities of science.
You don't even know what you're asking. Why don't you internet atheists take the time to learn a few basic things instead of posting a bunch of comments on videos?
AgApE010 2 weeks ago
This guy has a real knack for explaining concepts in a very lucid way. These videos should be required viewing for all dogmatic YouTube atheist neckbeards who presume to school anyone about anything.
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life " These videos should be required viewing for all dogmatic YouTube atheist neckbeards who presume to school anyone about anything. "
- I politely disagree.. and can't help but wonder if you're presuming to school people yourself.
Roper122 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Roper122 In fact I am! I'm schooling dogmatic YouTube atheist neckbeards by advising them to listen to this man, because he has a very clear and lucid way of explaining why they're wrong! :)
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life Like Roper, I also wonder whether you're thinking that you actually have verifiable evidence for supernaturalism. If you do, I'd be most interested in that evidence and your documentation. Thank you so much.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 It is philosophical evidence. Father Barron and William Lane Craig have several videos explaining this (including the present one.) There is also historical evidence, and personal, experiential, revelatory evidence. Not all evidence is found under the lens of a microscope.
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life Does philosophy EVER provide verifiable evidence? If it did provide compelling evidence, why do philosophers disagree diametrically and insistently about the existence and character of any deity? The so-called historical reports of Christian claims are not verifiable. Personal, revelatory, and "experiential" (whatever that is) "evidence" are subjective and not at all amenable to confirmatory examination. The most likely explanation for the central claim of Christianity (contd)
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@stallion4life (2) viz. the reanimation of a corpse, is not that something "miraculous" happened. Mass hysteria is a common phenomenon and a very reasonable explanation. Many supernaturalists have willingly surrendered their lives as a result of mass hysteria. Hallucinatory "appearances" of deceased loved ones occur frequently as well.
If supernaturalism is to be undergirded by something other than "faith," neither philosophical speculation nor "historical" reports will be satisfactory.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Just because something can't be subjected to empirical scrutiny doesn't necessarily mean it's subjective. Also, there's diametric disagreements int he world of science too... without disagreements, there would be no progress.
You can say supernaturalism is undergirded only by philosophical speculation, but by the same token, naturalism- the belief that there is nothing that isn't physical- would also be based on non-verifiable philosophical speculation.
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life Let me clarify how science works for you. Scientists do disagree---adamantly, vociferously, even sometimes angrily! But--unlike supernaturalism, verifiable evidence is supreme. Scientists will challenge each other to do better experiments, to make better observations, to think about other interpretations. It is in the challenge that science progresses. Scientists love surprises and we are surprised constantly. But ultimately, conclusions are drawn because of VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Didn't you just say that science's findings are always provisional? You can't have your cake and eat it too; you can't say that science's strength is that conclusions are always open to criticism, and then say that it is unique in its ability to arrive at incontrovertible conclusions.
You still haven't demonstrated why empirical evidence is the only evidence worth considering, or how philosophers disagreeing about God (or about anything) necessarily makes it subjective.
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life Provisionality of scientific conclusions is a given. Wasn't that clear from my description of scientific debate? Such conclusions are ALWAYS open to new evidence or thinking.
For science, the final arbiter is verifiable evidence. For philosophers, there is NO final arbiter---all is speculation, opinion, argument. That's the huge difference.
The best evidence that verifiable evidence is the gold standard is that using it as such has made science successful. (contd)
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 "Verifiable evidence" is NOT the final arbiter in science. Verifiable evidence is the set of givens on which scientists construct their theories, and even those givens can be called into question.
People will necessarily always disagree in science, just as they will always disagree in philosophy, religion, etc. None of which says anything about whether these are subjective or objective.
"We've done well-designed studies…"? What are your scientific bona-fides, if I may ask?
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life As a scientist myself, I know that in my own science, in the science of my colleagues, and as I teach my students, verifiable evidence is the gold standard of "knowing." As we say, show me the data!
Verifiable evidence is the starting point of science. From there, we seek to develop robust, broad, falsifiable, predictive explanations, sometimes called theories, about the Cosmos.
When I use "we," I'm of course referring to the scientific community.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Based on your embarrassingly high-flown language and your single-minded obsession with "verifiable evidence", I'm inclined to believe that you're not a scientist, but just some pimply kid who read some new atheist books and decided to pretend to be some scientific guru on the internet.
We don't disagree about the value of empirical evidence in science. What you have failed to justify is your assumption that this type of evidence is the only type of evidence worth considering.
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life Verifiable evidence fuels the success of science. There are built-in safeguards in the scientific method. The very success of science is the best evidence for a conclusion that the method is reliable.
You've admitted that philosophy is speculation, opinion, and argument.
We already know that historical evidence, especially from biased observers, is highly subjective, as are the other forms of evidence that you've described.
Hence, my provisional conclusion.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Oh wow, more high-flown propagandizing for science. You have failed to address any of my points, or answer any of my questions.
Speculation, opinion, and argument can be well-founded, or they can be ill-founded. Unlike you, I'm not committed to the unverifiable belief that empirical evidence is the only evidence worth considering. I've asked you SEVERAL times, and you've still not given me any reason to believe this!
stallion4life 1 month ago
@stallion4life My job is not to give anyone a reason to "believe" that which they don't care to believe. You are welcome to accept whatever kind of evidence makes you happy---subjective or verifiable---concrete or magical.
My point is simple: verifiable evidence is the foundation of science. Science has been enormously successful in inventing theories that predict the behavior of the Cosmos. The continued success of science is the best evidence for its reliability. Quite simple actually.
sciencelives2000 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Thanks for making this point that has absolutely zero to do with anything we were discussing. :golfclap:
stallion4life 1 month ago
@sciencelives2000 Pretty much if there was nothing supernatural, nothing should stop me from making human stew, or making a human centipede out of the people I hate. They're just lumps of cells and meat. Rights and personality, in the end, come from a spiritual perspective. Without that, every living being is justifiably, a thing that I can manipulate for my personal gain or to prolong my short life, since living is everything and my existence is ended when I die.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 What an utterly ridiculous argument! Every social animal has rules that govern the interactions within the group. Such rules are essential for the survival of advanced, interactive species. My dog understands that there are rules that govern his interaction with me, other humans, and other dogs. He has a sense of fairness and equity. It's in his genes, buddy. May I suggest that you study just a bit of biology? A bit of knowledge would help you to think.
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 And all those rules go out the window when shit hits the fan. Those "civilized animals" will eat each other when the chips are down.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 Are you a biologist? Have you studied animal behavior, especially the behavior of large-brained, social animals? Do you have evidence for your assertion? Have you studied the numerous reports of altruistic behavior in social animals? Do you have documentation for even a single report consistent with your assertion? Do you think it wise to make assertions without verifiable evidence of any kind? Do you think that enhances your credibility?
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Do you? You're the one who made assumptions that animals look out for each other in an altruistic way. What I was arguing is that though they will cooperate based on the fact that they are the same species, when push comes to shove, they will commit cannibalism and kill each other when shit hits the fan. If there is no such thing as a human soul, then where does the human desire for right and wrong come from?
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 Re: altruism in social animals. Recent research in animal behavior is revealing levels of advanced interaction that rival the human. Part of our evolutionary heritage, as big-brained primates, is a whole set of behavioral propensities selected as our species diverged from our common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. All advanced social animals have a sense of the permissible and impermissible---we call it "right" and "wrong." It's in our genes.
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Wrong. All animal cooperation is based on mutual need. Put them in the kind of danger that forces them to turn on each other, and they'd tear each other apart for food. They'd have no moral impulse against that.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 Please provide verifiable evidence that "all animal cooperation is based on mutual need." There are several compelling reports in the zoological literature that show the opposite. Please provide the verifiable evidence for your assertion.
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Not really. From Asia, spirits do exist. And in real life, they can sense shit that you can't see.
Which is of course, a weakness of the Western Worldview, and a central weakness of their spirituality.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 Spirits? spooks? goblins? oh my! how ridiculous. You have not an iota, not a scintilla, not a whit of verifiable evidence.
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 I don't need to. All the evidence I can sense for my own. One of the biggest lies is that there are only five senses. As recent science suggests, there are over hundreds.
And where does consciousness come from huh? The very will to live is in itself a gift of the metaphysical.It is not something biological, lest you infer that something biologicla programs us to the will to live, which would imply an intelligent designer.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 Again, I welcome even a scintilla of verifiable evidence for the assertions that you make about "senses," "will to live," and "consciousness" Have you seriously studied any of those concepts? Do you understand the biology of our senses? Do you have verifiable evidence of any kind that consciousness or "mind" exists other than in, through, with and by the 100 billion neurons in our brains? Do you enjoy making assertions without verifiable evidence?
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Simple: Try to commit suicide. See how much both your body and mind fight against it. See why people actually need others to help them commit suicide.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago
@HolyknightVader999 Re: suicide. What evidence do you have that suicidal people require the assistance of others for the act? Do you have the data on numbers of suicides, the percentage carried out by the individual without assistance compared to those with assistance? I am not advocating suicide here. Rather, I do advocate verifiable evidence, careful analysis, nuanced thinking, and well articulated exposition. Your evidence-free assertions do not enhance your credibility.
sciencelives2000 4 weeks ago
@sciencelives2000 Evidence is everywhere. The existence of suicide help hotlines is evidence enough; otherwise people would just kill themselves without aid; which is why people campaign for right-to-die services, a movement very alive today. If there were no hardships against suicides, then such organizations and movements WOULD NOT EXIST.
HolyknightVader999 4 weeks ago