I enjoyed "The Adjustment Bureau" (more than a lot of what passes for films from Hollywood these days), but there was something that seemed not quite theologically "right" about it, something that I couldn't quite fully articulate. Thank you, Fr. Barron, for once again hitting the theological "nail on the head" in your explanation. Continued prayers for you and your ministry!
So, what im getting is that the Angels are the men in black right? like the secret police that goes in to "adjust' things or disappear people, cause "the plan" is a New World Order
Fr. Barron, what do we do if we have failed to yield to the guidance and training of the Divine Plan and over time find ourselves trapped by our own will? Also, is the Divine Plan strategic, or chronological? When is it too late to "learn to play the piano"?
@wordonfirevideo You gotta love the types who are so afraid of the truth behind what someone says that they just want them to shut up. Good going Father.
The movie and book its based on is just that, a movie and a book. It's not meant to say that this is in fact how it works. Way to over-analyze it all.
The first movie I know of about Calvinism. I read the original story which is somewhat different from the film, which, by the way, seems to borrow from Fringe. How much free-will do we have? This side of eternity I don't think we'll know. Even those who hold to the absolute sovereignty of God feel free, even if they're not. Excellent video!
the problem with religion is the minority group. like all large groups of people. the minority i am mentioning here is the bible bashers. people like Bill O'Reilly who believe that God is the only way and that anything else is completely, utterly wrong and will be killed.
My problem with religion is just in some certain aspects when there is the talk of Hell. religion should be about creating faith, hope, help, etc for people whom are not strong enough for it themselves. BIBLE BASHERS BE GONE
@wue2117 Jesus talks about hell more times than any other topic. I don't disagree with you on the bible bashers, but hell is an important thing to tell people about.
OR A metaphor for money and prestige? If "The Hammer" was lying about David ruining her partners dreams if they stayed together who is to say that the foresight of her ever being "famous" was true. i don't recall them ever referring to "the chairman" as god and the "so called" HATS with abilities to walk through doors could have been metaphors for "powers that be" that control our economic world we live in. Just a secular opinion of the movie. is it time for new chapters in a few old books?
OR A metaphor for money and prestige? If "The Hammer" was lying about David ruining her partners dreams if they stayed together who is to say that the foresight of her ever being "famous" was true. i don't recall them ever referring to "the chairman" as god and the "so called" HATS with abilities to walk through doors could have been metaphors for "powers that be" that control our economic world we live in. Just a secular opinion of the movie.
OR A metaphor for money and prestige? If "The Hammer" was lying about David ruining her partners dreams if they stayed together who is to say that the foresight of her ever being "famous" was true. i don't recall them ever reffering to "the chairman" as god and the "so called" HATS with abilities to walk through doors could have been metaphors for "powers that be" that control our economic world we live in. Just a secular opinion of the movie.
Hi, guys! I just watched the movie and I need to say that it really amazed me :)
about its philosophy my view is that the movie is not trying to teach theology and even the creators know that...moreover compromises of every typt had to be made in order to make a movie to be sold so do not try immediate correlations...however I believe that the true message is found in the end "so that every man makes his own plan" we already have this gift (freedom) and we need to appreciate it....:)
....so all you're looking to do is to discredit a MOVIE to defend your religion? Who are you trying to convince? HAHA ....as if you know the truth? No one knows and I am comfortable with that.
@DarthShame ...how much did we think we knew 500 years ago? People died and killed others to protect what they thought they "knew" was "right" which later was proven to be wrong. Compared to 1000 years FROM now, we'll look back on the 21st century and realize how stupid we were. What we think we know today will almost certainly be disproven in the future. That's why I said we don't know the truth. We are a very primitive species. Just because something makes sense to us doesn't make it true.
@DarthShame ...it is the nature of people... just like the nature of people that you are displaying right now... being an ass (my opinion with no claims of truth... lol)
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. You basically kill each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend
@aguscoria Far, far more people have been killed in the name of the modern nation state and secular ideologies than ever have been killed in the name of God. And friend, please stop reading from the Golden Book of Secularism. These are pretty simplistic ideas you're throwing around, I'm afraid.
@wordonfirevideo Do you have sources for your claim that "far, far more people have been killed..." ? What is the "Golden Book of Secularism"? What simplistic ideas are you referring to?
@alawrence89 Sure. 6 million corpses produced by Hitler, somewhere around 25 million produced by Stalin, upwards of 50 million produced by Mao, and in just a few years, around 7 million produced by Pol Pot, not to mention the tens of millions killed in the two world wars of the last century, wars that were fought by and for secular nation states. You can call that "simplistic" if you want, but I don't know how you argue with those figures.
@wordonfirevideo This may be several comments long. Sorry. If by Secularism you mean Atheism then there are lots of issues with what you've written. I do not challenge the #'s. Every person you've listed and their terrible actions do not in any way lay blame to atheism. I'm not even sure all of them were atheists (Hitler arguably wasn't). Atheism is simply a rejection of theistic claims. An atheist can either withhold belief or disbelieve. You may say God exists and an atheist would say...
@alawrence89 Come on, friend. You really think that there is no connection between Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's crimes and their atheism? Read Karl Marx--whom they all followed carefully--on the fact that the critique of religion is the first critique, the necessary preparation for the critique of politics and economics. The reason for that is clear: once you have eliminated any objective ground for morality, anything goes. Nothing stands in the way of the "advance" of history.
@wordonfirevideo I have yet to see the connection between atheism and murderous rampages. Atheists can hold to an objective set of rules without belief in God. Belief in God may also give way to "everything goes" as well. If God says it, it goes. If God says anything, anything goes. Fact is, these people were motivated by far more than any kind of disbelief in God. They were abusive, disturbed people with an obsession with power. Why aren't all atheists murderers? Why are nearly all of them not?
@wordonfirevideo - Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were political ideologues, and like all ideologies they wish the world to be a certain way, as opposed to how it really is. They reduce the world to a simple story, and they work their hardest to pigeon hole reality into that story.
To argue that their political motivations were a result of atheism is putting the cart before the horse. I suspect power was more of a motivator that their lack of concern over god(s).
@wordonfirevideo "Maybe so. Maybe not so." or "No, God does not exist." How do you get from that to the death of millions? The overwhelming majority of atheists have done nothing even sort of close to what you've listed. Atheism, secularism does not motivate anyone to kill. You can be an atheist and still value life, value other people, etc... You can't blame atheism for the death of millions or even suggest that atheism leads to murderous actions. That's ridiculous.
@wordonfirevideo Also, you're the one that wrote "These are pretty simplistic ideas you're throwing around, I'm afraid". I was asking you what "simplistic ideas" you were referring to. I wasn't calling any ideas of yours simplistic.
Would you say that religion doesn't divide people? Does the fact that their are thousands of different sects not suggest something like this to you? Does it not control people, preaching to them that they are nothing without God? etc...
@wordonfirevideo - "Sure. 6 million corpses produced by Hitler, somewhere around 25 million produced by Stalin, upwards of 50 million produced by Mao, and in just a few years, around 7 million produced by Pol Pot"; and you are arguing that these ideologues did this as a reaction against religion, in the name of their atheism? Are all atheists just like these power hungry maniacs? I just want to be clear here, about what you are implying?
@aguscoria "Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people"... Your entire comment fails to resonate with my experience, but I'd like to pick you up on this bit because it's simply not true. *NOWHERE* - absolutely *NOWHERE* - have I felt and known as much love, warmth, care, friendship, welcome, unity, belonging, being important to others, and in all of this JOY and EXCITEMENT, as I have in the Catholic Church. Really, you should try it sometime :) God bless you.
Jesus had free will and he was an incarnation of the plan because he was the God. Of course for him free will and divine plan was the same thing. You and I are not Jesus. For us mere mortals free will and the divine plan will always be in conflict. Let me ask you a question, is the fact that I am an atheist part of the divine plan or I am an atheist on my own free will.
i don't quiet get this criticism. In the end of the movie it turns out that it was all part of the plan for them to be together but he needed to learn the value of free will. Free will is meaningless to have if you don't want to fight for it. God is not the only one who can take away free will. Government, corporations, and bandits can also take away free will. And another note, the movie doesn't say they are angels. They are angel like creatures and they have limitations.
see im not sure if it was even a love story or the freedom of love was just an easy way for the writer to express what he wanted in the film.... you really could take nearly anything a person feels extremely passionate about and add edit this movie into it..but the love between a man and a woman i think would be the most common and topic most of us can relate to
i thought the movie sucked...for a love story the notebook was better.. anyway this video was pretty good tho... i agree with the teacher.. im not going to call him father tho..but two thumbs up for the breakdown.. u should get paid to review movies
I just saw the movie. I found it very interesting. In my opinion, it seems to be more in line with Greek mythology (similar to stories of stealing gifts from the gods) as opposed to Christian allegory.
I think the Dr. is right on the majority of points he makes, however in special circumstances-for special people-God will surgically remove people from someone's life if it interferes with a destiny of theirs; and that was circumstance the movie was clearly conveying. God many times, does intervene whether people are aware of it or not,against human free will. Look at all the miracles of WWII or history, and the same is true down to the individual; sometimes Free Moral Agency is suspended.
I just watched the movie and was hit in the face by what you called "bad theology". I just knew that you had a video about so I came in search and bam! Here you are. I totally agree with you. However, I believe that the movie was a very accurate illustration of what society is thinking about that relationship today.
Awesome commentary on the movie and on this topic of divine and personal will/plan. The piano analogy is very good. But you state that at the end, that the child is then able to choose to play whatever they want.
When I translate this in my head, I understand that when we have learned about the great teachings of our Catholic faith, of life, then we can do whatever we choose to, given that we have this knowledge.
But if our freedom is used for selfish reasons, are we still free?
Father Baron: Listening to your remarks again, I am reminded again of a word very valuable in Eastern Christian theology: SYNERGY! I have also seen this concept (if not the word) in Roman Catholic theology. I believe this is a very key and crucial concept to you, because I have watched many of your videos. The "noncompetitive" relationship between God and humankind is precisely what Eastern Christians are getting at by this word, SYNERGY.
Fr. Barron: Yes, human freedom is compatible with divine freedom, but your reading of this movie is shallow. You've missed the point of the ending, which actually supports the idea that divine and human freedom can be in harmony. Your discussion of Fate vs. Freedom also misses the point. Plan =/= Fate. God gives us the freedom to reject his offer of salvation, so, yes, God has a Plan for us and for the world, but he doesn't impose Fate on us.
Hi, Father Barron. I saw this movie. I find your insights absolutely spot on. I left the Roman Catholic Church several years ago, and later returned to the Christian (but not yet the Catholic) fold. Why is it that your take on things strikes me as interesting and provocative, whereas that which I have encountered outside the F/faith neither inspires nor improves me as a human being? This has not been a paid political announcement. Inquiring minds want to know.
@billybagbom Well, you're responding to the truth that Catholicism contains. Your soul is resonating with it. It's like what the French call "vibration sympathique," (sympathetic vibration). It means that you should follow this path. I don't mean that in an aggressive prosyletizing sort of way. I mean it mystically and spiritually.
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron: I have gone into the distant country. I was a a completely dissolute sinner, and still am in many ways. I then heard (again) the gospel I knew as a Catholic child, and then became evangelical Protestant, and am now Eastern Orthodox. I do not know why I rejected the papacy, except as a reaction against my Catholic heritage. Now, I love the Eastern liturgy, and the wisdom of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yet, I long for untiy and acknowledge the Papacy, HELP!
@billybagbom Come home! You can find the Byzantine liturgy within the Catholic Church. You're intuiting correctly that there can be no true chuch without the authority of Peter.
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron: I have written to you at your e-mail address, because I want t pusue a line of inquiry which is not relevant to this particular vlog, but is important to me. Please be looking for an e-mail under subject description: Billybagbom. Thanks again.
@billybagbom It is! Once you realize that this is it; that there's no god, after-life, heaven, hell; all that superstitious nonsense; it's very liberating. You realize that this is your only shot; and your life is what you make it. You are completely empowered to do with it what you will, w/o the anachronistic shackles of religion...Peace out and be Good.
@billybagbom No atheism is not a religion. There is no dogma, no rules, no tradition. It is just a lack of a belief in God. No claim that a God exists has been sufficiently proven. Saying "I don't believe in God" is not a religion. Its a single position on one issue(God).
Although we SHOULD accept that atheism is a religion. Then we can get tax credits and all kinds of benefits.(Joke)
@billybagbom Absolutely not! The whole idea of worship of *anything* leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like "honor" and "respect" better. You honor and respect nature (don't mess it up), you honor and respect people, etc. You're still ethical and moral, and you seek truth and wisdom. And i mean *real* truth; not invented fairy tales of gods and monsters...
@tunkul59 No, seriously, though. "Worship" (worth-ship) derives from the idea of assigning proper "worth" to that which is worthy, and God is supremely worthy to be honored. You are fine with "honor" and respect. I agree. If anyone understands this distinciton between relative "honor" and supreme "worship," it is Orthodox/Catholic Christians. We "honor' the saints; we "worship" the Creator/Redeemer. What do you honor supremely? What do you "worship?" Surely, you have a hierarchy of values?
@billybagbom Billy, dude, i don't think you're getting the big picture here. "god" is an invention, it's a fairy tale. So no, i don't really worship something made up. In fact, i might honor some of the saints more than the notion of god. At least they were real. But somebody like Pio, delusional dude that just poked holes in his hands? No, that i most definitely do not honor nor respect; i pity it.
@tunkul59 En contraire, my friend. You're the one missing the point. What's at the top of your list? What do you "worship" (ie., assign the highest place of worth in your hierarchy of values)? You assert that God is imaginary. You are conceivably correct. I assert that WE are "imaginary," in the sense that we are products of a creatve Mind or Person who gives us existence. I might be wrong, but you don't really "know" that. You can only CLAIM to know that. So God tops my list. What tops yours?
@billybagbom So first, i don't really have a list. Haven't really thought about it much; and even if i did, X might be at the top of the list today, and Y tomorrow. In any case, i don't think it's neither here nor there. Second, of course i can't "disprove" god, but i'm not going to believe in something invented. I can't disprove that we are descendants of a super-intelligent race of beings from alpha-centauri, but i'm not going to believe that either. See the point?
@tunkul59 Oh, I don't know whether we are penultimately descended from primates or alpha centaurians. Whether the Source created us immediately from mud or developed us gradually through the primates is of no concern to me. The minute you say that no intelligent cause is the First Cause and that all reason and morality and spirituality can be explained by a nexus of nonpersonal events, you have told us all we need to know about your philosophy. You have said, "My opinions are easily debunked."
@billybagbom Then debunk them. And i'm not disproving anything; all i'm saying is that i'm not going to believe in something just because you *invent* it. My assertion is that we haven't a clue as to "first cause"; and perhaps we never will. But consider this, we have just begun as a civilized, intelligent species; we are mere newborns. We've only been doing this for what, about 6k years? What will we be like in 1B more years of intellectual exploration? I can't even imagine.
@billybagbom Oh no dude, i see no debunking. You're saying "god exists", and i'm saying "we have no idea AND the notion of 'god' was invented". How was my statement debunked?
@tunkul59 I just think you're being self-contradictory when you say that "we have no idea" on one hand, (a perfectly valid if timid statement of agnosticism) , and that "the notion of god was invented" (a respectable and no-holds-barred statement of atheism) on the other hand.. My summary, "no intelligent cause is the First Cause and [so] all reason and morality and spirituality can be explained by a nexus of nonpersonal events" seems implied by your dogmatic atheism. IMHO, this self-destructs.
@billybagbom That's because you're not applying the principles of logic correctly. It's logically consistent to say "i don't know what first-cause is" and "the notion of god was invented". Eg, you can tell me that santa claus lives on the north pole of pluto; ie, you just made that up. But i don't know for a fact that he doesn't. I can't disprove it. And at the same time, i'm not going to believe that he does. See?
@tunkul59 You're saying, "I don't know what the first cause is, but it ain't god." Fine. That's not illogical, that's okay. Like, "I don't know who the ugly lady is on the other side of the street, but it ain't my wife." Fine. Well, you've dealt with all my objections to atheism so far, I guess. What do I worship now? I mean, what should I put in place of supreme love and goodness and beauty and truth and reason, since you have taken these away from me by your inescapable logic? Charlie Sheen?
@billybagbom That's not what i'm saying. What i'm saying: "I don't know what the first cause is; i have no idea, and also, i'm not going to believe in something that was made up". As to what you should worship; i don't know, that's up to you. Supreme love and goodness sound good to me. But to me, these are abstract concepts, perfectly valid and reasonable. If you want to put a label on them, and call them "god"; that's fine.
@tunkul59, if one recognizes a first Cause of necessity being the cause of all that is, one understand that this first Cause is the necessary Being for all other beings, it stands outside of any other cause and it's primary essence is simply existing though existing in a higher sense than things that exist around us (we are contingent being, It is necessary Being). We understand then that this Being is the head of any chain of causes for any thing that is, nothing is without this Being. (cont)
@tunkul59, understanding then that this Being is the metaphysical and causal ground for all being, we understand more fully the grandness of this Being and how nothing exists without out it remaining as the eternal and timeless cause of being. The only way that we could describe this Being from reason is that It Is, It simply Is. Coincidentally however the Jews, who were not philosophical, were given revelation about a God who's name is I AM.
@tunkul59 "As to what you should worship, I don't know, that's up to you. Supreme love and goodness sound fine to me..." GREAT! I think we be brethren, in some strange and inscrutable way
@tunkul59 Seriously, though: If everything that exists has been caused by something prior, and you extrapolate back far enough, you eventually get to mindless and purposeless forces and energies and subatomic particles. (If they have minds & purposes, we might as well worship them, right?) But this POV reduces all thoughts to the secretions of a brain that is totally conditioned by its heredity & environment., much like my liver produces bile. It HAS to, because of prior factors. Why trust it?
@billybagbom Why not trust it? Frankly, it's done a pretty impressive job of coming up with science and explaining the natural world. Certainly we are limited in what we can do, it is what it is. This is precisely what we have to work with; the brain in its current state. I expect we'll evolve more, and perhaps even get to a point where we accelerate its evolution with technology. And i still don't like the idea of worshiping anything; just seems tawdry.
@tunkul59 "So first, i don't really have a list. Haven't really thought about it much;..." It appears you have not thought much about a good many things.
Fr. did you take that piano playing example from Fr Servais Pinckaers' "the Sources of Christian Ethics"? Your reference to Ockham and this example fall together in the same section of his book when he is addressing the Freedom of Indifference vs the Freedom of Excellence. Well done by the way. another great analysis Padre
Fr. did you take that piano playing example from Fr Servais Pinckaers' "the Sources of Christian Ethics"? Your reference to Ockham and this example fall together in the same section of his book when he is addressing the Freedom of Indifference vs the Freedom of Excellence. Well done by the way. another great analysis Padre
Yes Fr., fiction does NOT speak "truth", if you're talking about *objective* truth that applies to all. Beauty, good art, good music, etc, is in the eye of the beholder. But let's not digress from the initial discussion, whether there's a grand plan that applies to all in an *objective* way; a plan designed and overseen by "somebody". In particular a "comforting" plan. All i see are the equations of physics; neither benevolent nor malevolent. They simply "are".
@tunkul59 Oh I don't know: I think the moral, spiritual, and aesthetic truths conveyed by great fiction are altogether objective and universally applicable. To your second point. God's existence can be proved through the argument from contingency. The non-contingent must be ontologically perfect and hence endowed with both intellect and will. Hence God does indeed govern his universe according to mind and purpose. In a word, there is a Plan.
@wordonfirevideo Well of course you can find nuggets of universal truth; such as reverence for freedom, equal rights, etc, in fiction. That's all well and good.
As to god's existence; frankly your argument is pretty weak. Example: i can assert that our universe is really an experiment by a pimply teenager in an *encapsulating* universe. Our entire universe is sitting in a petri dish on his desk. Is the pimply teenager god? He has no plan, he's just messing around.
@tunkul59 Oy vey... Let's suppose there were a "pimply teenager" who is presiding over the universe in a petri dish. He--and the dish--would be, by definition, contingent realities and hence in need of an explanation. We have to come, finally, to that which exists simply through the power of its own essence. That's what Catholic theology means by "God."
@wordonfirevideo Correct, but i was specifically addressing the notion of a "plan". Given my theory (which fits the data), there is no plan that applies to *us* in this universe. It's all just behaviors driven by the equations of physics determined by the teen's expmt.
And this bit about "that which exists through the power of its own essence"; circular my friend. Doesn't really gives us any more insight. The bottom line answer to the fundamental question of our existence is: "we don't know".
@tunkul59 But you've slid past the point I was making. If God exists (and I proved that he does) and if God is in possession of all ontological perfection (which must be true since he is unconditioned), then it follows that God has intellect and will. Therefore, in his dealings with the universe, he is operating reasonably and in accord with love. In short, there is a plan. And the coincidence of essence and existence in God is a corollary of the argument from contingency.
@wordonfirevideo Hmm, no. Nobody has "proven" god's existence, in particular one with a plan, one that is benevolent, etc. As woody allen once said: "I don't know if god exists, but if he does, he's quite the underachiever".
@wordonfirevideo@wordonfirevideo Sorry Fr., but this is has been discredited for centuries. Just google this argument. Your argument is specious, and frankly, intellectually dishonest.
@tunkul59 Intellectually dishonest is to claim it's been "discredited for centuries". Argued against - sure, but discredited? Please. Too hard to discredit something grounded in sheer logic and deduction.
@SmokiSounds These kinds of arguments have been discredited by science. They tend to be assumptive, circular, specious. Just check out the wiki "ontological argument" for the details. The logic is simply flawed.
@tunkul59 Why do you switch from contingency to ontological argument? I'm starting to doubt that you know your definitions. Ontological argument is too much of intuition-based, while the argument from contingency uses nothing but observation and fact (Causality) to deduce a *logical* necessity of the Creator. You can mention science all you wish, it deals only with the natural world by definition; while its Cause (logically supernatural) is not a scientific field of discussion.
@SmokiSounds Because they all have the same underlying flaws. Google "argument from contingency" and go to the atheism web site for a refutation.
And why is the cause of our universe "logically supernatural"? Right now science is exploring all kinds of explanations for our universe; the multiverse, etc. The fact is we don't really have an explanation for the very nature of existence. Until then, i'm happy to rely on science, since it's doing a pretty good of explaining what we have so far.
@tunkul59 lol. "Google this, google that". Typical trolling. Buddy when you've learned and researched this topic as thoroughly as I have, you'll tell me what to google. Ok? Good. Now.
"Why is the Cause supernatural"? It is a logical conclusion in the Contingency argument. 1) Causality is a constant. 2) A cause is always ultimately greater than its effect. 3) Universe as an effect requires a Cause. 4) Universe = natural. 5) Cause of natural = logically supernatural.
@SmokiSounds Sigh. Why the objection to looking up an article that describes the refutation already? Why would i want to regurgitate it? Especially when there's not enough room to type. As to your simplistic argument, why is 2) true? What does "greater" mean? Why is 3) true? It's certainly true for most of what we observe, but what if the rules are different when talking about the origin of existence? Maybe causality breaks down at this level.
@tunkul59 Yeah, "sigh". I'm dealing with third-graders here. Number 2) is true from observation, it's never been different. Regression from effect to its cause, and the cause's cause and so on, always shows the cause as *ultimately* greater (more complex) than its effect. Number 3) is true according to modern science, buddy. Universe (time, space, matter) equaled zero at Big Bang. Which makes Universe one big effect that requires a Cause (logically supernatural). What's so hard to grasp, man?...
@SmokiSounds Yeah, i think that "ultimately greater" is simply an opinion. Eg, two plates rubbing against each other, slipping, and causing an earthquake. The cause is the slippage, the effect is the earthquake. Which is greater? To me cause/effect are all part of the cosmic jumble, not greater/lesser; they simply are. Besides, the elephant in the room is where did god come from? If you assert that there's a supernatural realm, why not a super-supernatural realm that subsumes it?
@tunkul59 I was getting there. It's not an elephant in the room, just another valid question with a logical conclusion. If you ask "where did God come from", then we have to first assume God exists, as the Cause of all (time, space, matter). If that is true, then such Cause is *by definition* not subject to [time, space, matter]. If it isn't subject to time, it is time-less. If it is time-less, it is eternal. Eternal = No beginning, no end. Always IS. The Causeless Cause, you see?...
@SmokiSounds Ok, so if we have a "causeless cause", why can't that just be the natural universe? This is not just idle speculation either; some of the current superstring research leads to math that describes a multiverse, parallel universes, constant universe creation and destruction, etc, All eternal, no beginning, no end.
@SmokiSounds Vague? I don't know, it's a pretty straightforward statement re: the possibility of multiple universes. The complications/details are of course huge, and just to get a *glimpse* of this you can read Brian Greene's "The hidden reality". And btw i was imprecise when i said "natural universe"; what i really meant to say is "nature", which given these theories it means we're really talking about the "metaverse".
@tunkul59, the ontological argument is not necessarily simply flawed. If anything that I've learned about philosophy is that if one has to make philosophical arguments that one has to engage in the logic one's self and engage in the other side's logic in order to see the merits and possible flaws of a given argument.
@cooliodraw2 Ok, well perhaps "simply" is a strong word, but rather than regurgitating the arguments against it, you can look up the "criticisms and objections" section on the "ontological argument" wiki site (i can't paste url's).
@tunkul59, I've read the wikipedia page, some of them are not relevant objections. Often times in philosophy one cannot just take one's word for a thing and leave it at that, but personally must understand the arguments being offered and place one's own judgment upon the arguments. Philosophy is a whole other ball game about critical reasoning for one's self.
@cooliodraw2 Sure, but at the same time, you don't want to revisit something that's already been done, and done better by somebody else. And philosophy is more than just logic and critical thinking (eg, application of modus ponens). There's a whole lot of opinion, that is just that; opinion.
@tunkul59, definitely, but when one wants to address to a specific audience that his specific argument is valid and true then he ought to at least have thought about the problem himself and see if the objections that he thinks are valid are true and not simply opinions. That is why I would address to you to actually read through St. Anselm's work, read the arguments for and against his proof of God.
@wordonfirevideo I'm not calling anybody names, just describing the "proofs" for what they are. And there's not enough room to type a counter-argument. Besides others have done far better than i could. As i said, check out the "ontological argument" wiki for the details.
@tunkul59 "And there's not enough room to type a counter-argument."
So you're what, walking around videos telling people to wiki this and that? lol. Get out of the basement and start making valid statements without resorting to direct quotes. Otherwise, your presence here is useless.
@SmokiSounds Well, as usual, things tend to diverge from the original point. My original point was that the Fr. claimed that people want 1) freedom, 2) a "plan". While 1) is certainly mostly true in an objective sense, 2) is certainly debatable. And in *particular*, the assertion that the plan is something *good* and *perfect*. Our reality, that which we have observed, is that the equations of physics drive what happens in our universe. And they aren't good or bad; they just are.
@tunkul59 Give me a scientific equation for love. Give me a valid scientific formula for self-sacrifice; compassion; redemption. No? Ok. Because precisely from what we have observed, there are things of core human nature that aren't driven by any "equation of physics". They just are ;)
@SmokiSounds Oh, i see. You are making the classic mistake that because we can't explain it, that there's a supernatural explanation for it. The fact is, recent research on brain function and hormones (oxytocin being the primary hormone) *are* explaining things like "love". We are learning more and more about the brain. But fundamentally, the key thing is that just because we can't explain "it", it does not necessary follow that "it" can't *eventually* be explained by the equations of physics.
@tunkul59, one might make the very unscientific claim of scientism as well that scientific equations can explain all of the characteristics of reality, which is a sentiment I highly doubt, especially having known many physicists myself (they may work out theories but there is really not much means to describe real world events in scientifically rigorous terms as you might be suggesting).
@cooliodraw2 Ah, but that is not the claim that i'm making. The claim that i'm making is that because you don't understand something *today*; it does not necessarily follow that we can't *ever* come up with a scientific explanation for it. I really have no idea if science will ever be able to explain *all* of reality. It certainly won't happen in my lifetime; but that is the horse that i'm betting on because of *precedent*. Compared to religion, science has done a wonderful job so far.
@tunkul59, ;-) be that as it may how many souls has science saved. I find it ironic when people who prop up science knock down religion because both have a philosophic base at them that they are basically trying to lop off.
@cooliodraw2 Huh? What's a "soul"? Where's the proof that we have souls, and what does "saving" mean? As soon as you say "soul" you bring up a bunch of unproven assumptions. What happens to a cockroach when you step on it? It ceases to exist. And that's pretty much what happens to us when we die; we're just another life form. And i really don't understand the comment "philosophic base at them ... trying to lop off".
@tunkul59, in what sense are we just another life form? When I am moved by a particularly beautifully piece of music, we say that the piece is moving or it touched my soul. The soul denotes, as I understand it, the deepest part or inner essence of a human being's self. Within Aristotelian thinking we say that animals have a sensitive soul, that is they are oriented to satisfying the senses and survival, but humans are exceptional, we're rational, philosophical, something is different about us.
@cooliodraw2 Huh? We have a pretty good theory, called "evolution", that pretty much describes why we exist as a life form. And of course people are moved by things, and you can call it what you want; i just call it "me". And absolutely humans are exceptional; we have developed an amazing intelligence. It's really quite fascinating. And now that we've discovered all these other planets; it'd be even more fascinating if we find intelligent life there; imagine a race that had a 1B year head start?
@tunkul59, the comment about whether the soul is immortal is part of Christian revelation, aside from that one might not know where we go after we die, that is what happens to our soul after we die. I think I addressed your comment about philosophy in another comment about those who rave that science will eliminate religion having committing a philosophical error.
@cooliodraw2 Of course it is, and my point is that this is just mythology. Just a bunch of made up stuff. When a tibetan dies, he thinks he'll sit in limbo for about 45 days, and then re-incarnate into another being. Is he correct? And i am optimistic that science will replace religion/superstition/mythology when it comes to understanding "nature" (universe, metaverse, whatever); and that philosophy will cover the rest.
@tunkul59, On what account do you believe the immortality of the soul is just mythology? Science can understand the rules of nature, but ultimately cannot in itself explain why the rules of nature exist, that is a question of metaphysics. You do realize that science can never dictate whether the soul is immortal correct? Science cannot study immaterial or metaphysical truths, it's simply beyond the realm of science. Your optimism is simply unfounded.
@cooliodraw2 Re: "science cannot explain..". Absolutely not true. As we speak, books are being written addressing this very issue (by Hawking, and Greene). Nobody really knows how it's all going to play out of course; but science is giving it a shot. Stay tuned. And i don't believe in the "immortality of the soul" simply because i don't believe in fairy tales. Give me some proof, and we can talk about it.
@tunkul59, I've seen the segments of their books and have read books by Greene. As to proof if you want a mathematical demonstration I don't know that one would exist, as to the divine revelations being rationally accepted and credible look to local miracles like Padre Pio's stigmata, the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, etc.
I wouldn't hold to scientism even if I was an atheist, it's philosophically incohesive.
@cooliodraw2 You've got to be kidding. These "miracles" you cite as evidence? Please. Here are some examples of real evidence: have the Virgin appear at a meeting of the UN assembly, and chastise the delegates over, oh, whatever. They all hear her in their own language w/o needing translation. Tell me you just had a conversation with god, and he told you that the sun was going to rise tomorrow one hour later than usual. We wait until tomorrow, and sure enough, the "prediction" is true.
@tunkul59, If your reference is to the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima the miracle was that the sun began to dance about at the prescribed time and similarly that all those who were wet were instantly dried (as opposed to how the sun usually dries). The effects were felt by those who were not present at the Fatima site. I cited a small handful of miracles, there are hundreds of thousands of miracles in the Church, the skeptic however likely doesn't accept more ancient miracles however.
@cooliodraw2 Hmm, no. I was just making something up. I was proposing theoretical miracles that would actually carry some weight. A delusional priest that pokes holes in his hands doesn't quite cut the mustard. How many hindu's have seen a vision of the virgin? Or tibetans? Or muslims? Or especially atheists? I would think that, you know, if the virgin really wanted to make an impression she'd do it where it counts.
@cooliodraw2 The miracle? What, the sun doing weird things? People varied in their descriptions. The cause? Mass hysteria, staring at the sun too long, psychological brainwashing; who knows. But solid evidence? I don't think so. Again, give me something with some meat; like the examples i gave.
@tunkul59, ha ha, psychological brainwashing of thousands of people, oh yes I'm sure they all decided to stare insistingly at the sun ;-). I highly doubt that you will ever get the evidence you want if you continue looking at everything with the eyes of a skeptic.
@cooliodraw2 And i suspect you'll fall for these stories if you look at them with the eyes of a convert. Nobody with an objective mind can consider this as evidence of a miracle. I've already given examples of "miracles" with solid evidence; those kinds of things don't happen do they?
@tunkul59, There are examples of miracles where the Virgin Mary appears to pagan believers who become eventually more and more aware of the Church, unfortunately because you are a skeptic you will never accept the things I cite. You'll say oh it was psychological, sociological, or various other motives, all natural motives with no supernatural directive.
@cooliodraw2 Or hallucinatory, or invented, or coerced, or whatever. The evidence is simply flimsy for any example you've cited so far. Instead of appearing to a pagan, why doesn't she appear to Obama while he's giving a news conference? Or why doesn't god get on the radio at the same time around the world, speaking in the local language, saying something like "Hi everybody! God here, just wanted to have a chat with y'all..."
@tunkul59, The evidence is flimsy? As to why the blessed Virgin does not appear to Obama while he's giving a news conference, she doesn't have to, one can know that there is a Creator God by virtue of the conscience, the order and unity of the universe, the contingency of all created things and the need for a necessary being, etc. What makes you so sure that God does not already speak to you, all one has to do is sit in silence and strive to understand with one's heart and soul.
@cooliodraw2 You know there are people with mental conditions that allow them to see "visions" etc. They take a path in life based on this (ie, a religious life), and then the Dr. explains the situation. The patient then needs to decide whether to actually get "fixed"; since it might then ruin the reason they chose the life-path they are on.
And no, these are just circular or assumptive arguments. Why do we need a "necessary being"? Not to mention who is this guy, what does he want, etc.
@tunkul59, We need a necessary being to solve a metaphysics problem of the contingency or non-explanatory and non-necessary nature of all created things. This necessary being would be the foundation of being itself. It would of necessity be self-explanatory being, it's essence would be to exist. Such characterizations are what God is supposed to be, God's name given in Exodus 3:14, is I AM. The Jews named things according to their essence or nature. God's essence is existence, "I AM".
@cooliodraw2 See, i think it's assumptive. Eg, i can state that the metaverse is the "causeless cause"; the foundation of all that exists; eternal and timeless; but not really intelligent, and no real "plan". You state that this even more complex entity, god, is "eternal and timeless" and the foundation of all that exists. What makes you right and me wrong? Understand that i have no idea what the right answer is; as far as i'm concerned, we just don't really know.
@tunkul59, the typical statements that discuss are more to the point of what underlies being itself as a metaphysical quantity, so I don't know what a metaverse would entail, or how it could be deduced from this metaphysical proof. The proof distinguishes that a non-spatial timeless being that is necessary to exist for all other things that are contingent to exist does in fact exist. It is one entity that is metaphysically above all. That matches closely with the Jews' God named "I AM".
@tunkul59, these visions should not be the only reason for a religious person to have faith. One does not need to have visions in order to have faith. I have innumerable amount of friends who call themselves religious but not spiritual, because they do not typically have the ecstatic or mystical "spiritual" feelings during worship. That doesn't make them all the less religious however.
@cooliodraw2 Oh absolutely; i didn't mean to imply that visions are necessary. I was just saying that these visions can easily be ascribed to "miracles" when in fact they're due to mental illness.
@cooliodraw2 So when a pedophile rapes and murders a 5 yr old girl; is that part of the "order and unity" that the "necessary being" put in place? In other words, this is what he wants to happen?
@tunkul59, when a pedophile rapes and murders a five year old child he commits a sin and disrupts the order and unity of the universe in and of itself, he has acted contrary to nature. You're making a false dichotomy, God can permit things to happen because He has given us the freedom of the will, instilled upon us the dignity of choosing sin or obedience. This is so that we can authentically love and choose to love Him. Love cannot be forced.
@cooliodraw2 Ok, i'll buy that. People have free will, and if they choose to do bad things, it's on them. All good. So when a couple of plates slap into each other, create an earthquake, which then creates a tsunami, which then kills thousands of people; what's that? It's clearly a bad thing; but no human made that decision. Did god want this to happen? Or is there some notion that "nature" itself has free will?
@tunkul59, God can utilize and permit the occurrence of natural disasters as a means of reconciling sinners or bringing a greater order to the disunity and disorder we cause the world by our sins.
@cooliodraw2 That's a load of BS and you know it. When other planets have earthquakes and natural disasters, planets presumably w/o sinners; what 's that all about? How does a comet slamming into jupiter "bring greater order..."?
@cooliodraw2 Right, but that's not the point. If the assertion is that "god can utilize..as a means of reconciling sinners...". In other words, here on earth an earthquake that kills tens of thousands of people is essentially a punishment; but an earthquake on venus is what? God is just practicing? Or our sins are causing such disorder, that it's not enough to have earthquakes on earth; we need them elsewhere as well?
I enjoyed "The Adjustment Bureau" (more than a lot of what passes for films from Hollywood these days), but there was something that seemed not quite theologically "right" about it, something that I couldn't quite fully articulate. Thank you, Fr. Barron, for once again hitting the theological "nail on the head" in your explanation. Continued prayers for you and your ministry!
Gundark12 3 weeks ago
So, what im getting is that the Angels are the men in black right? like the secret police that goes in to "adjust' things or disappear people, cause "the plan" is a New World Order
Elipticle 4 weeks ago
Nobody with a good car needs to be justified.
Bigheadet 1 month ago
But did you see the message at the end that won this battle?
This is a must see movie it contains many messages for our minds to ponder.
CosmosPrivateer 1 month ago
@wordonfire Father, the anger these videos fuel is confirmation of their timely value. Don't you agree?
mfeex14 2 months ago
Fr. Barron, what do we do if we have failed to yield to the guidance and training of the Divine Plan and over time find ourselves trapped by our own will? Also, is the Divine Plan strategic, or chronological? When is it too late to "learn to play the piano"?
rhmazyck812 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear Fr. Barron
Shut your face :)
blockscorp 2 months ago
@blockscorp Dear What's Your Name,
No.
wordonfirevideo 2 months ago 37
@wordonfirevideo You gotta love the types who are so afraid of the truth behind what someone says that they just want them to shut up. Good going Father.
gambleor 2 months ago
The movie and book its based on is just that, a movie and a book. It's not meant to say that this is in fact how it works. Way to over-analyze it all.
HazeGreyAndUnderway 2 months ago
In the movie the chairman talks about some dates when certain events happen. Like 1910 in the US a idea was created during that year
The1234cadillac 4 months ago
The first movie I know of about Calvinism. I read the original story which is somewhat different from the film, which, by the way, seems to borrow from Fringe. How much free-will do we have? This side of eternity I don't think we'll know. Even those who hold to the absolute sovereignty of God feel free, even if they're not. Excellent video!
ChapBob 4 months ago in playlist More videos from wordonfirevideo
@wordonfirevideo : Having watched this video, and your video on Hell, I have a two-part question for you.
What in your studies led you to choose your beliefs over those of (1) open theism and (2) annihilationalism?
CamusRevised 4 months ago
Wonderful talk! :-)
vtorrieri 5 months ago
I'm going to be dissapointed if he makes it all the way through this review without mentioning Calvinism.
tifforo1 5 months ago
the problem with religion is the minority group. like all large groups of people. the minority i am mentioning here is the bible bashers. people like Bill O'Reilly who believe that God is the only way and that anything else is completely, utterly wrong and will be killed.
My problem with religion is just in some certain aspects when there is the talk of Hell. religion should be about creating faith, hope, help, etc for people whom are not strong enough for it themselves. BIBLE BASHERS BE GONE
wue2117 5 months ago
@wue2117
I think you have confused the terms "bible basher" and "bible thumper."
tifforo1 5 months ago
@wue2117 Jesus talks about hell more times than any other topic. I don't disagree with you on the bible bashers, but hell is an important thing to tell people about.
addictedkoala 2 months ago
A man willing to fight "GOD" over a woman.
The Checkered Floor. The Woman in the Red Dress.
The Defiant angel who "helps" them.....and he's black cause "blacks are evil".
And all three are rewarded for their rebellion.
The most FLAWLESS piece of SATANIC propaganda EVER.
from ....the OTHER "adjustment bureau" which isnt even mentioned.
Taught77 5 months ago
OR A metaphor for money and prestige? If "The Hammer" was lying about David ruining her partners dreams if they stayed together who is to say that the foresight of her ever being "famous" was true. i don't recall them ever referring to "the chairman" as god and the "so called" HATS with abilities to walk through doors could have been metaphors for "powers that be" that control our economic world we live in. Just a secular opinion of the movie. is it time for new chapters in a few old books?
AdamBrentReger 5 months ago
OR A metaphor for money and prestige? If "The Hammer" was lying about David ruining her partners dreams if they stayed together who is to say that the foresight of her ever being "famous" was true. i don't recall them ever referring to "the chairman" as god and the "so called" HATS with abilities to walk through doors could have been metaphors for "powers that be" that control our economic world we live in. Just a secular opinion of the movie.
AdamBrentReger 5 months ago
OR A metaphor for money and prestige? If "The Hammer" was lying about David ruining her partners dreams if they stayed together who is to say that the foresight of her ever being "famous" was true. i don't recall them ever reffering to "the chairman" as god and the "so called" HATS with abilities to walk through doors could have been metaphors for "powers that be" that control our economic world we live in. Just a secular opinion of the movie.
AdamBrentReger 5 months ago
Hi, guys! I just watched the movie and I need to say that it really amazed me :)
about its philosophy my view is that the movie is not trying to teach theology and even the creators know that...moreover compromises of every typt had to be made in order to make a movie to be sold so do not try immediate correlations...however I believe that the true message is found in the end "so that every man makes his own plan" we already have this gift (freedom) and we need to appreciate it....:)
alkistr 6 months ago
....so all you're looking to do is to discredit a MOVIE to defend your religion? Who are you trying to convince? HAHA ....as if you know the truth? No one knows and I am comfortable with that.
BMFstudiosNYC 6 months ago
@BMFstudiosNYC So you know the Truth (which is that no one knows the Truth)?
DarthShame 5 months ago
@DarthShame ...how much did we think we knew 500 years ago? People died and killed others to protect what they thought they "knew" was "right" which later was proven to be wrong. Compared to 1000 years FROM now, we'll look back on the 21st century and realize how stupid we were. What we think we know today will almost certainly be disproven in the future. That's why I said we don't know the truth. We are a very primitive species. Just because something makes sense to us doesn't make it true.
BMFstudiosNYC 5 months ago
@BMFstudiosNYC the way your hypothesis about human knowledge makes sense, and is therefore true?
DarthShame 5 months ago
@DarthShame ...it is the nature of people... just like the nature of people that you are displaying right now... being an ass (my opinion with no claims of truth... lol)
BMFstudiosNYC 5 months ago
@BMFstudiosNYC
He's not just trying to defend it, but to also prevent people from getting ideas from this movie, and adapting them into their own world-view.
coolconvertible999 5 months ago
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. You basically kill each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend
aguscoria 6 months ago
@aguscoria Far, far more people have been killed in the name of the modern nation state and secular ideologies than ever have been killed in the name of God. And friend, please stop reading from the Golden Book of Secularism. These are pretty simplistic ideas you're throwing around, I'm afraid.
wordonfirevideo 6 months ago 11
@wordonfirevideo
The necessity of the modern nation state is questioned by fewer people.
tifforo1 5 months ago
@wordonfirevideo
They are always so naive, and they think they are brilliant. lol
pboisei 4 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Do you have sources for your claim that "far, far more people have been killed..." ? What is the "Golden Book of Secularism"? What simplistic ideas are you referring to?
alawrence89 3 months ago
@alawrence89 Sure. 6 million corpses produced by Hitler, somewhere around 25 million produced by Stalin, upwards of 50 million produced by Mao, and in just a few years, around 7 million produced by Pol Pot, not to mention the tens of millions killed in the two world wars of the last century, wars that were fought by and for secular nation states. You can call that "simplistic" if you want, but I don't know how you argue with those figures.
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo This may be several comments long. Sorry. If by Secularism you mean Atheism then there are lots of issues with what you've written. I do not challenge the #'s. Every person you've listed and their terrible actions do not in any way lay blame to atheism. I'm not even sure all of them were atheists (Hitler arguably wasn't). Atheism is simply a rejection of theistic claims. An atheist can either withhold belief or disbelieve. You may say God exists and an atheist would say...
alawrence89 3 months ago
@alawrence89 Come on, friend. You really think that there is no connection between Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's crimes and their atheism? Read Karl Marx--whom they all followed carefully--on the fact that the critique of religion is the first critique, the necessary preparation for the critique of politics and economics. The reason for that is clear: once you have eliminated any objective ground for morality, anything goes. Nothing stands in the way of the "advance" of history.
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago 4
@wordonfirevideo I have yet to see the connection between atheism and murderous rampages. Atheists can hold to an objective set of rules without belief in God. Belief in God may also give way to "everything goes" as well. If God says it, it goes. If God says anything, anything goes. Fact is, these people were motivated by far more than any kind of disbelief in God. They were abusive, disturbed people with an obsession with power. Why aren't all atheists murderers? Why are nearly all of them not?
alawrence89 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo - Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were political ideologues, and like all ideologies they wish the world to be a certain way, as opposed to how it really is. They reduce the world to a simple story, and they work their hardest to pigeon hole reality into that story.
To argue that their political motivations were a result of atheism is putting the cart before the horse. I suspect power was more of a motivator that their lack of concern over god(s).
bitphr3ak 2 months ago
@wordonfirevideo "Maybe so. Maybe not so." or "No, God does not exist." How do you get from that to the death of millions? The overwhelming majority of atheists have done nothing even sort of close to what you've listed. Atheism, secularism does not motivate anyone to kill. You can be an atheist and still value life, value other people, etc... You can't blame atheism for the death of millions or even suggest that atheism leads to murderous actions. That's ridiculous.
alawrence89 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Also, you're the one that wrote "These are pretty simplistic ideas you're throwing around, I'm afraid". I was asking you what "simplistic ideas" you were referring to. I wasn't calling any ideas of yours simplistic.
Would you say that religion doesn't divide people? Does the fact that their are thousands of different sects not suggest something like this to you? Does it not control people, preaching to them that they are nothing without God? etc...
alawrence89 3 months ago
@wordonfirevideo - "Sure. 6 million corpses produced by Hitler, somewhere around 25 million produced by Stalin, upwards of 50 million produced by Mao, and in just a few years, around 7 million produced by Pol Pot"; and you are arguing that these ideologues did this as a reaction against religion, in the name of their atheism? Are all atheists just like these power hungry maniacs? I just want to be clear here, about what you are implying?
bitphr3ak 2 months ago
@bitphr3ak I'm implying that an awful lot of moral mayhem becomes likely when an ultimate criterion of good and evil is removed.
wordonfirevideo 2 months ago 2
@wordonfirevideo - Which secular ideologies are you referring to? Were these democracies? Examples would be nice :)
bitphr3ak 2 months ago
@aguscoria "Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people"... Your entire comment fails to resonate with my experience, but I'd like to pick you up on this bit because it's simply not true. *NOWHERE* - absolutely *NOWHERE* - have I felt and known as much love, warmth, care, friendship, welcome, unity, belonging, being important to others, and in all of this JOY and EXCITEMENT, as I have in the Catholic Church. Really, you should try it sometime :) God bless you.
mattinuk 5 months ago
@aguscoria
That's such a great attitude to have, you must succeed at life.
pboisei 4 months ago
Jesus had free will and he was an incarnation of the plan because he was the God. Of course for him free will and divine plan was the same thing. You and I are not Jesus. For us mere mortals free will and the divine plan will always be in conflict. Let me ask you a question, is the fact that I am an atheist part of the divine plan or I am an atheist on my own free will.
dmitriymazur 7 months ago
i don't quiet get this criticism. In the end of the movie it turns out that it was all part of the plan for them to be together but he needed to learn the value of free will. Free will is meaningless to have if you don't want to fight for it. God is not the only one who can take away free will. Government, corporations, and bandits can also take away free will. And another note, the movie doesn't say they are angels. They are angel like creatures and they have limitations.
dmitriymazur 7 months ago
couple typos in that last comment
MrRAIDR912 7 months ago
see im not sure if it was even a love story or the freedom of love was just an easy way for the writer to express what he wanted in the film.... you really could take nearly anything a person feels extremely passionate about and add edit this movie into it..but the love between a man and a woman i think would be the most common and topic most of us can relate to
MrRAIDR912 7 months ago
i thought the movie sucked...for a love story the notebook was better.. anyway this video was pretty good tho... i agree with the teacher.. im not going to call him father tho..but two thumbs up for the breakdown.. u should get paid to review movies
MrRAIDR912 7 months ago
I just saw the movie. I found it very interesting. In my opinion, it seems to be more in line with Greek mythology (similar to stories of stealing gifts from the gods) as opposed to Christian allegory.
pummeltheivories 7 months ago
I think the Dr. is right on the majority of points he makes, however in special circumstances-for special people-God will surgically remove people from someone's life if it interferes with a destiny of theirs; and that was circumstance the movie was clearly conveying. God many times, does intervene whether people are aware of it or not,against human free will. Look at all the miracles of WWII or history, and the same is true down to the individual; sometimes Free Moral Agency is suspended.
BadaBingBadaBoom012 7 months ago
Wait. What do you have to say about the ending of the movie? Also, from a Christian perspective, who do you think the black actor represented?
KDN888 8 months ago
I just watched the movie and was hit in the face by what you called "bad theology". I just knew that you had a video about so I came in search and bam! Here you are. I totally agree with you. However, I believe that the movie was a very accurate illustration of what society is thinking about that relationship today.
KDN888 8 months ago
Awesome commentary on the movie and on this topic of divine and personal will/plan. The piano analogy is very good. But you state that at the end, that the child is then able to choose to play whatever they want.
When I translate this in my head, I understand that when we have learned about the great teachings of our Catholic faith, of life, then we can do whatever we choose to, given that we have this knowledge.
But if our freedom is used for selfish reasons, are we still free?
simtse 9 months ago
Father Baron: Listening to your remarks again, I am reminded again of a word very valuable in Eastern Christian theology: SYNERGY! I have also seen this concept (if not the word) in Roman Catholic theology. I believe this is a very key and crucial concept to you, because I have watched many of your videos. The "noncompetitive" relationship between God and humankind is precisely what Eastern Christians are getting at by this word, SYNERGY.
billybagbom 10 months ago
[SPOILER ALERT]
Fr. Barron: Yes, human freedom is compatible with divine freedom, but your reading of this movie is shallow. You've missed the point of the ending, which actually supports the idea that divine and human freedom can be in harmony. Your discussion of Fate vs. Freedom also misses the point. Plan =/= Fate. God gives us the freedom to reject his offer of salvation, so, yes, God has a Plan for us and for the world, but he doesn't impose Fate on us.
mikrotuber 10 months ago
The great Christian paradox: complete obedience of God gives the ultimate freedom.
thoughtadventure 10 months ago
Hi, Father Barron. I saw this movie. I find your insights absolutely spot on. I left the Roman Catholic Church several years ago, and later returned to the Christian (but not yet the Catholic) fold. Why is it that your take on things strikes me as interesting and provocative, whereas that which I have encountered outside the F/faith neither inspires nor improves me as a human being? This has not been a paid political announcement. Inquiring minds want to know.
billybagbom 11 months ago
@billybagbom Well, you're responding to the truth that Catholicism contains. Your soul is resonating with it. It's like what the French call "vibration sympathique," (sympathetic vibration). It means that you should follow this path. I don't mean that in an aggressive prosyletizing sort of way. I mean it mystically and spiritually.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron: I have gone into the distant country. I was a a completely dissolute sinner, and still am in many ways. I then heard (again) the gospel I knew as a Catholic child, and then became evangelical Protestant, and am now Eastern Orthodox. I do not know why I rejected the papacy, except as a reaction against my Catholic heritage. Now, I love the Eastern liturgy, and the wisdom of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yet, I long for untiy and acknowledge the Papacy, HELP!
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Come home! You can find the Byzantine liturgy within the Catholic Church. You're intuiting correctly that there can be no true chuch without the authority of Peter.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Father Barron: I have written to you at your e-mail address, because I want t pusue a line of inquiry which is not relevant to this particular vlog, but is important to me. Please be looking for an e-mail under subject description: Billybagbom. Thanks again.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Billy, just bail religion altogether; see the light! All religions are inherently fraudulent, and do a disservice to humanity.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 Fine. I'll subscribe to tunkul59ism. Seems to be working for you.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom It is! Once you realize that this is it; that there's no god, after-life, heaven, hell; all that superstitious nonsense; it's very liberating. You realize that this is your only shot; and your life is what you make it. You are completely empowered to do with it what you will, w/o the anachronistic shackles of religion...Peace out and be Good.
tunkul59 10 months ago
Seriously, though. What you are talking about is not freedom from religion; it is just another religion: self -worship.
billybagbom 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@billybagbom No atheism is not a religion. There is no dogma, no rules, no tradition. It is just a lack of a belief in God. No claim that a God exists has been sufficiently proven. Saying "I don't believe in God" is not a religion. Its a single position on one issue(God).
Although we SHOULD accept that atheism is a religion. Then we can get tax credits and all kinds of benefits.(Joke)
goldenram27 10 months ago
@billybagbom Absolutely not! The whole idea of worship of *anything* leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I like "honor" and "respect" better. You honor and respect nature (don't mess it up), you honor and respect people, etc. You're still ethical and moral, and you seek truth and wisdom. And i mean *real* truth; not invented fairy tales of gods and monsters...
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 No, seriously, though. "Worship" (worth-ship) derives from the idea of assigning proper "worth" to that which is worthy, and God is supremely worthy to be honored. You are fine with "honor" and respect. I agree. If anyone understands this distinciton between relative "honor" and supreme "worship," it is Orthodox/Catholic Christians. We "honor' the saints; we "worship" the Creator/Redeemer. What do you honor supremely? What do you "worship?" Surely, you have a hierarchy of values?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Billy, dude, i don't think you're getting the big picture here. "god" is an invention, it's a fairy tale. So no, i don't really worship something made up. In fact, i might honor some of the saints more than the notion of god. At least they were real. But somebody like Pio, delusional dude that just poked holes in his hands? No, that i most definitely do not honor nor respect; i pity it.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 En contraire, my friend. You're the one missing the point. What's at the top of your list? What do you "worship" (ie., assign the highest place of worth in your hierarchy of values)? You assert that God is imaginary. You are conceivably correct. I assert that WE are "imaginary," in the sense that we are products of a creatve Mind or Person who gives us existence. I might be wrong, but you don't really "know" that. You can only CLAIM to know that. So God tops my list. What tops yours?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom So first, i don't really have a list. Haven't really thought about it much; and even if i did, X might be at the top of the list today, and Y tomorrow. In any case, i don't think it's neither here nor there. Second, of course i can't "disprove" god, but i'm not going to believe in something invented. I can't disprove that we are descendants of a super-intelligent race of beings from alpha-centauri, but i'm not going to believe that either. See the point?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 Oh, I don't know whether we are penultimately descended from primates or alpha centaurians. Whether the Source created us immediately from mud or developed us gradually through the primates is of no concern to me. The minute you say that no intelligent cause is the First Cause and that all reason and morality and spirituality can be explained by a nexus of nonpersonal events, you have told us all we need to know about your philosophy. You have said, "My opinions are easily debunked."
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Then debunk them. And i'm not disproving anything; all i'm saying is that i'm not going to believe in something just because you *invent* it. My assertion is that we haven't a clue as to "first cause"; and perhaps we never will. But consider this, we have just begun as a civilized, intelligent species; we are mere newborns. We've only been doing this for what, about 6k years? What will we be like in 1B more years of intellectual exploration? I can't even imagine.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 "Then debunk them." I thought I just did?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Oh no dude, i see no debunking. You're saying "god exists", and i'm saying "we have no idea AND the notion of 'god' was invented". How was my statement debunked?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 I just think you're being self-contradictory when you say that "we have no idea" on one hand, (a perfectly valid if timid statement of agnosticism) , and that "the notion of god was invented" (a respectable and no-holds-barred statement of atheism) on the other hand.. My summary, "no intelligent cause is the First Cause and [so] all reason and morality and spirituality can be explained by a nexus of nonpersonal events" seems implied by your dogmatic atheism. IMHO, this self-destructs.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom That's because you're not applying the principles of logic correctly. It's logically consistent to say "i don't know what first-cause is" and "the notion of god was invented". Eg, you can tell me that santa claus lives on the north pole of pluto; ie, you just made that up. But i don't know for a fact that he doesn't. I can't disprove it. And at the same time, i'm not going to believe that he does. See?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 You're saying, "I don't know what the first cause is, but it ain't god." Fine. That's not illogical, that's okay. Like, "I don't know who the ugly lady is on the other side of the street, but it ain't my wife." Fine. Well, you've dealt with all my objections to atheism so far, I guess. What do I worship now? I mean, what should I put in place of supreme love and goodness and beauty and truth and reason, since you have taken these away from me by your inescapable logic? Charlie Sheen?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom That's not what i'm saying. What i'm saying: "I don't know what the first cause is; i have no idea, and also, i'm not going to believe in something that was made up". As to what you should worship; i don't know, that's up to you. Supreme love and goodness sound good to me. But to me, these are abstract concepts, perfectly valid and reasonable. If you want to put a label on them, and call them "god"; that's fine.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, if one recognizes a first Cause of necessity being the cause of all that is, one understand that this first Cause is the necessary Being for all other beings, it stands outside of any other cause and it's primary essence is simply existing though existing in a higher sense than things that exist around us (we are contingent being, It is necessary Being). We understand then that this Being is the head of any chain of causes for any thing that is, nothing is without this Being. (cont)
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@tunkul59, understanding then that this Being is the metaphysical and causal ground for all being, we understand more fully the grandness of this Being and how nothing exists without out it remaining as the eternal and timeless cause of being. The only way that we could describe this Being from reason is that It Is, It simply Is. Coincidentally however the Jews, who were not philosophical, were given revelation about a God who's name is I AM.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@tunkul59 "As to what you should worship, I don't know, that's up to you. Supreme love and goodness sound fine to me..." GREAT! I think we be brethren, in some strange and inscrutable way
billybagbom 10 months ago
@tunkul59 Seriously, though: If everything that exists has been caused by something prior, and you extrapolate back far enough, you eventually get to mindless and purposeless forces and energies and subatomic particles. (If they have minds & purposes, we might as well worship them, right?) But this POV reduces all thoughts to the secretions of a brain that is totally conditioned by its heredity & environment., much like my liver produces bile. It HAS to, because of prior factors. Why trust it?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Why not trust it? Frankly, it's done a pretty impressive job of coming up with science and explaining the natural world. Certainly we are limited in what we can do, it is what it is. This is precisely what we have to work with; the brain in its current state. I expect we'll evolve more, and perhaps even get to a point where we accelerate its evolution with technology. And i still don't like the idea of worshiping anything; just seems tawdry.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59 "So first, i don't really have a list. Haven't really thought about it much;..." It appears you have not thought much about a good many things.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom - "Yet, I long for unity and acknowledge the Papacy, HELP!"
I agree with Father Barron. come home. The church encourages christian unity...it's called Ecunemical.
zztstenglish 9 months ago
Beautifully stated Father. I always learn something new from your videos. Thank you for your evangelization. God bless.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fr. did you take that piano playing example from Fr Servais Pinckaers' "the Sources of Christian Ethics"? Your reference to Ockham and this example fall together in the same section of his book when he is addressing the Freedom of Indifference vs the Freedom of Excellence. Well done by the way. another great analysis Padre
proffgq 11 months ago
Fr. did you take that piano playing example from Fr Servais Pinckaers' "the Sources of Christian Ethics"? Your reference to Ockham and this example fall together in the same section of his book when he is addressing the Freedom of Indifference vs the Freedom of Excellence. Well done by the way. another great analysis Padre
proffgq 11 months ago
Yes Fr., fiction does NOT speak "truth", if you're talking about *objective* truth that applies to all. Beauty, good art, good music, etc, is in the eye of the beholder. But let's not digress from the initial discussion, whether there's a grand plan that applies to all in an *objective* way; a plan designed and overseen by "somebody". In particular a "comforting" plan. All i see are the equations of physics; neither benevolent nor malevolent. They simply "are".
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Oh I don't know: I think the moral, spiritual, and aesthetic truths conveyed by great fiction are altogether objective and universally applicable. To your second point. God's existence can be proved through the argument from contingency. The non-contingent must be ontologically perfect and hence endowed with both intellect and will. Hence God does indeed govern his universe according to mind and purpose. In a word, there is a Plan.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Well of course you can find nuggets of universal truth; such as reverence for freedom, equal rights, etc, in fiction. That's all well and good.
As to god's existence; frankly your argument is pretty weak. Example: i can assert that our universe is really an experiment by a pimply teenager in an *encapsulating* universe. Our entire universe is sitting in a petri dish on his desk. Is the pimply teenager god? He has no plan, he's just messing around.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Oy vey... Let's suppose there were a "pimply teenager" who is presiding over the universe in a petri dish. He--and the dish--would be, by definition, contingent realities and hence in need of an explanation. We have to come, finally, to that which exists simply through the power of its own essence. That's what Catholic theology means by "God."
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Correct, but i was specifically addressing the notion of a "plan". Given my theory (which fits the data), there is no plan that applies to *us* in this universe. It's all just behaviors driven by the equations of physics determined by the teen's expmt.
And this bit about "that which exists through the power of its own essence"; circular my friend. Doesn't really gives us any more insight. The bottom line answer to the fundamental question of our existence is: "we don't know".
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 But you've slid past the point I was making. If God exists (and I proved that he does) and if God is in possession of all ontological perfection (which must be true since he is unconditioned), then it follows that God has intellect and will. Therefore, in his dealings with the universe, he is operating reasonably and in accord with love. In short, there is a plan. And the coincidence of essence and existence in God is a corollary of the argument from contingency.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Hmm, no. Nobody has "proven" god's existence, in particular one with a plan, one that is benevolent, etc. As woody allen once said: "I don't know if god exists, but if he does, he's quite the underachiever".
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Well then, answer the argument from contingency that I formulated.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo @wordonfirevideo Sorry Fr., but this is has been discredited for centuries. Just google this argument. Your argument is specious, and frankly, intellectually dishonest.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Intellectually dishonest is to claim it's been "discredited for centuries". Argued against - sure, but discredited? Please. Too hard to discredit something grounded in sheer logic and deduction.
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds These kinds of arguments have been discredited by science. They tend to be assumptive, circular, specious. Just check out the wiki "ontological argument" for the details. The logic is simply flawed.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Sticks and stones! How about a real counter-argument.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Why do you switch from contingency to ontological argument? I'm starting to doubt that you know your definitions. Ontological argument is too much of intuition-based, while the argument from contingency uses nothing but observation and fact (Causality) to deduce a *logical* necessity of the Creator. You can mention science all you wish, it deals only with the natural world by definition; while its Cause (logically supernatural) is not a scientific field of discussion.
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Because they all have the same underlying flaws. Google "argument from contingency" and go to the atheism web site for a refutation.
And why is the cause of our universe "logically supernatural"? Right now science is exploring all kinds of explanations for our universe; the multiverse, etc. The fact is we don't really have an explanation for the very nature of existence. Until then, i'm happy to rely on science, since it's doing a pretty good of explaining what we have so far.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 lol. "Google this, google that". Typical trolling. Buddy when you've learned and researched this topic as thoroughly as I have, you'll tell me what to google. Ok? Good. Now.
"Why is the Cause supernatural"? It is a logical conclusion in the Contingency argument. 1) Causality is a constant. 2) A cause is always ultimately greater than its effect. 3) Universe as an effect requires a Cause. 4) Universe = natural. 5) Cause of natural = logically supernatural.
Use your damn brain.
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Sigh. Why the objection to looking up an article that describes the refutation already? Why would i want to regurgitate it? Especially when there's not enough room to type. As to your simplistic argument, why is 2) true? What does "greater" mean? Why is 3) true? It's certainly true for most of what we observe, but what if the rules are different when talking about the origin of existence? Maybe causality breaks down at this level.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Yeah, "sigh". I'm dealing with third-graders here. Number 2) is true from observation, it's never been different. Regression from effect to its cause, and the cause's cause and so on, always shows the cause as *ultimately* greater (more complex) than its effect. Number 3) is true according to modern science, buddy. Universe (time, space, matter) equaled zero at Big Bang. Which makes Universe one big effect that requires a Cause (logically supernatural). What's so hard to grasp, man?...
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Yeah, i think that "ultimately greater" is simply an opinion. Eg, two plates rubbing against each other, slipping, and causing an earthquake. The cause is the slippage, the effect is the earthquake. Which is greater? To me cause/effect are all part of the cosmic jumble, not greater/lesser; they simply are. Besides, the elephant in the room is where did god come from? If you assert that there's a supernatural realm, why not a super-supernatural realm that subsumes it?
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 I was getting there. It's not an elephant in the room, just another valid question with a logical conclusion. If you ask "where did God come from", then we have to first assume God exists, as the Cause of all (time, space, matter). If that is true, then such Cause is *by definition* not subject to [time, space, matter]. If it isn't subject to time, it is time-less. If it is time-less, it is eternal. Eternal = No beginning, no end. Always IS. The Causeless Cause, you see?...
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Ok, so if we have a "causeless cause", why can't that just be the natural universe? This is not just idle speculation either; some of the current superstring research leads to math that describes a multiverse, parallel universes, constant universe creation and destruction, etc, All eternal, no beginning, no end.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Vague.
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Vague? I don't know, it's a pretty straightforward statement re: the possibility of multiple universes. The complications/details are of course huge, and just to get a *glimpse* of this you can read Brian Greene's "The hidden reality". And btw i was imprecise when i said "natural universe"; what i really meant to say is "nature", which given these theories it means we're really talking about the "metaverse".
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, the ontological argument is not necessarily simply flawed. If anything that I've learned about philosophy is that if one has to make philosophical arguments that one has to engage in the logic one's self and engage in the other side's logic in order to see the merits and possible flaws of a given argument.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Ok, well perhaps "simply" is a strong word, but rather than regurgitating the arguments against it, you can look up the "criticisms and objections" section on the "ontological argument" wiki site (i can't paste url's).
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, I've read the wikipedia page, some of them are not relevant objections. Often times in philosophy one cannot just take one's word for a thing and leave it at that, but personally must understand the arguments being offered and place one's own judgment upon the arguments. Philosophy is a whole other ball game about critical reasoning for one's self.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Sure, but at the same time, you don't want to revisit something that's already been done, and done better by somebody else. And philosophy is more than just logic and critical thinking (eg, application of modus ponens). There's a whole lot of opinion, that is just that; opinion.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, definitely, but when one wants to address to a specific audience that his specific argument is valid and true then he ought to at least have thought about the problem himself and see if the objections that he thinks are valid are true and not simply opinions. That is why I would address to you to actually read through St. Anselm's work, read the arguments for and against his proof of God.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Well how about a real refutation then, and not name-calling.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@wordonfirevideo I'm not calling anybody names, just describing the "proofs" for what they are. And there's not enough room to type a counter-argument. Besides others have done far better than i could. As i said, check out the "ontological argument" wiki for the details.
tunkul59 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tunkul59 "And there's not enough room to type a counter-argument."
So you're what, walking around videos telling people to wiki this and that? lol. Get out of the basement and start making valid statements without resorting to direct quotes. Otherwise, your presence here is useless.
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Well, as usual, things tend to diverge from the original point. My original point was that the Fr. claimed that people want 1) freedom, 2) a "plan". While 1) is certainly mostly true in an objective sense, 2) is certainly debatable. And in *particular*, the assertion that the plan is something *good* and *perfect*. Our reality, that which we have observed, is that the equations of physics drive what happens in our universe. And they aren't good or bad; they just are.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59 Give me a scientific equation for love. Give me a valid scientific formula for self-sacrifice; compassion; redemption. No? Ok. Because precisely from what we have observed, there are things of core human nature that aren't driven by any "equation of physics". They just are ;)
SmokiSounds 11 months ago
@SmokiSounds Oh, i see. You are making the classic mistake that because we can't explain it, that there's a supernatural explanation for it. The fact is, recent research on brain function and hormones (oxytocin being the primary hormone) *are* explaining things like "love". We are learning more and more about the brain. But fundamentally, the key thing is that just because we can't explain "it", it does not necessary follow that "it" can't *eventually* be explained by the equations of physics.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, one might make the very unscientific claim of scientism as well that scientific equations can explain all of the characteristics of reality, which is a sentiment I highly doubt, especially having known many physicists myself (they may work out theories but there is really not much means to describe real world events in scientifically rigorous terms as you might be suggesting).
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Ah, but that is not the claim that i'm making. The claim that i'm making is that because you don't understand something *today*; it does not necessarily follow that we can't *ever* come up with a scientific explanation for it. I really have no idea if science will ever be able to explain *all* of reality. It certainly won't happen in my lifetime; but that is the horse that i'm betting on because of *precedent*. Compared to religion, science has done a wonderful job so far.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, ;-) be that as it may how many souls has science saved. I find it ironic when people who prop up science knock down religion because both have a philosophic base at them that they are basically trying to lop off.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Huh? What's a "soul"? Where's the proof that we have souls, and what does "saving" mean? As soon as you say "soul" you bring up a bunch of unproven assumptions. What happens to a cockroach when you step on it? It ceases to exist. And that's pretty much what happens to us when we die; we're just another life form. And i really don't understand the comment "philosophic base at them ... trying to lop off".
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, in what sense are we just another life form? When I am moved by a particularly beautifully piece of music, we say that the piece is moving or it touched my soul. The soul denotes, as I understand it, the deepest part or inner essence of a human being's self. Within Aristotelian thinking we say that animals have a sensitive soul, that is they are oriented to satisfying the senses and survival, but humans are exceptional, we're rational, philosophical, something is different about us.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Huh? We have a pretty good theory, called "evolution", that pretty much describes why we exist as a life form. And of course people are moved by things, and you can call it what you want; i just call it "me". And absolutely humans are exceptional; we have developed an amazing intelligence. It's really quite fascinating. And now that we've discovered all these other planets; it'd be even more fascinating if we find intelligent life there; imagine a race that had a 1B year head start?
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, the comment about whether the soul is immortal is part of Christian revelation, aside from that one might not know where we go after we die, that is what happens to our soul after we die. I think I addressed your comment about philosophy in another comment about those who rave that science will eliminate religion having committing a philosophical error.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Of course it is, and my point is that this is just mythology. Just a bunch of made up stuff. When a tibetan dies, he thinks he'll sit in limbo for about 45 days, and then re-incarnate into another being. Is he correct? And i am optimistic that science will replace religion/superstition/mythology when it comes to understanding "nature" (universe, metaverse, whatever); and that philosophy will cover the rest.
tunkul59 11 months ago
@tunkul59, On what account do you believe the immortality of the soul is just mythology? Science can understand the rules of nature, but ultimately cannot in itself explain why the rules of nature exist, that is a question of metaphysics. You do realize that science can never dictate whether the soul is immortal correct? Science cannot study immaterial or metaphysical truths, it's simply beyond the realm of science. Your optimism is simply unfounded.
cooliodraw2 11 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Re: "science cannot explain..". Absolutely not true. As we speak, books are being written addressing this very issue (by Hawking, and Greene). Nobody really knows how it's all going to play out of course; but science is giving it a shot. Stay tuned. And i don't believe in the "immortality of the soul" simply because i don't believe in fairy tales. Give me some proof, and we can talk about it.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, I've seen the segments of their books and have read books by Greene. As to proof if you want a mathematical demonstration I don't know that one would exist, as to the divine revelations being rationally accepted and credible look to local miracles like Padre Pio's stigmata, the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano, etc.
I wouldn't hold to scientism even if I was an atheist, it's philosophically incohesive.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 You've got to be kidding. These "miracles" you cite as evidence? Please. Here are some examples of real evidence: have the Virgin appear at a meeting of the UN assembly, and chastise the delegates over, oh, whatever. They all hear her in their own language w/o needing translation. Tell me you just had a conversation with god, and he told you that the sun was going to rise tomorrow one hour later than usual. We wait until tomorrow, and sure enough, the "prediction" is true.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, If your reference is to the miracle of Our Lady of Fatima the miracle was that the sun began to dance about at the prescribed time and similarly that all those who were wet were instantly dried (as opposed to how the sun usually dries). The effects were felt by those who were not present at the Fatima site. I cited a small handful of miracles, there are hundreds of thousands of miracles in the Church, the skeptic however likely doesn't accept more ancient miracles however.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Hmm, no. I was just making something up. I was proposing theoretical miracles that would actually carry some weight. A delusional priest that pokes holes in his hands doesn't quite cut the mustard. How many hindu's have seen a vision of the virgin? Or tibetans? Or muslims? Or especially atheists? I would think that, you know, if the virgin really wanted to make an impression she'd do it where it counts.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, with regards to Fatima the miracle was predicted to the day and relative hour, there were plenty of atheists at the site, many converted.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 The miracle? What, the sun doing weird things? People varied in their descriptions. The cause? Mass hysteria, staring at the sun too long, psychological brainwashing; who knows. But solid evidence? I don't think so. Again, give me something with some meat; like the examples i gave.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, ha ha, psychological brainwashing of thousands of people, oh yes I'm sure they all decided to stare insistingly at the sun ;-). I highly doubt that you will ever get the evidence you want if you continue looking at everything with the eyes of a skeptic.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 And i suspect you'll fall for these stories if you look at them with the eyes of a convert. Nobody with an objective mind can consider this as evidence of a miracle. I've already given examples of "miracles" with solid evidence; those kinds of things don't happen do they?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, There are examples of miracles where the Virgin Mary appears to pagan believers who become eventually more and more aware of the Church, unfortunately because you are a skeptic you will never accept the things I cite. You'll say oh it was psychological, sociological, or various other motives, all natural motives with no supernatural directive.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Or hallucinatory, or invented, or coerced, or whatever. The evidence is simply flimsy for any example you've cited so far. Instead of appearing to a pagan, why doesn't she appear to Obama while he's giving a news conference? Or why doesn't god get on the radio at the same time around the world, speaking in the local language, saying something like "Hi everybody! God here, just wanted to have a chat with y'all..."
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, The evidence is flimsy? As to why the blessed Virgin does not appear to Obama while he's giving a news conference, she doesn't have to, one can know that there is a Creator God by virtue of the conscience, the order and unity of the universe, the contingency of all created things and the need for a necessary being, etc. What makes you so sure that God does not already speak to you, all one has to do is sit in silence and strive to understand with one's heart and soul.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 You know there are people with mental conditions that allow them to see "visions" etc. They take a path in life based on this (ie, a religious life), and then the Dr. explains the situation. The patient then needs to decide whether to actually get "fixed"; since it might then ruin the reason they chose the life-path they are on.
And no, these are just circular or assumptive arguments. Why do we need a "necessary being"? Not to mention who is this guy, what does he want, etc.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, We need a necessary being to solve a metaphysics problem of the contingency or non-explanatory and non-necessary nature of all created things. This necessary being would be the foundation of being itself. It would of necessity be self-explanatory being, it's essence would be to exist. Such characterizations are what God is supposed to be, God's name given in Exodus 3:14, is I AM. The Jews named things according to their essence or nature. God's essence is existence, "I AM".
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 See, i think it's assumptive. Eg, i can state that the metaverse is the "causeless cause"; the foundation of all that exists; eternal and timeless; but not really intelligent, and no real "plan". You state that this even more complex entity, god, is "eternal and timeless" and the foundation of all that exists. What makes you right and me wrong? Understand that i have no idea what the right answer is; as far as i'm concerned, we just don't really know.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, the typical statements that discuss are more to the point of what underlies being itself as a metaphysical quantity, so I don't know what a metaverse would entail, or how it could be deduced from this metaphysical proof. The proof distinguishes that a non-spatial timeless being that is necessary to exist for all other things that are contingent to exist does in fact exist. It is one entity that is metaphysically above all. That matches closely with the Jews' God named "I AM".
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@tunkul59, these visions should not be the only reason for a religious person to have faith. One does not need to have visions in order to have faith. I have innumerable amount of friends who call themselves religious but not spiritual, because they do not typically have the ecstatic or mystical "spiritual" feelings during worship. That doesn't make them all the less religious however.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Oh absolutely; i didn't mean to imply that visions are necessary. I was just saying that these visions can easily be ascribed to "miracles" when in fact they're due to mental illness.
tunkul59 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 So when a pedophile rapes and murders a 5 yr old girl; is that part of the "order and unity" that the "necessary being" put in place? In other words, this is what he wants to happen?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, when a pedophile rapes and murders a five year old child he commits a sin and disrupts the order and unity of the universe in and of itself, he has acted contrary to nature. You're making a false dichotomy, God can permit things to happen because He has given us the freedom of the will, instilled upon us the dignity of choosing sin or obedience. This is so that we can authentically love and choose to love Him. Love cannot be forced.
The pedophile would be punished in due time.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Ok, i'll buy that. People have free will, and if they choose to do bad things, it's on them. All good. So when a couple of plates slap into each other, create an earthquake, which then creates a tsunami, which then kills thousands of people; what's that? It's clearly a bad thing; but no human made that decision. Did god want this to happen? Or is there some notion that "nature" itself has free will?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, God can utilize and permit the occurrence of natural disasters as a means of reconciling sinners or bringing a greater order to the disunity and disorder we cause the world by our sins.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 That's a load of BS and you know it. When other planets have earthquakes and natural disasters, planets presumably w/o sinners; what 's that all about? How does a comet slamming into jupiter "bring greater order..."?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, well other planets that have earthquakes presumably don't have sinners and therefore nobody would be harmed.
cooliodraw2 10 months ago
@cooliodraw2 Right, but that's not the point. If the assertion is that "god can utilize..as a means of reconciling sinners...". In other words, here on earth an earthquake that kills tens of thousands of people is essentially a punishment; but an earthquake on venus is what? God is just practicing? Or our sins are causing such disorder, that it's not enough to have earthquakes on earth; we need them elsewhere as well?
tunkul59 10 months ago
@tunkul59, it's entirely possible that Go