I am a STEM graduate and researcher. I was also a former atheist who started believing in God after I studied science. I don't think I'm alone in this.
+jaranarm No sir, you are not alone. Our numbers are growing larger everyday. Unfortunately, we are still facing severe bullying from the "atheist" science community; try sharing publicly how you reached your conclusion and you will be labelled ignorant, uneducated and "unscientific" to the point of dismissal from your position.
+Luiz Matteo Thanks for the support. I am often ridiculed for my belief. After converting I later discovered it was the Catholic Church that established the university and endorsed scientific learning. It was Catholic priests such as Copernicus, Bacon, Magnus, Steno, Grimaldi, Mendel, Lemaitre, and Boscovich who pushed the envelope of scientific knowledge and exploration, all while the atheists did absolutely nothing. Modern civilization as we know it was made possible because of the Church. Studying science led me to God. It was meant to be.
***** Western civilization as we know it today was made possible because of the Church, when all the nations of Europe were united under the Catholic faith that paved the way toward modernization and scientific discovery. This led to the Golden Age of Europe, an explosion of cultural development in the Western world. That is all the evidence you need to know what man's belief in God has done for society. Now what has atheism done to Europe? Created a largely apathetic generation, greater emphasis on accumulation of material wealth, and with less and less people having families they currently have the lowest birth rates and fastest shrinking populations in the world. In other words, a dying civilization. Remove the religious morale of a nation and society disintegrates.
***** No, YOU are the one that has history completely wrong. And I'm going to deal with your ignorant nonsense, one point at a time: The Galileo case is often cited as anti-Church propaganda, when in fact it is totally distorted. The world's leading astronomers at the time were Catholic priests and the Church funded scientists like Galileo. What got him in trouble was that he was passing off theories as facts when they had not been proven yet. The Church was not opposed to any scientific discovery, they were opposed to Galileo wrongfully teaching a theory as 100% fact without conclusive evidence. Therefore they barred him from further teaching. The Catholic Church was one of the first major institutions to recognize that slavery is wrong. The idea that the Church did not oppose slavery until the 1800s is another anti-Church myth. As early as the year 1435 the Church under Pope Eugene IV had already condemned slavery, long before Europe even started colonizing the New World. This would happen again in 1537 under Pope Paul III, and so forth. Whenever the Church found out of enslavement and mistreatment, particularly in the Americas, they fought against it. It's not their fault if the people did not listen. And the idea that atheism makes no claims is completely false. I am a former atheist. Being an atheist means your position is that no gods exist, period. Maybe you should reconsider what you label yourself as before you decide over what you THINK you are. You must be joking if you think Western civilization would have gotten anywhere without the Catholic Church. The Golden Age of Europe occurred when Europe was the Church, and the Church was Europe. This led to an explosion of EVERYTHING within modern civilization as we know it: art, literature, language, architecture, music, cuisine, fashion, education, law, science, morality, chivalry, etc. Western civilization was built and maintained by Godly men led by the Church, not atheists. Atheists accomplished NOTHING. We have the university system today because of the Church. We have the modern hospital because of the Church. We have today's calendar because of the Church. The Church created ALL of these things. You honestly believe we would have the beautiful European architecture without the Church? You honestly think Leonardo da Vinco and Michelangelo would have painted The Last Supper and The Sistine Chapel (the two most famous and most replicated works of art in human history) without their Catholic beliefs? You think that The Lord of the Rings (a Catholic influenced story and is the world's best-selling novel of all time written by the devout Catholic author JRR Tolkien) would have been written without Catholic influence? You think composers Mozart and Beethoven (the two most recognized musicians in world history) would have written their famous operas, pastorales, and sonatas if they weren't aligned with their Catholic faith? No way. These men lived and breathed for God, King, and Country, unlike the lazy reactionary atheists who contributed absolutely NOTHING. What greatness has atheism done for mankind? Atheists are responsible for many of the worst atrocities and genocides in human history. There will NEVER be a successful nation built on atheism, EVER. All you have to do is look at what happened in France under the Jacobites, when the atheist-led Reign of Terror slaughtered 40,000 people in a 15 month period. Or in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia when the atheist Marxists butchered tens of millions of Russian Christians. Or how about Enver Hoxha's Albania, the first nation to become officially atheist, and their mass slaughters over just a few decades. Or the atheist Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of the Turkish Nationalist Movement and his murderous campaigns of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Or the atheist-run Khmer Rouge and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or the hundreds of unjust executions which continue today in atheist China and North Korea. The list of horrors goes on and on and on. The Church itself has never endorsed the persecution of homosexuals, unlike the atheistic governments of Stalin, Mao, and Castro who punished homosexuality as criminal offenses. I guess you never heard of the famous artist Andy Warhol, an open homosexual AND an openly devout Catholic who was never persecuted by the Church but instead was warmly welcomed for his faith. That's all that matters. Warhol is one of the most famous artists of the 20th century. So where are all the famous atheist artists out there? Or musicians? Or scientists? They're NOWHERE to be found. Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, even if they used the scientific method (whose origins were first formulated by the Catholic priest Roger Bacon, by the way). Atheism is nothing but a reactionary stance. If civilization was made in spite of religious belief, then why didn't atheists lead modernization of the Western world? Because they can't and they historically have done nothing but leech off societies that were built by Godly men, those who actually established cultures and traditions of arts, mathematics, sciences, and philosophies that YOU are enjoying today, things that atheists could never ever dream of. Religion has been the driving force behind ALL of mankind's achievements. You can never remove religiosity from the human mind, that is where atheists will always fail. Atheists are simply incapable of creating, inheriting, or maintaining culture and civilization, PERIOD. All atheist nations have withered away and died for a reason.
@Mr. Davidson i can't bear this ! its ridiculous , no atheist can say that they are scientific if they cancel out the potential for a God or something beyond us, because it is unscientific to say somethings false when it hasn't be proved or disproved. plus why do you believe that love exits? its belief, not provable , not arguable. I'm up for healthy debate but when people start acting like they have the TRUTH making their opinion more valid than others and calling the fools your in a bad position (and that goes for everyone, with any beliefs). Christianity is a hope and a happy way to live someones life, and yes its not provable but its just kinda sad that you have to such a raincloud. let them live, in peace. And one day you'll open your eyes to see that actually christianity generates a lot of happiness and the teachings art all that "foolish". so in conclusion until you can except everyone from around the world then you have no right to call anything foolish.
I believed before I saw Him, I did not even have the privilege to kneel and worship Him when He appeared to me. I was just happy and at peace. He did not say anything.🙏😌 Blessed be the Lord 🙏😍
Blessed are those who choose to live as a blind slave who habe had not but suffering and the sins of their all loving father enforced upon their previously pure soul so that being can hold up the antidote for the thing it poisoned you with at birth.. sounds like a demon to me
@@benoe568 atheists merely state that theres no good reason to believe in a thing with no evidence to support its existence. You poor simple minded slave.
@@davido3026 thanks for another example of a theist lying. Steven Hawing was an atheist. He did say he felt the universe had meaning. Not that he was on his way to heaven.
Father Barron....you are absolutely one of the most intelligent voices in Catholicism today. Having said this, Hawking teaches us that even remarkable intelligence does not preclude human beings from finding ways to exist on their own. I thank you for using your immense intelligence to proclaim truth with accuracy, gentleness, and beauty.
Joseph Lazar As an atheist, this really upsets me. Not just what he is saying, but the reaction of the comments thinking how smart he is. He's an intelligent guy, but is exerting the human weaknesses of the "need of understanding". He's claiming to have to truth here. The only truthful answer in the "why is there something rather than nothing" is we don't know. WE DONT KNOW!! Let's us our human brain capacity to find out the answer, not filling in an answer. Robbert, you just filled in an answer here and said your right...
Yes, Fish Tank Viogs: More broadly, the Universe (multi-Verse) exists and behaves PRECISELY as we'd expect absent any of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped by human beings, including Barron's 3-part god. While science actually doesn't care whether Barron's god exists, we do understand scientifically that any such god, should it exist, is irrelevant and inconsequential.
sciencetrumpsfaith Did you even watch the video? Of course there's no scientific evidence for God. You're not going to find the creator within the creation. That's because science deals with empirical evidence. That is, evidence based on our senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing). That's not to say that there is no evidence though. There exists philosophical evidence, based on reason, for God's existence. An example of this is the the argument of contingency stated in the video.
sciencetrumpsfaith Life after death is a completely different topic. And not all religions agree on that subject. Here's a fun fact: Not once in the Old Testament is the afterlife brought up. Judaism is silent on it. And there are differing opinions on it when it is brought up in the New Testament. The point however, is that there is evidence for the existence of God, it's just that that evidence does not belong to the realm of science. Rather it's a philosophical question.
sciencetrumpsfaith So you're one of those "scientistic" people eh? Well then there's no point arguing then. I can't give you evidence if you flat out reject said evidence's entire school of thought. Use your head. Things are contingent right? Things are dependent on other things for their existence. Well what happens when you trace the origin of things? What's the source? It can't be another contingent thing, otherwise it would be an endless chain. That's just postponing the answer. So the beginning has to start with an incontingent thing. That is, something which contains within itself it's reason for being. Now that incontingent thing, or unmoved mover as Aristotle put it, is what serious people call God. Not "god" as you atheists, so often mistakenly write, but "God" with a capital G. If you need clarification on the difference I'd be happy to explain.
sciencetrumpsfaith And the matter of God is not just of life after death. If that were the case, why would the Hebrew Bible not mention it at all? That's because the afterlife and God are two separate concepts and the former should only be argued after the latter is first established. If you want evidence, read some classical and medieval philosophy.
sciencetrumpsfaith Yes you're right. Our ignorance is called "god". Which is precisely why I said "God". There is a distinction, the Abrahamic religions stress this. But as for the universe being incontingent, that I'm not so sure of. Does the universe contain within itself it's essence, or reason for being? Why is there a universe at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? I'm afraid science can't answer that. It can explain how it got here, what it's made of but not why it's exists in the first place. As for who created "God", well by its very definition, no one did. That's why he's incontingent. If he was contingent, then whoever made him would by definition be "God", and the former would never have had that name to begin with. So God is just the name we give to the first cause of things. Again like Aristotle put it, the unmoved mover.
As an atheist philosophy student, I enjoy your videos, Bishop Barron. I agree with your criticisms of modern atheism. Keep spreading your words, they do good to all of us.
Mr Peapolop refreshing to see you can be open-minded enough to listen carefully and critically to his points and arguments. May your search for truth lead you to Truth
Mr Peapolop being open minded they way you are and not letting your ego get the best of you it’s definitely going to lead you to the truth, keep that way, if you seek you shall find
@@vashnanerada8757 Calling God the non-contingent ground of contingency doesn't imply that a magic man in the sky is causing things to happen. Have you listened to his argument?
Naturalism Forever because science is the literal study of the physical OBSERVABLE universe. One cannot explore or observe beyond the universe, therefore, one cannot use science to explain the existence of God. One must use philosophical and metaphysical methods to come to the existence of God. If you sincerely believe that science can explain everything, then you are surely mistaken. Science cannot tell you the figurative and emotional aspects of a beautiful painting or frame from a film. Science cannot tell you the abstract.
Yet, Davis, the verifiable evidence remains enormous, and breathtakingly convincing: the Universe (Multiverse) exists and behaves PRECISELY, COMPLETELY, EXACTLY, AND PREDICTABLY as we would expect ABSENT any of the tens of thousands of gods, including the 3-part god, ever worshipped or invented or postulated or defined by humankind throughout its 250,000 years of existence as a species. Given such, none of those tens of thousands of gods, including the 3-part god, is consequential or relevant, whether or not one or more exists.
Naturalism Forever I’m no scientist and not well educated so please waste none of your time trying to teach this pig to sing. Could absolutely everything spontaneously arise from absolutely nothing? I’m looking for a yea or a nay.
Great video my parents recommended these to me cause my faith has been tested a lot moving from a private to a public school keep doing what ur doing I love them!
Great that "your faith" is being "tested" Gabe!! That means that you have begun to THINK! And with thinking, you will eventually come to unfettered inquiry, and then to verifiable evidence, and finally to robust, coherent, broad, powerful, predictive explanations. And with that....WITH THAT....you will awaken from your delusion!
Hello Gabe, your parents can or Nothing help one to improve one's faith. But the faith, as concept is inserted in almost 95% of population, as resource to build up one's life... No clue.
The universe is a puppet show. When a character makes its appearance from behind the curtain or from above the stage, the observer doesn't ask where it came from. But it does come from somewhere. The scientist is the play observer, the philosopher is the observer of the production itself.
Thank you, Fr. Barron!!! I'm a scientist. But live in a very rural place. On a very beautiful place. I studied in graduate school to get a PhD in physics. I'm a mathematician as well. I talk with scientists often and most are people with very limited lives and experiences. Most scientists that I know sit in an office in a city and have no idea what life and earth is like. They experience little beyond mathematical equations and they algebraically manipulate mathematical symbols and try to find meaning to them in terms of the observable universe. And they make up things based on their equations. But none of it is real. String theory for example. Anyone that understands modern cosmology knows that it is built on a house of cards. Experimentally. So they should live in the earth and go about and feel it and they would hopefully at some point feel the existence of God. I have felt it. I know many have felt it. I know God is there and have felt Him. Science has not yet matured to the point of capturing that part of the very real universe. These so called "great minds of science" are really no more than mathematical extremists that know nothing outside of their little equations. They often suffer from what is called the "savant syndrome". So they are not sufficiently balanced to have good judgement. I can tell you that Hawking and others that I've met are mostly just guessing when they assert something. The spiritual world is real and God is real. It's not hard to find Him if you look and wait and listen for Him.
Kerry Wagner Very good point and position. This is why I can't stand people like Richard Dawkins. He's a brilliant scientist and biologist - no question. But he's not a Philosopher nor a Theologian yet he arrogantly feels that he has the right to argue the position of atheism solely on scientific principles.
380PPK Thanks for your message. Yeah, I agree totally. In fact as a scientist myself, I can assert that most of our current science stands precariously on a house of cards. There have been many examples that the initial proposition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been rigorously disproved. And, by the way, Darwin's Theory is not a theory as Einstein's Theory of Relatively is. It is a proposition that cannot be tested to validation. It is a set of propositions that have been disproved but the academicians firmly rooted career-wise and professionally in that theory won't accept the indisputable data.Same with most of stellar evolution and cosmology.Oh, well, such is how it is. But thanks much to Fr. Barron!!!
Kerry Wagner Until we are all automatons, we will always have Liberals, Conservatives and everything in between and beyond. There will always be jealousy , prejudice greed. I believe that the worst of all, and the most harm humans cause other humans, is a result of selfishness. We need each other, that has always been obvious. Coexisting, has always been difficult to state the least. Diversity within all of existence and or creation is clearly embraced by facts, truth, reality and logic. There have always been some humans that have various issue/s with aspects of that.
+Kerry Wagner the house of cards you speak of sent a satellite to Pluto, a robot car to Mars, a man to the moon, a nuclear sub that doesn't need refueling for years, built dams, made vaccines, made glasses, printed books, made iphones and computers that are full of information that at the touch of a button is handed to the reader, showed us that the earth is warming, and created something called math... that little thing allows us to make predictions that actually come true.... In my life I have heard at least 10 times that the earth is coming to an end. We were given dates and times.... yet here we are on a sunday morning laughing at the tom foolery that is religion.
+ron johnson Yeah, I understand what you say. But those things (EVERYONE of them) you speak of are NOT science. They are engineering. Funny thing is that I am also a quite accomplished engineer. I've spent the last 5 years of my professional career functioning as the Chief Systems Engineer for an advanced engineering research lab with 4000 scientists, engineers, and support staff and annual revenues of over $1B. I'm not speaking of engineering but rather the pure science as a house of cards. Maybe you should try to understand more and even ask what I mean before you formulate opinions. So you need to spend more time reading and trying to understand things around you. Then come online and comment about things which you have no idea about.Thanks
To those who may not have been listening: Bishop Barron speaks with utter rationality in stating that nothing can create itself. What we know through science, mathematics, etc. are properties of observable "things." Working backwards through cause-and-effect we eventually reach a point at which philosophers term First Cause. No matter how hard science wants to proclaim the opposite, nothing can make itself out of nothing.
Thank you for that compelling and even-handed advice! Friend, I've offered an argument for God's existence--the argument from contingency. Tell me precisely where you think it fails. Again, scientists, qua scientists, really have nothing to say on this matter, for it is a metaphysical question. No amount of empirical observation and experimentation will adjudicate the question of God. We have to move to philosophical argumentation. So please proceed.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 Okay. Lets start. None of this stuff you are talking about has any evidence. If there was actual evidence for it, it would be accepted by science. NDE's have been explained by lack of oxygen to the brain, and they generally are misreported or even exaggerated to enhance the points the teller wants to make. Further, you would need to be able to describe exactly what you mean by divine before you should be allowed to use it in a description of a thing. I know you will struggle with that, especially when your description gets critically questioned. The fact is that one does not need a god to be a good person, there are and have been billions of humans who are and have been good without god. Any god worthy of acknowledgement would be willing and able to present himself for acknowledgement without stepping on our "free will". There are atheists therefore there are no gods.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 You sure you got every philosopher in the last 10 000 years in that diatribe? But it's not your beliefs that cause me worry, it's what actions those beliefs inform. That is where I have a problem, remember when a god is on your side, nothing is denied you. aka Gott Mitt Ons.
"Something in me always tightens when a scientist pontificates on matters properly philosophical or religious". I'm an atheist and I think this statement is spot on, and rather sums up the entire matter of Hawking's stance on the god question.
Well, I think the bishop has no idea what Hawking is talking about, when he says it is either gravity or nothing. You see Hawking does not make up things, he shows his working, how he came to these conclusions and is willing to change his position on them if they are shown to be wrong. There is no certainty in science and doubt is a virtue in it. The opposite is true in religion. I would suggest that the bishop take a course in cosmology and learn exactly what Hawking is talking about, or actually admit he understand what Hawking is stating but chooses to ignore that to make his point.
@@Balstrome1 Plus, if my understanding of quantum mechanics is at least somewhat correct, which it might not be since I am a biologist, then the reason protons and such have have mass is because of far smaller particles with opposite charges, that cancel eachother out and release a lot of energy in the process and this energy is the reason these particles come into existence in the first place. In other words they are not contigent on anything else and are the reason for their own existence. If one were to take the bishops point of view, then these particles and their cycles of creation and destruction are god, since they are non-contingent. I am fairly certain he would disagree
The thing is if one uses sciency sounding words from a position of authority, such as a youtube celeb or priest, then those words take on magical status, regardless of their truth.
Then you've conceded my point! The principle ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysical principle, and the "nihil" in question is absolute non-being. Whatever the quantum physicists are talking about is not "nothing" in this absolute sense. The fluctuating vacuum from which primary particles emerge is a fecund sea of energy. Now whatever fluctuates and gives rise to new forms of being is, by definition, a contingent reality and hence needs to be explained.
Tamara Smith: Of all the respondents here, I respect you by far the most! You make no spurious attempt to defend the existence of your god. You rely not on assertion, opinion, conjecture, and speculation, pretending that it's "philosophy" and therefore automatically valid. You rely not on "authority" of priests and imams. You rely not on bronze age scratchings of ignorant peasants who thought that the sun rotated around the earth. No. None of that. You are honest, forthright, and humble. You simply admit that you "need" to believe a fairy tale and that such belief helps you. I have no quarrel with such an admission. Indeed, I find it refreshingly honest. Good for you!
Thank you again for bringing this out: as I mentioned before in other posts, it helps for more of us to get intimately familiar with Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. He was the quiet Lutheran who completely demolished Lord Bertrand Russel's and David Hilbert's project to reduce all of Mankind's knowledge of the Universe to mathematical equations. Everyone had to deal with the problem of Circularity. Russel (WW I depopulation proponent extraordinaire), true to his dishonest nature, came up with a thought experiment, "This statement is false", deeming himself to be "smart" and "genius" as if he were above the rest of us rabble. Kurt Gödel answered with, "This statement is unprovable"...and formalized it into mathematics, proving that Mathematics itself is Incomplete, and incapable of describing the entire Universe (especially ourselves, our minds). Mathematics, is a Language, like human conversational language itself, which is unavoidably self-referential. In other words, Russel's phrase is self-contradictory, but Gödel's statement is self-affirming (both refer to them-SELVES). Unlike Russel's, we know Gödel's statement to be true, and consistent with itself, yet it is still unprovable. So we must accept it on faith and reason. Gödel achieved mathematically what philosophers and theologians have tried to prove (rather unconvincingly to most atheists) about Scientism and radical Empiricism "be-ing" themselves Incomplete. Why should we believe their propositions ("thou shalt not believe anything unless proven") when they fail to prove their own standards themselves? By studying the huge topic of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (still ongoing), I was able to quite successfully get a lot of atheists and A.I. guru's to re-think their world-views. In Girardian fashion, many of them started out accusing us theists of using Circular Arguments (leading to our complete dependency upon 'I am that am'). But I have successfully employed Gödel's I.T. to show that atheist's use Circular Arguments as well, them relying upon implicit unprovable self-referential Axioms that are embedded in our Language itself. (Noam Chomsky, MIT Linguist, would affirm: if you ask yourself "What is Language?" You will be stuck with answering that by using Language to define itself using Language). In fact, we all end up stuck in Circular language, and cannot escape that. As I began to reflect on this intrinsic nature of our own Language, as if it were "designed" into us even before Time itself, I appreciated more the meaning of "Man is made in God's image"...our language is Circular, because God the First Linguist simply "is". On that note, our very souls (following Plato's Meno and Phaedro) must also be immortal, because of our ability to think about ourselves from outside of ourselves, a kind of circular recursive loop that can go on to infinity, such as when we stand in between two large mirrors: a hall of mirrors projecting further than we can see of ourselves. Plato showed that immaterial things such as numbers, morals, ideas, designs, geometric descriptions, exist in a sort of "zeroth dimension" completely independent, transcendent from space-time. Since our souls can "grok" them, our souls must have immortal properties. It is for that reason that part of my work is to expose the latently genocidal nature of A.I. "Singularity" or Transhumanism. Their scientists (such as Ray Kurzweil at Google Deep Mind) have been misleading our world to believe in a technology Utopia, like Star Trek, where our minds can be digitized and "beamed" or "stored" for Immortality. That is nothing short of medieval alchemy, completely ignoring what Gödel already demonstrated: that to "reduce" our minds to a Turing Machine, would require Infinite Memory (in order to refer to itself in mathematical language, infinitely recursively and Circularly). This would require Infinite Energy, Infinite Wires, and faster-than-light signal travel. Since we know the Universe is apparently finite, we know this A.I. "Singularity" project at Google and IBM Watson is a hoax, which poses an existential threat to mankind itself. The amount of resources and illegal lobbying they would have to perform in order to subjugate all of us to financing their pet project, will and does have global consequences, not merely because they are the high priests now of faithless Scientism, but because of the enormous Bill they are charging us for it, which depletes our Tithes and other resources needed for more genuine science (such as medical cures, space travel, energy / water). Many atheist "scientists" have tried to answer me with a blind faith in Quantum Computing. Well, I've canvassed a lot of papers on those too, and the short answer is, Quantum Computing is still finite, consumes finite energy and space. Yet to reproduce or "simulate" a mind's ability to think about itself from outside itself, would still require infinite memory and energy, which leads to an impossibility (a contradiction), which further indicates that our minds / conscience must be partially in an immaterial plane. It is very important for our best Theologians to get intimately familiar with current developments in Quantum Theory, as well: you will need good engineers / scientists with a theological & musical sense, to help with that. So it is not sufficient to "debate" atheists on Circularity, as if it is a coffee table entertainment. It is necessary to speak their own precise Language (Gödel's), in order to show them the genocidal implications of their own denial of Circular Argument. ALL of us depend upon Circular arguments, and contrary to brainwashing by our schools, Circular Argument is actually a good thing, so long as we know that we are doing it, and can't escape it. Doing so would add a sense of urgency in the abortion, energy, water, depopulation debates, and, in my experience, is more effective at getting more of these misguided brethren to see the light. In peace,!
The argument I have been trying to formulate for decades, finally set out succinctly, clearly and in far more detail than my clumsy floundering attempts. Thank you.
Afirerageswithin I'm no entirely sure who's ass he's ever kicked... have yet to see it myself, and I certainly don't think Stephen Hawking is on that list.
Afirerageswithin That's Buddy Christ... I doubt you know where it comes from. But even so... there's nothing wrong with mockery, especially if it has a point, satire has been used throughout the ages... and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with being correct. So... what's the problem?
My hard earned rebuttals to Hawkins' scientism among mainstream thinkers were answered with reminders that I am not a scientist and therefore, had no authority to opine... much less to contradict a genius. Thank you, Bishop Barron, for your superb dialectic. It is immeasurably helpful in fighting the avalanche of popular gibberish.
It was indeed the science of The Shroud of Turin which convinced me of the truth of the reality of Jesus. Real science will never shame our heavenly Father. Let's put it all on the line and beat the Atheists at their own game.
@just Wright no, that claim has been debunked as the cloths used in the 1988 study that claims that it was made in the XIV century were repairs made by nuns in medieval times due to fires.
Jason Blowhard’s Strength and Fitness didn’t you read what I just put? The cloth used for the carbon dating were repair cloths that nuns used after a fire. Other carbon dating has placed the shroud at the time of Christ and pollen on the shroud indicates that it was in Jerusalem.
@@randombobsmith8925 Few scholars question that Jesus was a real, historical person. The plethora of evidence proves to me that He is divine. It is your prerogative to not be convinced by the evidence, although I'd bet you haven't seriously investigated.
@@rustycockering9925 evidence what evidence there is none whatsoever it’s all made up. There is not one single piece of evidence that god exists anywhere in the world it’s all a load of rubbish.
@@alandoyle8880 Like most Atheists, you don't understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof". Whether something is proven is purely subjective, even in science. That there is an abundance of evidence for God is not in question, despite your ignorance.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Probably a Werner Heisenberg's quote as a friend told me. This reminds me of a picture I saw many years ago: a couple of scientists were struggling hardly hiking up near the top of a mountain and on the top of the mountain was a theologian waiting for them with a smile stretching his hand to help them. Unfortunately, Mr. Hawking did not get through the bottom. But he has the answer now, and God's mercy is greater than any human wisdom.
@rhuttner12 Philosophy and religion explain nothing. Philosophy is just an argument which does not address facts. Religion explains nothing at all. As well, I was speaking of his bloated Ego which the previous comment claimed he was without.
The usual response to “why is there something rather than nothing?” seems to be, “it doesn’t matter and I don’t care,” and it seems sufficient for many people.
Hi Fr. Barron. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your remarks here, and I very much enjoy watching your videos. I am a student of philosophy myself, and though I consider myself an Atheist, I very much respect and admire your thoughtful disposition, and willingness to inquire into the nature of existence. :) Also, I was made very happy by your mentioning of Heidegger in this video! It's good to know that there are still people out there who take philosophy seriously. Keep up the good work!
I came from being a hard atheist Communist, Soviet education, PhD in the US Ivy leagues, theoretical physicist. I have an IQ of 267. I absolutely believe in Christ, he was the savior and son of man. Irrefutably, for you to find joy and meaning in your life, fully beyond those things you can "obtain" physically, you must accept this truth it is as vital as breath. I just want you to stop suffering humans, take a leap of faith and try to believe. ✝
Hawking is a scientist, which means that he is concerned with events and objects within the observable and measurable cosmos. When he goes beyond this, he is overstepping his proper territory. My claims about God are based on philosophical reasoning, which is fundamentally different than scientific method but no less rational.
@@thepleo62 no. The bible says it, and he is just pointing it out, but yet people like are such snowflakes that it doesn't take much for you to start melting.
Deer Runner why do you get so made about him not believing in god. He said that there are other possibilities of the universe starting, not that god isn’t real. It’s almost like you ignorant Christians are punishing him for trying to find other theories. Such a brilliant mind being put down by your Christian cult.
Bravo again Father Barron. You have articulated the essence of the atheistic and scientific framework in an understandable manner. So many believers through a Catholic upbringing and then life in the world and through education have grappled with this notion. Are we believers in fairy tales when pitted against the scientific framework of Hawking and others like him? Are we the limited beings if we believe in our minds, hears and soul that the world of the spirit is made in the image and likeness of God? It is sometimes confusing to others, and even ourselves. Yet, I believe it, and you give expression to it like no one I have ever met. Please continue in this social medium because we just want to understand and question but never losing the simple faith in God that we have retained. Thanks!
Hawking's work supported the idea of an expanding universe or the big bang. His work was revolutionary in physics. Before it there was only the belief the universe was static. The big bang supports the biblical narrative that as an uncreated force God created the universe. He said, I am that I am. Thank you Mr. Hawking.
A red herring is not something false; it is something that distracts from the central argument. I've already explained to you about biblical literalism. And evolution was happily embraced by many church people, as early as the mid-nineteenth century. Read John Henry Newman on this score if you doubt me. As for condoms, AIDS is far more prevalent in countries where condoms are handed out like lolly pops than in countries that sponsor abstinence programs.
I am a believer, but I have to ask you in with all due respect do ever really listen to yourself talk? Despite your articulate speech, dept of knowledge, latin quotes you sound like someone trying to convince himself. Your doubt is obvious as your intelligence. Say what you really feel, not what you think you should feel. When you speak of people and things that do not in any way challenge the faith, you look so confident and natural. You are still fettered to dogmas that inhibits both reason and faith. Still, of people I would someday like to meet, you are in the top ten. God Bless.
@Bishop Robert Barron: On the issue of Condom's: did it ever occur to you that many of these countries have terrible cultural norms? Or worse: are infected with tenent of Islam that promote, and often socially *_demand_* pillaging of girls they consider Haram, and that's why they're not used? Much like trying to convince yourself, can you not either admit that the policy is mistaken, or perhaps just to say: *"I have no opinion on that."* . It'd be a lot less dishonest.
I am Orthodox and I agree with the Bishop. Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) that is the greatest tool of Satan and has created more atheists than Stalin or Mao ever have combined. Everything in language is an analogy and Jesus spoke in parables. Sola scriptura was caused in the Western Church due to the need to show authority when going against corruption with the Papacy (The Roman Patriarch) due to the Borgia Pope and other interference by the European Politicians in dealing with the Papacy. The East had no such issues, they were far advanced of the West and the faith has held in the Eastern Churches despite Communism and other persecution in the modern era. The Orthodox Church focuses on the MYSTERY of life and the universe in every aspect and that is what the sacraments are called. This means modern science in truth and in fact can never know all mysteries and in fact the most advanced physicists propose multiple universes; so how do we know with absolute certainty what happens in other universes. God is far beyond man and will be forever. Humans only know what god chooses to reveal and nothing more.
Though I respect him, feels like Father Barron is looking over the one of the main justifications people cite for their atheism today. Most atheists I've encountered simply choose to withhold belief in supernatural claims unless good evidence is presented. Most atheists claim no knowledge on the existence of a God, while pointing out bad evidences for specific God claims, including the problems found in the Christian worldview. Indeed though, this is much tougher position for a person of faith to find themselves on the intellectual high ground.
"there is nothing noble or impressive about being cynical. Skepticism is easy-anyone can do it. It is the faithful life that requires moral strength, dedication, and courage. Those who hold fast to faith are far more impressive than those who give in to doubt when mysterious questions or concerns arise." Uchtdorf pretty good answer to your question. look up the whole thing "Be Not Afraid, Only Believe".
Does not believing in any supernatural presence give you some sort of advantage over me? Bearing in mind that part of my view includes that those who claim to use supernatural power to help me if i pay then are all frauds or worse
If you are "withholding belief" you are agnostic... NOT atheist. If you still have an open mind... if you are still seeking the truth... that's a good thing.
"The universe" is just a collective term for the sum total of contingent things. Even a billion times zero is still zero. And friend, who could possibly provide an example of nothing?! I just use the concept as a heuristic to show that contingent things can't exist without a sufficient explanation. And the argument I've made moves from empirical premises to a conclusion. I don't see how you think it's "circular."
Father Barron, you have made a well-spoken statement on something that has irritated me for some time: Famous people making public statements which are way outside there area(s) of expertise, using their fame as currency for credibility. Hawking has, in my opinion, succumbed to professional arrogence. I would not debate him on topics within his field because he is a great scientist. I would not debate him on other topics either - whatever he might have to say there would be strictly his opinions and preferences, and these deserve no more workth than anyone else's.
Hey elreyrod: I simply find no verifiable evidence for your 3-part god. Moreover, based upon my observations of the Universe (multi-Verse), I find your 3-part god utterly irrelevant and inconsequential.
@@kristinamickwitz3542 so sad.... The fact that theres many dying flock of ducks and chiken without any treatment as good as other normal farm does.. Knowing these, it makes my heart hurt bcoz animals and nature are my love.
This is the truth for me , ever since I was little I've always knew that God exists , I always knew I had mercy on my side so I lived my life my way knowing someday I would change , now I think twice before acting and even saying things I know aren't good , I still fail but in my older years (46) , I am just hoping i can keep on with my life as good as possible.
Because Brian, Barron is obviously afraid to confront scientific naturalists, one on one, in a public forum. Like the pedophile Pell debating Dawkins, he knows he'd lose miserably.
I agree with Fr. Baron on this. Because there is really something. Gravity is something. And even if gravity exists it would be useless without matter. So whether you believe there is a God or not it all started with something.
You have to start with definitions here I think. We all have to define what exactly we mean by "something" Everyone is going on here about this and that being something and yet nobody has ever said what there interpretation of these letters in this order - s o m e t h i n g actually mean. Does something have to have volume, weight, an effect, an interaction, etc, etc. Without a definition I could equally say I have a whole bunch of something called nothing. Is nothing -1 x something is something -1 x nothing. So please everybody what do you think scientists define as "something" Only then can we all agree if we have it or not. No wonder Father Barron is confused. Maybe he has know definition or the wrong definition of "something" to start with.
Hawkins claimed that because there was no time or space prior to the expansion event( big bang), there couldn't of been a creator. God transcends his creation. Why this was such a difficult concept for Hawkins to wrap his head around is beyond me. To suggest that because time didn't exist before the expansion there could not have been a God to create the universe is just a silly conclusion based in his atheistic beliefs rather than objective reasoning. He was the dumbest smart guy on the planet. God save his soul.. He certainly suffered terribly.
Saying it came from nothing is just as ridiculous as saying that God created it. Ascribing it to the power of God is nothing more than the result of a lack of a real explanation.
what else I find interesting in Hawkins is he believed the existence of Aliens which there are no scientific evidence of ,but dismisses the existence of God.
Just had discovered your videos and have become your fan/follower. Not sure you have travel to Canada father, but I would love to attend to one of your conferences! Many blessings, Fernanda V.
Yes friend, I'm utterly confident in saying that nothing can't produce anything! Sheesh. What your physicist friends are calling "nothing" is anything but. It is a fluctuating state of affairs that is fecund with possibility. And by the way, anything that fluctuates is, by definition, contingent and hence requires an explanation.
Philosophers need to define what they mean by "nothing" and what they mean by "something". In this respect the discussion here is meaningless unless all parties can agree on what they mean by these quantities. There is no point developing arguments on both sides if we fail to agree on the definitions of these words in the first place. What are Father Barron's definitions of these quantities? If he states that "something" cannot come from "nothing" then he must necessarily have a refined definition of both quantities, (something and nothing), to be able to positively make this statement. What are they?
Thank you, Bishop Barron for the video. I am a man of science and engineering. Stephen Hawking in the late 1990s declared that he would find a mathematical equation by the year 2000 that would explain everything that you find around. He lived long after 2000 but never gave any equation like that he claimed. Nevertheless he is the greatest mind of our time. He did not believe in God though he was given a Christian burial in Westminster abbey invoking God that he may be granted eternal rest and may his soul rest in peace. We in our lives have seen many ordinary people having deep and genuine faith. This only shows what is revealed to simple people some times is not revealed to brilliant individuals. Also it can be perceived that human mind however great it is cannot comprehend God.
Isn't there a part in Genesis(?) where God is an actual being that walked the Earth in The Garden of Eden? So, why can't we expect God to be in corporeal form? Or should we take it as metaphor, or something similar, rather than truth?
Kirk Graves To many of us, God still is ever present. you can laugh all you want. I'm telling you that I'm scientist. And engineer. I design things that fly and float and do many other things and know science. Science is not at odds with those of faith in God. But I'm very blessed to own an extremely beautiful piece of land - almost 300 acres with a mile of spring-fed stream and mountains and pastures. I can honestly assert that I feel the presence of God when I sit by the creek and watch the animals play like deer and wild turkey. I can feel the earth and a presence that is definitely not there in the city or in a parking lot at the facility where I work. I think "garden" is a good name for that. I have come to have faith in God not because I "need" an emotional safety net. I have come to have faith in God because I honestly feel "His" presence although I'm not one that believes in a "human" presence - a man with a white beard that sits on a gold throne. It is an ever present thing that is as real as your conscious being. So you have thoughts and feelings and are alive and have thoughts. It doesn't matter what you look like. I don't honestly believe God has physical form. But it is like the conscious being (some call it soul) of the earth. So your conscious being is housed in your physical being. God's being is everywhere in the physical world - the universe.So all that is to say that I do feel metaphorically like "God walks in the Garden" in nature - He is there if you look and wait and try to feel the presence. I have honestly felt it. But only when I'm alone in deep in the midst of my natural home. I go to church (I'm Catholic and I go to Mass) and it is a good time for me to worship. Honestly, I have never felt the presence of God in a church. So I understand people from urban places not understanding or having such experiences or knowing.I wish you (and all people) that experience.V/R, Kerry
The scientist is like the accountant who tells you how much money is in your bank account, and how interest compounded to get it there; he can't tell you who set up the account, and made the first deposit. That answer is solely explained by asking about someone, not some thing.
Mr Hawkins is a great scientist, who perfectly uses reason and the rules of the physics. Rules like cause and effect or that nothing can be created out of nothing or disappear into nothing. Yet, in one, singular case, Mr Hawkins is dishonest refusing to apply these rules - God. I suspect the source of it is anger at God for living the life of suffering he lives in. I wish, and I pray that instead of leading people astray he talked to God in honesty. That he told God how he is angry with Him, and demanded from God showing to him that God is really Love. This anger should not be directed at us, people, but at God with private conversation. God, I ask you, in the Name of Jesus, to give Mr Hawkins a clear sign, and invitation to this talk, and chance to repent and fall in love with You. Dear reader - if you can, and I am sure you do, please ask God the same for the sake of Mr Hawkins.
What a pile of nonsense, Grzegorz. Prof. Hawking (NOT HAWKINS!) is among the most brilliant cosmologists of our generation. He has made enormous contributions to our thinking about the Cosmos. If you had read his books, you would know that he merely observes that the Cosmos appears exactly as it would absent the existence of any of the tens of thousands of gods ever invented by humans, including your own particular god. Moreover, he shows us that in the absence of space-time, the concept of "causality" has no meaning whatever. That makes the 13th century arguments of the scholastics for the existence of their particular god, as well as their arguments for the extermination of those who do not accept their particular god, irrelevant, inconsequential, and meaningless.
What they mean 'Nothing' is actually 'God (in action)' only that they can't see the miracles happen. Even our own brain, thinking, feeling (hatred, love, intelligence, time, mind, etc) we can't see, fully understand and prove their existence so how can we claim ourselves to be humane. Only liar, desperate mind and the devil claim they are greater and smarter than God. They should be thankful and grateful to God who gives them great & intelligent mind/brain without which they are 'Nothing'.
All these modern Atheists are as dull as American-Fundamentalist Christians, if only we could produce interesting Atheists again, then we could have a proper intellectual debate.
I've come to the conclusion that atheists have concluded that one can not have an intellectual or rational conversation with theists; because if they could, there would be no theists.
Shane OShea Oh right, we would all just give up our religion when faced with the overwhelming arguments of the "new" atheists... I find just he opposite: when the "new" atheists give up their sneering and actually enter into argument, they get the worst of it.
Shane OShea while i disagree wit fr.barrons assessment on the ``new atheists``. i think it is a false thing to say that theists are not rational people because many of them are and many are smarter than atheists. a perfect example of this is fr.Barron or Scott Hahn and i hope that atheists including myself are actually trying to find the truth instead of placing ourselves above other people. as Socrates would say- the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing
I'd rather die as an arrogant (agnostic) atheist, than live a life as an ignorant theist. The former can live a life without dictation, the latter can't. The latter are also cowards.
Looks like an awful lot of critics are watching this video. Wonder why if they are so against a rational explanation of the existence of all matter. What did they expect when they decided to watch it?
The "new" atheists get furious when they come up against the sheer logic of the argument from contingency. It flies in the face of their prejudice that religious belief is irrational.
The reason why atheists watch this is that you must understand the other point of view in order to argue against it. Would you rather have no atheists watch this and have no beliefs questioned?
Oh, Robert, we skeptics don't become "furious." Rather we become amazed that supernaturalists can swallow such tripe. It amuses us. Skeptics don't have a "prejudice" that supernaturalism is irrational. Rather, we have abundant evidence for that conclusion, and frankly, so do you! When you, YOURSELF, consider the assertions of "other" supernaturalists, Robert, you consider their assertions in the light of our best, robust, broad, coherent, predictive, and falsifiable explanations about the Cosmos. If the assertions of other supernaturalists are incoherent with those explanations, you reject them, quickly and adamantly. Some supernaturalists actually kill each other over such disagreements. On the other hand, you consistently fail to apply the same criteria to your own magical assertions. You have a double standard. You apply science to the assertions of other supernaturalists. And then you apply no standard at all to your own assertions. One of millions of examples: You adamantly maintain that words said over bread convert it to a body. Billions of other supernaturalists think that you're delusional. Which is it? This never ceases to amaze me. And I find it amusing! Not infuriating at all.
Oh, Snoop...I've watched all of his videos on atheism, philosophy, etc. Barron is incapable of providing a robust, powerful, broad, falsifiable, predictive explanation for anything at all because supernaturalism is fundamentally irrational, based entirely on conjecture and assertion, as I've pointed out repeatedly. Still, if accepting the existence of your inconsequential, irrelevant 3-part god holds anxiolytic effect for you, based upon untold numbers of fairy tales, go for it! Who am I to deny you that palliation?
Do you actually believe that the plan in which God sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that mankind might be saved from God's hate through his love is more plausible than what Hawking proposes?
Of course not. The problem, friend, is that you've presented a silly caricature of Christian belief. Study some basic theology and then we'll try this conversation again.
Fr. Robert Barron Which part of it is wrong? According to the chuch official soteriology by Anselm of Canterbury, the second persona of the Holy Trinity incarnated on Earth to redeem the curse of sin brought upon mankind by Adam and Eve in garden. He gave himself as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the the sins of mankind - a vicarious atonement. I think every part of my original comment accords with this doctrine, it is just a more direct formulation of it.
sauniz1 Friend, you're using the words, but you have no idea what they mean! The doctrine of atonement is that God the Father sent his Son all the way to the limits of godfosakenness in order to bring the light of the divine love even to that darkest place. The entire purpose of the Incarnation was to save the human race, not to satisfy the divine anger. God's anger is a Biblical symbol evocative of his passion to set things right. The setting right is what happened through a sheerly generous act of love on God's part.
Fr. Robert Barron Your videos are helpful, but allow me to humbly say that the entire purpose of the Incarnation was to save the Cosmos, including all Creation, and not just the human race.
Fr. Robert Barron But why would the human race need saving if it was created by a perfect, omnipotent God? Why not just make us perfect in the first place?
Bishop Barron is on the ball as usual. Such a rational, logical commentator, so hard to refute. Thank you for defending the Catholic Church in an age of atheist unenlightenment.
Your interjecting science with philosophy, what Hawkins means is that due to the nature of Gravity it is possible that the universe could have come from nothing, but we still do not know what nothing is, nothing is a very odd concept. An atheist would and should say, I do not know, because we don't, the universe could have being eternal, maybe it did come from nothing, but who knows.
+SuperDuper gravity is 'something.' Your (and hawking's) argument really ends up being circular, rather than explanatory of anything. I recommend the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin singularity theorem as a much better understanding of the universe and its beginning.
In regards to physics and cosmology, Bishop Barron is an intellectual featherweight and Stephen Hawking is a heavyweight. When it comes to philosophy and theology, Bishop Barron is a heavyweight and Stephen Hawking is a featherweight. Conclusion? The heavyweight champs should stick to fighting their own weight class in their own league.... because when a 150 lbs amateur steps into a boxing ring with a 275 lbs professional, it ends badly for him. My point? Bishop Barron does not embarras himself publicly by pontificating on subjects outside his expertise. So Stephen Hawking should note the Bishops example, and stop standing on his soapbox and making proclamations regarding things which he is clearly neither trained in nor even an authority on. When Stephen Hawking talks theology it's embarrassing to see his level of ignorance paraded as insightful exegesis. The comment on gravity existing, therefore there is no god, is so utterly incoherent, embarrasing, ignorant, outrageous, it really doesn't warrant a response by a theological heavyweight like His Excellency Bishop Barron.
No human mind is of sufficient cognitive weight to answer the ultimate question why is there something rather than nothing. Hawking is not heavyweight enough and neither is Bishop Barron. So nobody should pretend to expertise in something that cannot be known. Hawking can suggest an answer based on his training in science and Bishop Barron can suggest an answer from his religious training but ultimately the only answer that rings true for me is "I don't know".
Goalie thats not true since the question why is there something rather than nothing is categorized as a philosophical question not scientific so bishop barron has more weight to his arguements than stephen hawking since hawking is ignorant or less familiar with philosophy than bishop barron
Hawking would say it is a question for science since according to him something can come from nothing - it sounds absurd but I'm not in a position to argue since I'm not a genius with a lifetime of training in physics. Religionists like the Bishop would say that something can't come from nothing. God is the cause. For me the obvious question to ask is where did God come from? The Bishop would undoubtedly say God is the uncaused cause. This answer always has always struck me as a little too convenient. My position is that I don't know and neither do you.
Sarah Prewara and the roles are reversed when you consider that Bishop Barron is probably one of the greatest modern-day theologians while Hawking's narrow-mindedness has blinded him to alternative realities. the very nature of string theory dictates that there must be laws of force in the universe we had not even begun to understand. how can you dismiss something when you don't even understand the very nature of his existence.
Sarah: Kindly provide the VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that assessing the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE (MULTIVERSE) is NOT a scientific question. Thank you for your reply, which will undoubtedly be thoughtful, filled with verifiable evidence, extremely well supported, and mathematically reliable.
so you do not get any modern physics and believe you should ridicule Hawking when he does talk about physics (being pretty much self contained without any need for a supernatural add on creation)... now that is pretty stupid actually
Friend, the point is that he's not talking about physics when he speculates about why there is something rather than nothing. That is a metaphysical, not a scientific, question.
If you understand what Hawking refers to as nothing you are dishonest. If you do not you might try to start with ''A universe from nothing'' by Krauss which addresses that not in detail but that is why you can actually read it without a degree in physics and maths plus post graduate work in modern physics. ''The grand design'' sadly does not even realy touch the problem - probably because of how much effort Hawking has to put in every single word nowadays, do not know how he collaborates with Mlodinow. And it is neither a slight of hand to discuss about what nothing means nor is it trivial but it is indeed pretty central to all philosophy in the face of modern physics/ cosmology. What fields (not realy...) do that have nothing but the possibility to spawn an instance of a set of laws of nature is at the center of that problem and also no one has come up with experiments the theorists themself already work with consistency constraints that make the theories much more likely than traditional philosophy or theology has come up in ignorance of the last hundred years of physics. The problem with philosophers often is that they think they own a term's definition not being rattled by science making their old definitions nonsensical.
Hawking can speculate all he wants about philosophical questions. It's a free country. But he can't expect total deference when he ventures into areas beyond his expertise. The question you and he are avoiding is how to explain the existence of a contingent thing. The endless appeal to other contingent things provides no coherent answer. And Mr. Reason, if "the invisible looks exactly like the non-existent," you've just ruled out all of mathematics!
Bishop Robert Barron Well as the events in Turkey will keep me awake anyways I'll give it a try. One point I would like to make right away is that Hawking does not speculate at all (with regards to the proposed need for a creator). He states correctly that physics has reached the maternity to provide a system that works without a creator. Of course one can still opt to believe in one but no such entity is necessary and if not necessary most educated people tend to agree that the theory (well about god I would say hypothesis because I think theology does not qualify as a whole theory where M-Theory does) that does not postulate an unnecessary entity is the better one. Next point: He does not venture any inch from his center of expertise. He is one of the greatest minds in cosmology ever since the time of his PhD-Thesis. His ontology just happens to be evidence-based rather than on intuition (that sadly fails us all [even Harking] when it comes to quantum mechanics [and I suppose string theory, too - I am a bit to dumb for string theory I guess...]) -: You postulate the need of a first cause I guess. That is intuition but it is actually quite obviously false as this includes the naive understanding of causality and well - that is precisely what breaks down at the beginning of time (and there does not need to be a before that, that notion is intuitively appealing but nonsensical given what we know with pretty good certainly about the very early universe). Besides that even the intuition ends with either infinite regress or nonsensical Voodoo a la William Lane Craig defining meaningless properties of what that creator should need to be. Further elaboration on that one: Actually causality breaks down all the time if you look carefully or at a place with strong gravity, that is strong space time curvature. So in both well tested domains of physics the very basis of applying intuition is simply not there. You actually need to do the maths and live with what you get (as it over and over again correctly predicts the completely unintuitive results of your experiments [best tested theories of all]). Nope, maths does not need time, space or space time (though I certainly cannot demonstrate you how that works, but the publications are all public and the resent ones even freely accessible on the internet such as via arxiv.org/). Indeed it was even pretty difficult to find a meaningfull way to introduce time which I guess you'll need for contingent events, that is causality? Entrophy is the concept to look for to get a useful handle on that one. Around that one there are quite a few good books to be red and most of them are not really about thermodynamics. But I might miss the intended meaning of your last statement ''the invisible looks exactly like the non-existent, you've just ruled out all of mathematics''. If that is not supposed to be what I refute in my previous paragraph then I would like you to try to reformulate, please.
Erik, you are talking to an catholic, so please, dont try to state facts to him. He is not able to comprehend them, he actually dont want to. The question of something that comes from nothing is not a philosiphical question at all, because the result is our universe and thats physical, it can be measured and mathematical explained. So the premise that something comes from nothing is clearly a physical and mathematical, or in short therme a scientifical question. But Robert claimes the question is a philosophical one, because he think thats the way he can uphold his faith in a creator. I think, every time science discovers some new field, a new theory or a new method, theologians like our friend Robert instantaneous start to claim this new thing has its origin in his gods realm. If we stop publishing any new scientific findings, his god would not reveal anything new from that very moment. Here in germany, the universitys have a chair for eatch religious faith thats big enough to have an impact on society. These "scientific bodys" has started an attempt to sneak into the real science by claiming, that science and religion are equal and in need of eatch other. This morons are stiring her invisible soup since millenia and could not come up with on idea that holds water, so they try to jump on the science-train to make it in the next level by simply free ride. And if a scientific finding does not fit into the "god is the answer-delusion", they have the effrontery to reinterpret the origin of the question or claiming to know whats right without even understand the subject. Thats the way religion works and thats his honesty in a nutshell.
LogicalAtheismRising Well so what?! "Science" as such has nothing to say about the ultimate cause of the being of the finite world. The sciences are designed to analyze things and events within the empirical world. They haven't a thing to say about why there is something rather than nothing. That's a philosophical question.
+Bishop Robert Barron Fr. Barron, could you please explain to me how the lack of scientific evidence for the formation of the Universe is actual definitive proof that God exists? It seems to me that if scientists are struggling to prove how the universe was created, the argument must stop there; We don't know how it was created. It seems like quite the logical leap to conclude that, since scientists have not yet explained the formation of the Universe, that God must exist, and not only that, He created it. It feels like you're just using lack of evidence as actual proof of your point rather than putting forth definitive evidence God created the Universe.
+Anonymous Dude Astrophysics? The study of physics, chemistry, and objects within the universe. Everything of which is within empirical world. Your statement makes no sense
Scientists will probably stop commenting on philosophical subjects like whether there is a god or not, when theists stop misusing science to try & prove there is one. I'll take the explanations that psysicist's like Hawking gives us over a 2000 year old myth, any day.
So saying something came from nothing is a silly argument? Yet you can't apply that logic to God? Also, great strawman, nobody is saying something came from nothing and that's how the Universe was made, anybody who gives that answer doesn't actually understand the science. The fact is, we don't know how the Universe was made, the Big Bang describes a situation where a compressed ball of energy blew up and the energy was ejected outward. That isn't something coming from nothing, that's something coming from something. If you want to talk about where this energy came from, we simply don't know. And saying that is a medieval superstition? No, that's called being rational. We don't know where the singularity came from, there are a few theories, but none of them are backed by any real evidence. But to say that the rational thing to do would be then to make up a reasons, is ridiculous. It's classic God of the gaps, we don't know therefor God. We didn't know why Humans were being held onto the Earth, people assumed it was because of God, we discovered gravity. We didn't know why the tides went in and out, we assumed God, it turned out to be the Moon. So where everything came from is more than likely going to have a non-theistic explanation that could be explained scientifically and would probably follow a set of rules with predictive elements, since that is what happened with literally every other mystery we solved. "Magic sky daddy poofing everything into existence" is not a reasonable explanation. In almost none of your videos, you use actual science to prove your positions, you always use semantics and baseless assumptions. If you're trying to preach to the choir, than your fine, if you're trying to change minds, you are doing a miserable job at it. You go after these geniuses who use science to back their claims, and respond without using any actual science, just distorting what they say and throwing it back at them, and end up looking like a total moron.
You clearly didn't understand what Bishop Barron is trying to get across in the video, albeit it isn't a simple concept. First off the question of "then where did god come from" is redundant, because that is one of the biggest questions the existence of a creator, it's is said that God is "the alpha and the omega, what is, has been, and forever shall be". Also, while you are right that the God of the gaps is a shoddy argument, that is not how God works with science. If a mechanic was looking at a Model-T, and eventually fully understands it's workings, that mechanic isn't going to say, "I understand how this car works, therefore Henry Ford never existed." That would be stupid.
paranoidwaffles65. No I understood it, but the typical defense of this guy is "you just didn't understand him" no I understood him, you just don't have a reasonable defense. Life isn't as complex and put together as a car, we came as a result of millions of other species dying, it didn't take a million cars to create the model T.
+purpandorange the model T analogy isn't about life, it's about the whole universe, and yes it does simplify things a bit, but if I didn't, it wouldn't be a good analogy. But you still have not made a actual refutation, you are just saying his argument is bad
paranoidwaffles65. I refuted it thoroughly in my comment. Nobody says something came from nothing, they say that we don't know because we haven't gotten that far back. But science says it doesn't know, religion just makes stuff up and uses unscientific methods to back it up. If you don't think that's true than give me evidence of God that is testable, repeatable, and has predictive qualities.
+Standfor Reason if theists were to use the argument that " we don't know where we came from therefore God" what is the difference that atheists say "we don't know where we came from therefore nothing"
This dude is off base. The Scientific statement that the world seems to need no creator is only pointing out the state of physical knowledge. That is completely within Stephen Hawking's purview as a scientist. If you are sane, and religious, then you will simply make sure that your religious claims do not contradict the world as it is. For all we know, Hawkings may have rational religious views.
they Don't though. All Barron is saying is that scientism is dangerous. If the idea of justice contradicts science, which would you believe? of course science has no basis on this argument, but it's still something to think about. And the idea that the universe came from nothing is a philosophical argument, thus as a scientist Hawking has no right to make the claim. We don't even know what gravity is. we know how it works but that's the end of it. Stating that this thing we still know nothing about is the reason why everything came from nothing, you better be able to back it up.
+ItsThatGuy1989 No idea what scientism means. If it means all meaningful human questions can be solved by science, then I agree that's ridiculous. Science does not attempt to give meaning. We make our own meaning, and seems to me it's best if that meaning doesn't contradict objective reality. Stephen Hawking describes and reflects upon objective reality, exactly as a scientist ought too. What do you think he ought to be doing? This religious guy gets defensive, because objective reality messes with his mythology. That's the problem with fundamentalism.
+ItsThatGuy1989 You suggest we know almost nothing. That's a very relative statement. Contrariwise, looking at the enormous power wielded via scientific knowledge, you could argue we know an unbelievable amount. I think the next step as a species is to develop stories/mythologies or even adaptations of the old mythologies which are inclusive, and allow us to function harmoniously with each other and nature. But that's just my preference.
+ItsThatGuy1989 don't get me wrong. I'm not using the terms myth dismissively or saying there's no truth to them. I suspect they have great truth, but the kind that can be understood on the psychological, archetypal level. Tremendously important perhaps, but not easily studied objectively. Subjective truths perhaps?
+Rs 225 the problem is that science can't explain that. it can't explain why we have conciousness or other things. science is strictly empirical. Of course it explains a tremendous amount on the scale of matter such as atoms, evolution, etc. But it says nothing about what we as humans think. Scientism is the belief that science and science alone can tell us everything we need to know. Father Barron is being defensive because these popular scientists are basically insulting the ideas of philosophy and theology, which are much, much older than modern science, in turn making the general population believe that philosophy isn't relevant today.
Strawmen and nonsense. The universe came from nothing is being researched heavily. You have to define "nothing," first and foremost, and then understand the physics behind such a notion. It's rational and plausible. Quantum field theory would dictate that something would arise from its potential. Time and space exist within the universe, not the universe within them. Even more interesting is that the total sum energy of the universe equates to zero, which would also uphold the law of conservation of energy. As for philosophy and understanding "something" and "nothing," it's not really relevant, because you have no way of demonstrating anything beyond material reality, so why should we care about your opinions on the matter?
What you’re basically arguing is that “nothing” due to its quantum qualities is not nothing at all. That’s nice, but you see the problem is that you cant count a “thing” or “quality” as being part of “nothing” just because it is quantum. Quantum by definition is some”thing” at the smallest possible levels. So when you bring up the quantum or any potential you are not talking about truly “nothing” but some-thing. It really isnt that hard to grasp, the idea of nothing - you cant say nothing is nothing when there is something there.
Hawkin said at the time just before the "Big Bang" time was non existent, as it is in a Black Hole. He gives all sorts of equations, physics, and other egghead gobbledygook answers - BUT what's on the other side??? No one Knows! So to say there could not have been a god or deity because time didn't exist at or before the Big Bang is a little short sighted and at best a guess - What is on the other side???? Another Universe? Maybe even GOD! Just because he can't see beyond where time, as we know it, stops doesn't mean nothing is there. It might be that we may not be able to recognize the forces that are the cause - yet. Like the Bishop says Nothing begets Nothing. So explain how or what ignited the Big Bang... What was the catalyst?.....If you say gravity caused it then there was something there. So what created the gravity? Then he's wrong so far as there was NOTHING there! Remember what the scientists don't know and comment on is theory. AND Nothing More than Theory until proven! I remember someone said Einstein's Theory E=MC2 was irrelevant then a few years later found out that it was relevant. All I do know is that Stephen Hawkins and other atheists are all dressed up with no place to go when they die! JMO
+Sophia Perennis - You have yet to demonstrate anything in support of your claim. You appealed to authority, of which is illogical to boot. Further, you then posit spacetime is something anything could be outside of to begin with. The universe is defined as totality, all that is, and space and time are affects of the universe (not the other way). Therefore, by definition, NOTHING can be outside the universe, not even a god. It's a logical fallacy to claim otherwise. If you claim your god is part of totality, then how can it create what it itself exists within? If it is not, you've not demonstrated anything for its existence.
+Patrick Kruger - A black hole is a singularity that exists due to the nature of spacetime in correlation with gravity. We don't know how physics behave beyond the event horizon, so to posit otherwise is nonsense right now. Is there another side to a point? So why are you asking what's on the "other side" of a black hole? The "catalyst" of the big bang was quantum potential. I'm not about to teach you physics here. Dr. Lawrence Krauss can talk ad nauseam about this topic. YT search some of his videos on "something from nothing." He's done lectures that can explain the ideas to you.
+Hebert Moran - You are horribly misinformed on quantum mechanics. "Quantum physics" gets its name due to the nature of reality at the microscopic level having discrete, quantized properties. Our understanding and observations of quantum effects is entirely contrary to our understanding of the meso- and macroscopic world. When discussing the potential of the quantum state, we can literally be talking about nothing. There can be literal no thing to describe, not even space-time itself. You can research virtual particles to get a bit more understanding of what something from nothing can literally be. They do not violate our known laws of physics, yet they pop in and out of existence on time scales less than Plank time. They "borrow" energy, as it were, from the potential of the quantum nature of reality, and return it before an actionable amount of time in Plank time within the universe. Dr. Lawrence Krauss has lectures and information you can find on YT here discussing "something from nothing."
How do you know what electricity is..."for sure"? The answer is NO ONE knows what electricity is. Don't believe me? Go to your local university and sit down with a physicist. We have no idea what it is but yet we trust it because we can see the results of it, by the fruit it bears.
No. In both of the cases you cite, it was Aristotle's Physics that was at issue. Metaphysics entertains an entirely different kind of question. Modern science, no matter how successful or "elegant," is no substitute for metaphysics.
terrance mckenna once said "modern science is based on the logic of "give us one free miracle," and we will explain the rest." and the free miracle is the creation of all matter and energy in the universe from nothing for no reason.
Words created the universe. They cannot explain that gravity does not exist before creation - gravity does not cause the universe to "recreate" itself. That which creates universes is a word from the Word.
I don't have to know it in order to get the argument underway. All I have to know is that you're contingent. Now please tell me exactly where you think this philosophical demonstration fails. And please stop with the pseudo-sophisticated science, which has nothing in itself to do with the argument under consideration.
Not a waste of time, but a drive to learn. We know God. He revealed Himself through His Son. The growing number of Catholics/Christians intelligence on the subject of God's existence is growing and exciting. I choose not to engage without informing myself, as I've been guilty of arguing against premises that sometimes weren't even the premises themselves. I enjoy listening to Catholic Answers, especially the programs for Atheist call-ins only. Don't give up, trust God to help with what you need.
So Catholicism hasn't changed much since the patristic period! Friend, take a look at even the simplest, most cursory treatment of Church history, and you'll see that your position is utterly untenable. I might recommend as well a look at the documents of Vatican II.
@@idankpoaugustine1983 Read a lot of books on the emergence of spirituality and religion. How everything comes from shamanism. How Judaism adopted creed and myths from the kingdoms under which they lived, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians etc... so basically the religion one follows is just built on a preceding religion. Hence all religions are right or all are wrong. Personally Catholicism was no longer a help in life but a hindrance or an unneeded crutch. So I decided to pursue the best life I could based on the education and principles provided by my family but not because of eternal damnation or eternal bliss... I do what I can, I try to stay in the path of my morals and ethics because it is the only human thing I can do in this life. Apologies for my English I am a non native speaker.
The most honest thing would be to admit we don't know. And this is why in modern minds, science is breaking new ground. Because science seeks truth through reality, and thus brings us new knowledge. At the end of the day, Bishop Barron's definition of God is simply a subjective game of semantics. We may use our infinite imagination to identify and explore new frontiers, but imagination alone is not reality.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 Yes, and maybe one day we will truly understand this phenomena from a scientific perspective. It seems to me that mind and body are one, and so it's not entirely surprising that as a species we experience similar elements of our imagination.
This is all a red-herring. I'm not denying for a moment the influence of Islam or classical thought. I'm just resisting your complete caricature of Christianity as the opponent of reason and science. The modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of Christian universities. Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, etc. all learned their physics, astronomy, and mathematics at Church-sponsored centers of learning.
I am a STEM graduate and researcher. I was also a former atheist who started believing in God after I studied science. I don't think I'm alone in this.
+jaranarm No sir, you are not alone. Our numbers are growing larger everyday. Unfortunately, we are still facing severe bullying from the "atheist" science community; try sharing publicly how you reached your conclusion and you will be labelled ignorant, uneducated and "unscientific" to the point of dismissal from your position.
+Luiz Matteo
Thanks for the support. I am often ridiculed for my belief. After converting I later discovered it was the Catholic Church that established the university and endorsed scientific learning. It was Catholic priests such as Copernicus, Bacon, Magnus, Steno, Grimaldi, Mendel, Lemaitre, and Boscovich who pushed the envelope of scientific knowledge and exploration, all while the atheists did absolutely nothing. Modern civilization as we know it was made possible because of the Church. Studying science led me to God. It was meant to be.
Amen :)
*****
Western civilization as we know it today was made possible because of the Church, when all the nations of Europe were united under the Catholic faith that paved the way toward modernization and scientific discovery. This led to the Golden Age of Europe, an explosion of cultural development in the Western world. That is all the evidence you need to know what man's belief in God has done for society. Now what has atheism done to Europe? Created a largely apathetic generation, greater emphasis on accumulation of material wealth, and with less and less people having families they currently have the lowest birth rates and fastest shrinking populations in the world. In other words, a dying civilization. Remove the religious morale of a nation and society disintegrates.
*****
No, YOU are the one that has history completely wrong. And I'm going to deal with your ignorant nonsense, one point at a time:
The Galileo case is often cited as anti-Church propaganda, when in fact it is totally distorted. The world's leading astronomers at the time were Catholic priests and the Church funded scientists like Galileo. What got him in trouble was that he was passing off theories as facts when they had not been proven yet. The Church was not opposed to any scientific discovery, they were opposed to Galileo wrongfully teaching a theory as 100% fact without conclusive evidence. Therefore they barred him from further teaching.
The Catholic Church was one of the first major institutions to recognize that slavery is wrong. The idea that the Church did not oppose slavery until the 1800s is another anti-Church myth. As early as the year 1435 the Church under Pope Eugene IV had already condemned slavery, long before Europe even started colonizing the New World. This would happen again in 1537 under Pope Paul III, and so forth. Whenever the Church found out of enslavement and mistreatment, particularly in the Americas, they fought against it. It's not their fault if the people did not listen.
And the idea that atheism makes no claims is completely false. I am a former atheist. Being an atheist means your position is that no gods exist, period. Maybe you should reconsider what you label yourself as before you decide over what you THINK you are.
You must be joking if you think Western civilization would have gotten anywhere without the Catholic Church. The Golden Age of Europe occurred when Europe was the Church, and the Church was Europe. This led to an explosion of EVERYTHING within modern civilization as we know it: art, literature, language, architecture, music, cuisine, fashion, education, law, science, morality, chivalry, etc. Western civilization was built and maintained by Godly men led by the Church, not atheists. Atheists accomplished NOTHING.
We have the university system today because of the Church. We have the modern hospital because of the Church. We have today's calendar because of the Church. The Church created ALL of these things. You honestly believe we would have the beautiful European architecture without the Church? You honestly think Leonardo da Vinco and Michelangelo would have painted The Last Supper and The Sistine Chapel (the two most famous and most replicated works of art in human history) without their Catholic beliefs? You think that The Lord of the Rings (a Catholic influenced story and is the world's best-selling novel of all time written by the devout Catholic author JRR Tolkien) would have been written without Catholic influence? You think composers Mozart and Beethoven (the two most recognized musicians in world history) would have written their famous operas, pastorales, and sonatas if they weren't aligned with their Catholic faith? No way. These men lived and breathed for God, King, and Country, unlike the lazy reactionary atheists who contributed absolutely NOTHING.
What greatness has atheism done for mankind? Atheists are responsible for many of the worst atrocities and genocides in human history. There will NEVER be a successful nation built on atheism, EVER. All you have to do is look at what happened in France under the Jacobites, when the atheist-led Reign of Terror slaughtered 40,000 people in a 15 month period. Or in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia when the atheist Marxists butchered tens of millions of Russian Christians. Or how about Enver Hoxha's Albania, the first nation to become officially atheist, and their mass slaughters over just a few decades. Or the atheist Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of the Turkish Nationalist Movement and his murderous campaigns of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Or the atheist-run Khmer Rouge and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. Or the hundreds of unjust executions which continue today in atheist China and North Korea. The list of horrors goes on and on and on.
The Church itself has never endorsed the persecution of homosexuals, unlike the atheistic governments of Stalin, Mao, and Castro who punished homosexuality as criminal offenses. I guess you never heard of the famous artist Andy Warhol, an open homosexual AND an openly devout Catholic who was never persecuted by the Church but instead was warmly welcomed for his faith. That's all that matters. Warhol is one of the most famous artists of the 20th century. So where are all the famous atheist artists out there? Or musicians? Or scientists? They're NOWHERE to be found.
Atheists cannot prove that God does not exist, even if they used the scientific method (whose origins were first formulated by the Catholic priest Roger Bacon, by the way). Atheism is nothing but a reactionary stance. If civilization was made in spite of religious belief, then why didn't atheists lead modernization of the Western world? Because they can't and they historically have done nothing but leech off societies that were built by Godly men, those who actually established cultures and traditions of arts, mathematics, sciences, and philosophies that YOU are enjoying today, things that atheists could never ever dream of. Religion has been the driving force behind ALL of mankind's achievements. You can never remove religiosity from the human mind, that is where atheists will always fail. Atheists are simply incapable of creating, inheriting, or maintaining culture and civilization, PERIOD. All atheist nations have withered away and died for a reason.
"You believe because you have seen. But, blessed are those who believe and have not seen." John, Chapter 20: Verse 29.
Huntgoddessfishery , and Bishop Barron says that faith is not belief without evidence. SMH
@Mr. Davidson i can't bear this !
its ridiculous , no atheist can say that they are scientific if they cancel out the potential for a God or something beyond us, because it is unscientific to say somethings false when it hasn't be proved or disproved. plus why do you believe that love exits? its belief, not provable , not arguable.
I'm up for healthy debate but when people start acting like they have the TRUTH making their opinion more valid than others and calling the fools your in a bad position (and that goes for everyone, with any beliefs).
Christianity is a hope and a happy way to live someones life, and yes its not provable but its just kinda sad that you have to such a raincloud. let them live, in peace.
And one day you'll open your eyes to see that actually christianity generates a lot of happiness and the teachings art all that "foolish".
so in conclusion until you can except everyone from around the world then you have no right to call anything foolish.
I believed before I saw Him, I did not even have the privilege to kneel and worship Him when He appeared to me. I was just happy and at peace. He did not say anything.🙏😌 Blessed be the Lord 🙏😍
Blessed are those who choose to live as a blind slave who habe had not but suffering and the sins of their all loving father enforced upon their previously pure soul so that being can hold up the antidote for the thing it poisoned you with at birth.. sounds like a demon to me
@@benoe568 atheists merely state that theres no good reason to believe in a thing with no evidence to support its existence. You poor simple minded slave.
Eloquently and calmly dismantles Hawkings' argument, and finally uplifts and inspires. Thank you so much Bishop Barron! God bless
Barron is not fit nor capable to speak about Hawking's theories.
@@johnbrown6189 He makes much more sense than Hawking ever did!
@@johnbrown6189Hawking knows better now!!
And said oops!!!!
Too late! You will follow suit!
@@davido3026 thanks for another example of a theist lying. Steven Hawing was an atheist. He did say he felt the universe had meaning. Not that he was on his way to heaven.
Father Barron....you are absolutely one of the most intelligent voices in Catholicism today. Having said this, Hawking teaches us that even remarkable intelligence does not preclude human beings from finding ways to exist on their own. I thank you for using your immense intelligence to proclaim truth with accuracy, gentleness, and beauty.
God bless you!
Joseph Lazar
As an atheist, this really upsets me. Not just what he is saying, but the reaction of the comments thinking how smart he is.
He's an intelligent guy, but is exerting the human weaknesses of the "need of understanding".
He's claiming to have to truth here. The only truthful answer in the "why is there something rather than nothing" is we don't know.
WE DONT KNOW!!
Let's us our human brain capacity to find out the answer, not filling in an answer.
Robbert, you just filled in an answer here and said your right...
Fish Tank Vlogs you missed the whole point of the video man
Yes, Fish Tank Viogs: More broadly, the Universe (multi-Verse) exists and behaves PRECISELY as we'd expect absent any of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped by human beings, including Barron's 3-part god.
While science actually doesn't care whether Barron's god exists, we do understand scientifically that any such god, should it exist, is irrelevant and inconsequential.
I would like a more definitive answer on how the child abuse is occurring, and what relation it has to repression.
A little science estranges man from God, but much science leads them back to him. - Louis Pasteur
sciencetrumpsfaith Did you even watch the video? Of course there's no scientific evidence for God. You're not going to find the creator within the creation.
That's because science deals with empirical evidence. That is, evidence based on our senses (sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing).
That's not to say that there is no evidence though. There exists philosophical evidence, based on reason, for God's existence. An example of this is the the argument of contingency stated in the video.
sciencetrumpsfaith Life after death is a completely different topic. And not all religions agree on that subject. Here's a fun fact: Not once in the Old Testament is the afterlife brought up. Judaism is silent on it. And there are differing opinions on it when it is brought up in the New Testament.
The point however, is that there is evidence for the existence of God, it's just that that evidence does not belong to the realm of science. Rather it's a philosophical question.
sciencetrumpsfaith So you're one of those "scientistic" people eh? Well then there's no point arguing then. I can't give you evidence if you flat out reject said evidence's entire school of thought.
Use your head. Things are contingent right? Things are dependent on other things for their existence. Well what happens when you trace the origin of things? What's the source? It can't be another contingent thing, otherwise it would be an endless chain. That's just postponing the answer.
So the beginning has to start with an incontingent thing. That is, something which contains within itself it's reason for being. Now that incontingent thing, or unmoved mover as Aristotle put it, is what serious people call God.
Not "god" as you atheists, so often mistakenly write, but "God" with a capital G. If you need clarification on the difference I'd be happy to explain.
sciencetrumpsfaith And the matter of God is not just of life after death. If that were the case, why would the Hebrew Bible not mention it at all? That's because the afterlife and God are two separate concepts and the former should only be argued after the latter is first established. If you want evidence, read some classical and medieval philosophy.
sciencetrumpsfaith Yes you're right. Our ignorance is called "god". Which is precisely why I said "God". There is a distinction, the Abrahamic religions stress this. But as for the universe being incontingent, that I'm not so sure of. Does the universe contain within itself it's essence, or reason for being? Why is there a universe at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? I'm afraid science can't answer that. It can explain how it got here, what it's made of but not why it's exists in the first place.
As for who created "God", well by its very definition, no one did. That's why he's incontingent. If he was contingent, then whoever made him would by definition be "God", and the former would never have had that name to begin with. So God is just the name we give to the first cause of things. Again like Aristotle put it, the unmoved mover.
Proud to be a Catholic with great minds like this. Embarrassed to say I never knew of Bishop Barron before this.
God bless you!
God bless you Bishop Robert Barron
Ok boomer
Dylan Harding So you liked the video!
God bless you!
@@BishopBarron Great great video. Loved it!
As an atheist philosophy student, I enjoy your videos, Bishop Barron. I agree with your criticisms of modern atheism. Keep spreading your words, they do good to all of us.
Mr Peapolop refreshing to see you can be open-minded enough to listen carefully and critically to his points and arguments. May your search for truth lead you to Truth
Mr Peapolop being open minded they way you are and not letting your ego get the best of you it’s definitely going to lead you to the truth, keep that way, if you seek you shall find
@@vashnanerada8757 Calling God the non-contingent ground of contingency doesn't imply that a magic man in the sky is causing things to happen. Have you listened to his argument?
Atheists like to choose their words wisely...while Christians use the Word of God _-|-_
@@jeziscricket4448 The fool in his heart says there is no God.
Father Barron is right on the button, science can only discover that which exists within the universe, not outside the universe
How do you know that Darren? Kindly provide the verifiable evidence for your silly assertion.
Darren Harte I
Naturalism Forever because science is the literal study of the physical OBSERVABLE universe. One cannot explore or observe beyond the universe, therefore, one cannot use science to explain the existence of God. One must use philosophical and metaphysical methods to come to the existence of God. If you sincerely believe that science can explain everything, then you are surely mistaken. Science cannot tell you the figurative and emotional aspects of a beautiful painting or frame from a film. Science cannot tell you the abstract.
Yet, Davis, the verifiable evidence remains enormous, and breathtakingly convincing: the Universe (Multiverse) exists and behaves PRECISELY, COMPLETELY, EXACTLY, AND PREDICTABLY as we would expect ABSENT any of the tens of thousands of gods, including the 3-part god, ever worshipped or invented or postulated or defined by humankind throughout its 250,000 years of existence as a species. Given such, none of those tens of thousands of gods, including the 3-part god, is consequential or relevant, whether or not one or more exists.
Naturalism Forever I’m no scientist and not well educated so please waste none of your time trying to teach this pig to sing.
Could absolutely everything spontaneously arise from absolutely nothing?
I’m looking for a yea or a nay.
Great video my parents recommended these to me cause my faith has been tested a lot moving from a private to a public school keep doing what ur doing I love them!
Hey Gabe, I'm Daniel, write any time.
Great that "your faith" is being "tested" Gabe!! That means that you have begun to THINK! And with thinking, you will eventually come to unfettered inquiry, and then to verifiable evidence, and finally to robust, coherent, broad, powerful, predictive explanations. And with that....WITH THAT....you will awaken from your delusion!
@@naturalismforever3469 Gay
Hello Gabe, your parents can or Nothing help one to improve one's faith. But the faith, as concept is inserted in almost 95% of population, as resource to build up one's life... No clue.
You understand, dude.
The universe is a puppet show. When a character makes its appearance from behind the curtain or from above the stage, the observer doesn't ask where it came from. But it does come from somewhere. The scientist is the play observer, the philosopher is the observer of the production itself.
Very well said and distinguishing
Thank you, Fr. Barron!!!
I'm a scientist. But live in a very rural place. On a very beautiful place. I studied in graduate school to get a PhD in physics. I'm a mathematician as well. I talk with scientists often and most are people with very limited lives and experiences. Most scientists that I know sit in an office in a city and have no idea what life and earth is like. They experience little beyond mathematical equations and they algebraically manipulate mathematical symbols and try to find meaning to them in terms of the observable universe. And they make up things based on their equations. But none of it is real. String theory for example. Anyone that understands modern cosmology knows that it is built on a house of cards. Experimentally.
So they should live in the earth and go about and feel it and they would hopefully at some point feel the existence of God. I have felt it. I know many have felt it. I know God is there and have felt Him.
Science has not yet matured to the point of capturing that part of the very real universe. These so called "great minds of science" are really no more than mathematical extremists that know nothing outside of their little equations. They often suffer from what is called the "savant syndrome". So they are not sufficiently balanced to have good judgement. I can tell you that Hawking and others that I've met are mostly just guessing when they assert something.
The spiritual world is real and God is real. It's not hard to find Him if you look and wait and listen for Him.
Kerry Wagner Very good point and position. This is why I can't stand people like Richard Dawkins. He's a brilliant scientist and biologist - no question. But he's not a Philosopher nor a Theologian yet he arrogantly feels that he has the right to argue the position of atheism solely on scientific principles.
380PPK Thanks for your message. Yeah, I agree totally. In fact as a scientist myself, I can assert that most of our current science stands precariously on a house of cards. There have been many examples that the initial proposition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution has been rigorously disproved. And, by the way, Darwin's Theory is not a theory as Einstein's Theory of Relatively is. It is a proposition that cannot be tested to validation. It is a set of propositions that have been disproved but the academicians firmly rooted career-wise and professionally in that theory won't accept the indisputable data.Same with most of stellar evolution and cosmology.Oh, well, such is how it is. But thanks much to Fr. Barron!!!
Kerry Wagner
Until we are all automatons, we will always have Liberals, Conservatives and everything in between and beyond. There will always be jealousy , prejudice greed. I believe that the worst of all, and the most harm humans cause other humans, is a result of selfishness.
We need each other, that has always been obvious. Coexisting, has always been difficult to state the least.
Diversity within all of existence and or creation is clearly embraced by facts, truth, reality and logic. There have always been some humans that have various issue/s with aspects of that.
+Kerry Wagner the house of cards you speak of sent a satellite to Pluto, a robot car to Mars, a man to the moon, a nuclear sub that doesn't need refueling for years, built dams, made vaccines, made glasses, printed books, made iphones and computers that are full of information that at the touch of a button is handed to the reader, showed us that the earth is warming, and created something called math... that little thing allows us to make predictions that actually come true.... In my life I have heard at least 10 times that the earth is coming to an end. We were given dates and times.... yet here we are on a sunday morning laughing at the tom foolery that is religion.
+ron johnson Yeah, I understand what you say. But those things (EVERYONE of them) you speak of are NOT science. They are engineering. Funny thing is that I am also a quite accomplished engineer. I've spent the last 5 years of my professional career functioning as the Chief Systems Engineer for an advanced engineering research lab with 4000 scientists, engineers, and support staff and annual revenues of over $1B. I'm not speaking of engineering but rather the pure science as a house of cards. Maybe you should try to understand more and even ask what I mean before you formulate opinions. So you need to spend more time reading and trying to understand things around you. Then come online and comment about things which you have no idea about.Thanks
I translated to portuguese this wonderful "lecture". Could you approve it? It may help many brazilians.
eu acho foi muito bom!
He is not the graetest or biggest scientist, great....he was arrogant and mediatc.
Obrigado, cara!
Obrigado irmão, abraço em Cristo de Portugal
I would like to do the same for spanish speakers, could you please tell what program to use to make the subtitles?
To those who may not have been listening: Bishop Barron speaks with utter rationality in stating that nothing can create itself. What we know through science, mathematics, etc. are properties of observable "things." Working backwards through cause-and-effect we eventually reach a point at which philosophers term First Cause. No matter how hard science wants to proclaim the opposite, nothing can make itself out of nothing.
Thank you for that compelling and even-handed advice! Friend, I've offered an argument for God's existence--the argument from contingency. Tell me precisely where you think it fails. Again, scientists, qua scientists, really have nothing to say on this matter, for it is a metaphysical question. No amount of empirical observation and experimentation will adjudicate the question of God. We have to move to philosophical argumentation. So please proceed.
@@LMR72 The whole point of the demonstration is to show that something doesn’t come from nothing.
@@BishopBarron And where did God come from? Why not save a step and say the universe came from nothing? We know the universe actually exists.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 You might want to look up Pascals Wager.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 Okay.
Lets start. None of this stuff you are talking about has any evidence. If there was actual evidence for it, it would be accepted by science. NDE's have been explained by lack of oxygen to the brain, and they generally are misreported or even exaggerated to enhance the points the teller wants to make. Further, you would need to be able to describe exactly what you mean by divine before you should be allowed to use it in a description of a thing. I know you will struggle with that, especially when your description gets critically questioned.
The fact is that one does not need a god to be a good person, there are and have been billions of humans who are and have been good without god. Any god worthy of acknowledgement would be willing and able to present himself for acknowledgement without stepping on our "free will". There are atheists therefore there are no gods.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 You sure you got every philosopher in the last 10 000 years in that diatribe?
But it's not your beliefs that cause me worry, it's what actions those beliefs inform. That is where I have a problem, remember when a god is on your side, nothing is denied you. aka Gott Mitt Ons.
I’m more blown away than I can possibly verbalize it. This is delicacy, this is gold, this is gold Sir.
Bless you🙏🏻🌹🙏🏻🌹💙
"Something in me always tightens when a scientist pontificates on matters properly philosophical or religious". I'm an atheist and I think this statement is spot on, and rather sums up the entire matter of Hawking's stance on the god question.
Well, I think the bishop has no idea what Hawking is talking about, when he says it is either gravity or nothing. You see Hawking does not make up things, he shows his working, how he came to these conclusions and is willing to change his position on them if they are shown to be wrong. There is no certainty in science and doubt is a virtue in it. The opposite is true in religion. I would suggest that the bishop take a course in cosmology and learn exactly what Hawking is talking about, or actually admit he understand what Hawking is stating but chooses to ignore that to make his point.
@@Balstrome1 Plus, if my understanding of quantum mechanics is at least somewhat correct, which it might not be since I am a biologist, then the reason protons and such have have mass is because of far smaller particles with opposite charges, that cancel eachother out and release a lot of energy in the process and this energy is the reason these particles come into existence in the first place. In other words they are not contigent on anything else and are the reason for their own existence. If one were to take the bishops point of view, then these particles and their cycles of creation and destruction are god, since they are non-contingent. I am fairly certain he would disagree
The thing is if one uses sciency sounding words from a position of authority, such as a youtube celeb or priest, then those words take on magical status, regardless of their truth.
@@Balstrome1 - Hawking made a very fundamental philosophical error.
No surprise: he wasn't trained in philosophy.
Well Hawking was not talking philosophically, he was talking science, aka reality as it is observed by every honest person who inquires into it.
Then you've conceded my point! The principle ex nihilo nihil fit is a metaphysical principle, and the "nihil" in question is absolute non-being. Whatever the quantum physicists are talking about is not "nothing" in this absolute sense. The fluctuating vacuum from which primary particles emerge is a fecund sea of energy. Now whatever fluctuates and gives rise to new forms of being is, by definition, a contingent reality and hence needs to be explained.
“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church)
Thank you so much for your videos! My best discovery on UA-cam for a long time! :)
I'm not a Catholic and I disagree on some of his theological arguments. But I must admitt this presentation makes a lot of sense.
You're exactly correct Standfor Reason. Excellent analysis.
I believe in God and I can't help it. I need him.
Amen! Life makes no sense without the Lord.
***** Where did you get the foolish notion that everything comes from nothing?
+tamara smith We understand. It's why all religious people believe what they believe. They need to.
Standfor Reason
Tamara Smith: Of all the respondents here, I respect you by far the most! You make no spurious attempt to defend the existence of your god. You rely not on assertion, opinion, conjecture, and speculation, pretending that it's "philosophy" and therefore automatically valid. You rely not on "authority" of priests and imams. You rely not on bronze age scratchings of ignorant peasants who thought that the sun rotated around the earth. No. None of that.
You are honest, forthright, and humble. You simply admit that you "need" to believe a fairy tale and that such belief helps you. I have no quarrel with such an admission. Indeed, I find it refreshingly honest. Good for you!
Thank you again for bringing this out: as I mentioned before in other posts, it helps for more of us to get intimately familiar with Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. He was the quiet Lutheran who completely demolished Lord Bertrand Russel's and David Hilbert's project to reduce all of Mankind's knowledge of the Universe to mathematical equations. Everyone had to deal with the problem of Circularity. Russel (WW I depopulation proponent extraordinaire), true to his dishonest nature, came up with a thought experiment, "This statement is false", deeming himself to be "smart" and "genius" as if he were above the rest of us rabble. Kurt Gödel answered with, "This statement is unprovable"...and formalized it into mathematics, proving that Mathematics itself is Incomplete, and incapable of describing the entire Universe (especially ourselves, our minds).
Mathematics, is a Language, like human conversational language itself, which is unavoidably self-referential. In other words, Russel's phrase is self-contradictory, but Gödel's statement is self-affirming (both refer to them-SELVES). Unlike Russel's, we know Gödel's statement to be true, and consistent with itself, yet it is still unprovable. So we must accept it on faith and reason. Gödel achieved mathematically what philosophers and theologians have tried to prove (rather unconvincingly to most atheists) about Scientism and radical Empiricism "be-ing" themselves Incomplete. Why should we believe their propositions ("thou shalt not believe anything unless proven") when they fail to prove their own standards themselves?
By studying the huge topic of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem (still ongoing), I was able to quite successfully get a lot of atheists and A.I. guru's to re-think their world-views. In Girardian fashion, many of them started out accusing us theists of using Circular Arguments (leading to our complete dependency upon 'I am that am'). But I have successfully employed Gödel's I.T. to show that atheist's use Circular Arguments as well, them relying upon implicit unprovable self-referential Axioms that are embedded in our Language itself. (Noam Chomsky, MIT Linguist, would affirm: if you ask yourself "What is Language?" You will be stuck with answering that by using Language to define itself using Language). In fact, we all end up stuck in Circular language, and cannot escape that. As I began to reflect on this intrinsic nature of our own Language, as if it were "designed" into us even before Time itself, I appreciated more the meaning of "Man is made in God's image"...our language is Circular, because God the First Linguist simply "is".
On that note, our very souls (following Plato's Meno and Phaedro) must also be immortal, because of our ability to think about ourselves from outside of ourselves, a kind of circular recursive loop that can go on to infinity, such as when we stand in between two large mirrors: a hall of mirrors projecting further than we can see of ourselves. Plato showed that immaterial things such as numbers, morals, ideas, designs, geometric descriptions, exist in a sort of "zeroth dimension" completely independent, transcendent from space-time. Since our souls can "grok" them, our souls must have immortal properties.
It is for that reason that part of my work is to expose the latently genocidal nature of A.I. "Singularity" or Transhumanism. Their scientists (such as Ray Kurzweil at Google Deep Mind) have been misleading our world to believe in a technology Utopia, like Star Trek, where our minds can be digitized and "beamed" or "stored" for Immortality. That is nothing short of medieval alchemy, completely ignoring what Gödel already demonstrated: that to "reduce" our minds to a Turing Machine, would require Infinite Memory (in order to refer to itself in mathematical language, infinitely recursively and Circularly). This would require Infinite Energy, Infinite Wires, and faster-than-light signal travel. Since we know the Universe is apparently finite, we know this A.I. "Singularity" project at Google and IBM Watson is a hoax, which poses an existential threat to mankind itself.
The amount of resources and illegal lobbying they would have to perform in order to subjugate all of us to financing their pet project, will and does have global consequences, not merely because they are the high priests now of faithless Scientism, but because of the enormous Bill they are charging us for it, which depletes our Tithes and other resources needed for more genuine science (such as medical cures, space travel, energy / water).
Many atheist "scientists" have tried to answer me with a blind faith in Quantum Computing. Well, I've canvassed a lot of papers on those too, and the short answer is, Quantum Computing is still finite, consumes finite energy and space. Yet to reproduce or "simulate" a mind's ability to think about itself from outside itself, would still require infinite memory and energy, which leads to an impossibility (a contradiction), which further indicates that our minds / conscience must be partially in an immaterial plane. It is very important for our best Theologians to get intimately familiar with current developments in Quantum Theory, as well: you will need good engineers / scientists with a theological & musical sense, to help with that.
So it is not sufficient to "debate" atheists on Circularity, as if it is a coffee table entertainment. It is necessary to speak their own precise Language (Gödel's), in order to show them the genocidal implications of their own denial of Circular Argument. ALL of us depend upon Circular arguments, and contrary to brainwashing by our schools, Circular Argument is actually a good thing, so long as we know that we are doing it, and can't escape it. Doing so would add a sense of urgency in the abortion, energy, water, depopulation debates, and, in my experience, is more effective at getting more of these misguided brethren to see the light. In peace,!
The argument I have been trying to formulate for decades, finally set out succinctly, clearly and in far more detail than my clumsy floundering attempts. Thank you.
.
Fr Barron kicks ass. Keep up the good work Fr. Irish Catholic here :)
Afirerageswithin I'm no entirely sure who's ass he's ever kicked... have yet to see it myself, and I certainly don't think Stephen Hawking is on that list.
Bahahahahhaha! Stephen Hawking knows there is a creator and so do many others.
Afirerageswithin Riiiiiiiight, I'm sure he does. At least that explains your comment.
If you're an atheist why do you have a pic of Jesus on your page. It's just tom make a mockery pure and simple
Afirerageswithin That's Buddy Christ... I doubt you know where it comes from.
But even so... there's nothing wrong with mockery, especially if it has a point, satire has been used throughout the ages... and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with being correct.
So... what's the problem?
I love priests so much, brilliant minds and scholars.
My hard earned rebuttals to Hawkins' scientism among mainstream thinkers were answered with reminders that I am not a scientist and therefore, had no authority to opine... much less to contradict a genius. Thank you, Bishop Barron, for your superb dialectic. It is immeasurably helpful in fighting the avalanche of popular gibberish.
It was indeed the science of The Shroud of Turin which convinced me of the truth of the reality of Jesus. Real science will never shame our heavenly Father. Let's put it all on the line and beat the Atheists at their own game.
@just Wright no, that claim has been debunked as the cloths used in the 1988 study that claims that it was made in the XIV century were repairs made by nuns in medieval times due to fires.
Jason Blowhard’s Strength and Fitness didn’t you read what I just put? The cloth used for the carbon dating were repair cloths that nuns used after a fire. Other carbon dating has placed the shroud at the time of Christ and pollen on the shroud indicates that it was in Jerusalem.
@@randombobsmith8925 Few scholars question that Jesus was a real, historical person. The plethora of evidence proves to me that He is divine. It is your prerogative to not be convinced by the evidence, although I'd bet you haven't seriously investigated.
@@rustycockering9925 evidence what evidence there is none whatsoever it’s all made up.
There is not one single piece of evidence that god exists anywhere in the world it’s all a load of rubbish.
@@alandoyle8880 Like most Atheists, you don't understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof". Whether something is proven is purely subjective, even in science. That there is an abundance of evidence for God is not in question, despite your ignorance.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will make you an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." Probably a Werner Heisenberg's quote as a friend told me. This reminds me of a picture I saw many years ago: a couple of scientists were struggling hardly hiking up near the top of a mountain and on the top of the mountain was a theologian waiting for them with a smile stretching his hand to help them. Unfortunately, Mr. Hawking did not get through the bottom. But he has the answer now, and God's mercy is greater than any human wisdom.
Sound, holistic, intellectual Sense and Reason - always inspiring, always grounded, always without ego and self purpose. Thank you Bishop Barron.
Gie me a break!! His tone of voice, his attitude and his speech patterns show nothing but capital E Ego.
@@jazzman1904 Is the statement of nothing coming from Gravity, not ridiculous? Especially, considering the fact, gravity is a something
@rhuttner12 Philosophy and religion explain nothing. Philosophy is just an argument which does not address facts. Religion explains nothing at all. As well, I was speaking of his bloated Ego which the previous comment claimed he was without.
@@jazzman1904 no kidding the is insufferable.
@@jazzman1904 you're out of your depth, pick up a book.
The usual response to “why is there something rather than nothing?” seems to be, “it doesn’t matter and I don’t care,” and it seems sufficient for many people.
A lazy man's answer.
Hi Fr. Barron. I just wanted to say that I really appreciate your remarks here, and I very much enjoy watching your videos. I am a student of philosophy myself, and though I consider myself an Atheist, I very much respect and admire your thoughtful disposition, and willingness to inquire into the nature of existence. :) Also, I was made very happy by your mentioning of Heidegger in this video! It's good to know that there are still people out there who take philosophy seriously. Keep up the good work!
I came from being a hard atheist Communist, Soviet education, PhD in the US Ivy leagues, theoretical physicist. I have an IQ of 267.
I absolutely believe in Christ, he was the savior and son of man.
Irrefutably, for you to find joy and meaning in your life, fully beyond those things you can "obtain" physically, you must accept this truth it is as vital as breath.
I just want you to stop suffering humans, take a leap of faith and try to believe.
✝
Hawking is a scientist, which means that he is concerned with events and objects within the observable and measurable cosmos. When he goes beyond this, he is overstepping his proper territory. My claims about God are based on philosophical reasoning, which is fundamentally different than scientific method but no less rational.
Dont worry bishop Hawking is burning in hell right now
Dont worry bishop stephen hawking is probably burning in hell right now
Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."
Witold Domeyko I’m sorry but did you just call Stephen hawkings a fool?
@@thepleo62 no. The bible says it, and he is just pointing it out, but yet people like are such snowflakes that it doesn't take much for you to start melting.
Deer Runner aww you resorted to calling me a snowflake. Also bible is bullshit. Please enlighten me on god.
Deer Runner why do you get so made about him not believing in god. He said that there are other possibilities of the universe starting, not that god isn’t real. It’s almost like you ignorant Christians are punishing him for trying to find other theories. Such a brilliant mind being put down by your Christian cult.
Deer Runner the Bible is bullshit.
Father Barron is such a great teacher and priest. Thank the Lord we have priests like him.
Bravo again Father Barron. You have articulated the essence of the atheistic and scientific framework in an understandable manner. So many believers through a Catholic upbringing and then life in the world and through education have grappled with this notion. Are we believers in fairy tales when pitted against the scientific framework of Hawking and others like him? Are we the limited beings if we believe in our minds, hears and soul that the world of the spirit is made in the image and likeness of God? It is sometimes confusing to others, and even ourselves. Yet, I believe it, and you give expression to it like no one I have ever met. Please continue in this social medium because we just want to understand and question but never losing the simple faith in God that we have retained. Thanks!
I'm glad you addressed this.
Count Janus Hassildor hi Janus
Hawking's work supported the idea of an expanding universe or the big bang. His work was revolutionary in physics. Before it there was only the belief the universe was static. The big bang supports the biblical narrative that as an uncreated force God created the universe. He said, I am that I am. Thank you Mr. Hawking.
you are such a blessing there should be millions out there like you.
Your philosophy and theology is solid! Thank you, Bishop-elect!
A red herring is not something false; it is something that distracts from the central argument. I've already explained to you about biblical literalism. And evolution was happily embraced by many church people, as early as the mid-nineteenth century. Read John Henry Newman on this score if you doubt me. As for condoms, AIDS is far more prevalent in countries where condoms are handed out like lolly pops than in countries that sponsor abstinence programs.
I am a believer, but I have to ask you in with all due respect do ever really listen to yourself talk? Despite your articulate speech, dept of knowledge, latin quotes you sound like someone trying to convince himself. Your doubt is obvious as your intelligence. Say what you really feel, not what you think you should feel. When you speak of people and things that do not in any way challenge the faith, you look so confident and natural. You are still fettered to dogmas that inhibits both reason and faith. Still, of people I would someday like to meet, you are in the top ten. God Bless.
@Bishop Robert Barron:
On the issue of Condom's: did it ever occur to you that many of these countries have terrible cultural norms? Or worse: are infected with tenent of Islam that promote, and often socially *_demand_* pillaging of girls they consider Haram, and that's why they're not used?
Much like trying to convince yourself, can you not either admit that the policy is mistaken, or perhaps just to say: *"I have no opinion on that."* . It'd be a lot less dishonest.
I am Orthodox and I agree with the Bishop. Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) that is the greatest tool of Satan and has created more atheists than Stalin or Mao ever have combined. Everything in language is an analogy and Jesus spoke in parables. Sola scriptura was caused in the Western Church due to the need to show authority when going against corruption with the Papacy (The Roman Patriarch) due to the Borgia Pope and other interference by the European Politicians in dealing with the Papacy. The East had no such issues, they were far advanced of the West and the faith has held in the Eastern Churches despite Communism and other persecution in the modern era. The Orthodox Church focuses on the MYSTERY of life and the universe in every aspect and that is what the sacraments are called. This means modern science in truth and in fact can never know all mysteries and in fact the most advanced physicists propose multiple universes; so how do we know with absolute certainty what happens in other universes. God is far beyond man and will be forever. Humans only know what god chooses to reveal and nothing more.
I do wonder what being stoned for gathering sticks reveals, but that has been fairly mysterious by itself.
Are you certain you are not projecting your own feelings on Bishop Barron, Mr. Anastasi?
Though I respect him, feels like Father Barron is looking over the one of the main justifications people cite for their atheism today. Most atheists I've encountered simply choose to withhold belief in supernatural claims unless good evidence is presented. Most atheists claim no knowledge on the existence of a God, while pointing out bad evidences for specific God claims, including the problems found in the Christian worldview. Indeed though, this is much tougher position for a person of faith to find themselves on the intellectual high ground.
"there is nothing noble or impressive about being cynical. Skepticism is easy-anyone can do it. It is the faithful life that requires moral strength, dedication, and courage. Those who hold fast to faith are far more impressive than those who give in to doubt when mysterious questions or concerns arise." Uchtdorf
pretty good answer to your question. look up the whole thing "Be Not Afraid, Only Believe".
Does not believing in any supernatural presence give you some sort of advantage over me? Bearing in mind that part of my view includes that those who claim to use supernatural power to help me if i pay then are all frauds or worse
If you are "withholding belief" you are agnostic... NOT atheist.
If you still have an open mind... if you are still seeking the truth... that's a good thing.
@@Dan0__ but if we conflate atheism with agnostism, we can criticize Christians without making any positive claims!
Excellent Father Barron. I wish he and I could talk.
God bless you Bishop Barron
"The universe" is just a collective term for the sum total of contingent things. Even a billion times zero is still zero. And friend, who could possibly provide an example of nothing?! I just use the concept as a heuristic to show that contingent things can't exist without a sufficient explanation. And the argument I've made moves from empirical premises to a conclusion. I don't see how you think it's "circular."
Science is based on reality not fantasy.
Come on, Carl. This is just a lot of hooh-hah. Show me precisely where the argument from contingency fails.
The Holy Spirit dwells in the Catholic Church since the year 33AD.
He leads her to all truth!
Keep up the great videos Father Barron!!
Father Barron, you have made a well-spoken statement on something that has irritated me for some time: Famous people making public statements which are way outside there area(s) of expertise, using their fame as currency for credibility. Hawking has, in my opinion, succumbed to professional arrogence. I would not debate him on topics within his field because he is a great scientist. I would not debate him on other topics either - whatever he might have to say there would be strictly his opinions and preferences, and these deserve no more workth than anyone else's.
My feeling is that the atheists have created an image of God that they can then reject--"scientism".
Hey elreyrod: I simply find no verifiable evidence for your 3-part god. Moreover, based upon my observations of the Universe (multi-Verse), I find your 3-part god utterly irrelevant and inconsequential.
@ŇøHă Ģ. ua-cam.com/video/Erufl2qcVGU-/v-deo.html
@@naturalismforever3469 ua-cam.com/video/Erufl2qcVGU-/v-deo.html
@@chrissonofpear1384 ua-cam.com/video/Erufl2qcVGU-/v-deo.html
@@kristinamickwitz3542 so sad.... The fact that theres many dying flock of ducks and chiken without any treatment as good as other normal farm does.. Knowing these, it makes my heart hurt bcoz animals and nature are my love.
This is the truth for me , ever since I was little I've always knew that God exists , I always knew I had mercy on my side so I lived my life my way knowing someday I would change , now I think twice before acting and even saying things I know aren't good , I still fail but in my older years (46) , I am just hoping i can keep on with my life as good as possible.
Why don't atheists interview Father Barron for their documentaries bashing Christianity and faith?
Because Brian, Barron is obviously afraid to confront scientific naturalists, one on one, in a public forum. Like the pedophile Pell debating Dawkins, he knows he'd lose miserably.
He’s shown to be dishonest, this video for one example
The same reason they never take on Noam Chomsky; they wouldn't dare
I agree with Fr. Baron on this. Because there is really something. Gravity is something. And even if gravity exists it would be useless without matter. So whether you believe there is a God or not it all started with something.
You have to start with definitions here I think. We all have to define what exactly we mean by "something" Everyone is going on here about this and that being something and yet nobody has ever said what there interpretation of these letters in this order - s o m e t h i n g actually mean. Does something have to have volume, weight, an effect, an interaction, etc, etc. Without a definition I could equally say I have a whole bunch of something called nothing. Is nothing -1 x something is something -1 x nothing.
So please everybody what do you think scientists define as "something" Only then can we all agree if we have it or not. No wonder Father Barron is confused. Maybe he has know definition or the wrong definition of "something" to start with.
I agree with him too, but no. gravity is not something. gravity is a falsity. what you claim to be gravity is purely the basic laws of density.
Hawkins claimed that because there was no time or space prior to the expansion event( big bang), there couldn't of been a creator. God transcends his creation. Why this was such a difficult concept for Hawkins to wrap his head around is beyond me. To suggest that because time didn't exist before the expansion there could not have been a God to create the universe is just a silly conclusion based in his atheistic beliefs rather than objective reasoning. He was the dumbest smart guy on the planet. God save his soul.. He certainly suffered terribly.
Saying it came from nothing is just as ridiculous as saying that God created it. Ascribing it to the power of God is nothing more than the result of a lack of a real explanation.
what else I find interesting in Hawkins is he believed the existence of Aliens which there are no scientific evidence of ,but dismisses the existence of God.
Just had discovered your videos and have become your fan/follower. Not sure you have travel to Canada father, but I would love to attend to one of your conferences!
Many blessings,
Fernanda V.
Yes friend, I'm utterly confident in saying that nothing can't produce anything! Sheesh. What your physicist friends are calling "nothing" is anything but. It is a fluctuating state of affairs that is fecund with possibility. And by the way, anything that fluctuates is, by definition, contingent and hence requires an explanation.
Philosophers need to define what they mean by "nothing" and what they mean by "something". In this respect the discussion here is meaningless unless all parties can agree on what they mean by these quantities. There is no point developing arguments on both sides if we fail to agree on the definitions of these words in the first place. What are Father Barron's definitions of these quantities? If he states that "something" cannot come from "nothing" then he must necessarily have a refined definition of both quantities, (something and nothing), to be able to positively make this statement. What are they?
Very well said. He can be a future Pope.
+louie casper Oh, no way, unfortunately... (
Thank you, Bishop Barron for the video. I am a man of science and engineering. Stephen Hawking in the late 1990s declared that he would find a mathematical equation by the year 2000 that would explain everything that you find around. He lived long after 2000 but never gave any equation like that he claimed. Nevertheless he is the greatest mind of our time. He did not believe in God though he was given a Christian burial in Westminster abbey invoking God that he may be granted eternal rest and may his soul rest in peace. We in our lives have seen many ordinary people having deep and genuine faith. This only shows what is revealed to simple people some times is not revealed to brilliant individuals.
Also it can be perceived that human mind however great it is cannot comprehend God.
Isn't there a part in Genesis(?) where God is an actual being that walked the Earth in The Garden of Eden? So, why can't we expect God to be in corporeal form? Or should we take it as metaphor, or something similar, rather than truth?
Kirk Graves To many of us, God still is ever present. you can laugh all you want. I'm telling you that I'm scientist. And engineer. I design things that fly and float and do many other things and know science. Science is not at odds with those of faith in God. But I'm very blessed to own an extremely beautiful piece of land - almost 300 acres with a mile of spring-fed stream and mountains and pastures. I can honestly assert that I feel the presence of God when I sit by the creek and watch the animals play like deer and wild turkey. I can feel the earth and a presence that is definitely not there in the city or in a parking lot at the facility where I work. I think "garden" is a good name for that. I have come to have faith in God not because I "need" an emotional safety net. I have come to have faith in God because I honestly feel "His" presence although I'm not one that believes in a "human" presence - a man with a white beard that sits on a gold throne. It is an ever present thing that is as real as your conscious being. So you have thoughts and feelings and are alive and have thoughts. It doesn't matter what you look like. I don't honestly believe God has physical form. But it is like the conscious being (some call it soul) of the earth. So your conscious being is housed in your physical being. God's being is everywhere in the physical world - the universe.So all that is to say that I do feel metaphorically like "God walks in the Garden" in nature - He is there if you look and wait and try to feel the presence. I have honestly felt it. But only when I'm alone in deep in the midst of my natural home. I go to church (I'm Catholic and I go to Mass) and it is a good time for me to worship. Honestly, I have never felt the presence of God in a church. So I understand people from urban places not understanding or having such experiences or knowing.I wish you (and all people) that experience.V/R,
Kerry
+Kerry Wagner awesome
The scientist is like the accountant who tells you how much money is in your bank account, and how interest compounded to get it there; he can't tell you who set up the account, and made the first deposit. That answer is solely explained by asking about someone, not some thing.
That's unadulterated b.s. Protochris. You're a silly twit of a supernaturalist.
Thank you Bishop Barron !
Mr Hawkins is a great scientist, who perfectly uses reason and the rules of the physics. Rules like cause and effect or that nothing can be created out of nothing or disappear into nothing. Yet, in one, singular case, Mr Hawkins is dishonest refusing to apply these rules - God. I suspect the source of it is anger at God for living the life of suffering he lives in. I wish, and I pray that instead of leading people astray he talked to God in honesty. That he told God how he is angry with Him, and demanded from God showing to him that God is really Love. This anger should not be directed at us, people, but at God with private conversation. God, I ask you, in the Name of Jesus, to give Mr Hawkins a clear sign, and invitation to this talk, and chance to repent and fall in love with You.
Dear reader - if you can, and I am sure you do, please ask God the same for the sake of Mr Hawkins.
What a pile of nonsense, Grzegorz. Prof. Hawking (NOT HAWKINS!) is among the most brilliant cosmologists of our generation. He has made enormous contributions to our thinking about the Cosmos. If you had read his books, you would know that he merely observes that the Cosmos appears exactly as it would absent the existence of any of the tens of thousands of gods ever invented by humans, including your own particular god. Moreover, he shows us that in the absence of space-time, the concept of "causality" has no meaning whatever. That makes the 13th century arguments of the scholastics for the existence of their particular god, as well as their arguments for the extermination of those who do not accept their particular god, irrelevant, inconsequential, and meaningless.
Threats and 'bribes' may not always work, but I am sure Hawking may see his condition as as much an opportunity as a curse.
He is dead :(
What they mean 'Nothing' is actually 'God (in action)' only that they can't see the miracles happen. Even our own brain, thinking, feeling (hatred, love, intelligence, time, mind, etc) we can't see, fully understand and prove their existence so how can we claim ourselves to be humane. Only liar, desperate mind and the devil claim they are greater and smarter than God. They should be thankful and grateful to God who gives them great & intelligent mind/brain without which they are 'Nothing'.
Mr. Hawkins?! You mean Dr. Hawking? SMDH!
All these modern Atheists are as dull as American-Fundamentalist Christians, if only we could produce interesting Atheists again, then we could have a proper intellectual debate.
how are they dull may i ask
I've come to the conclusion that atheists have concluded that one can not have an intellectual or rational conversation with theists; because if they could, there would be no theists.
Shane OShea Oh right, we would all just give up our religion when faced with the overwhelming arguments of the "new" atheists... I find just he opposite: when the "new" atheists give up their sneering and actually enter into argument, they get the worst of it.
Shane OShea while i disagree wit fr.barrons assessment on the ``new atheists``. i think it is a false thing to say that theists are not rational people because many of them are and many are smarter than atheists. a perfect example of this is fr.Barron or Scott Hahn and i hope that atheists including myself are actually trying to find the truth instead of placing ourselves above other people. as Socrates would say- the only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing
I'd rather die as an arrogant (agnostic) atheist, than live a life as an ignorant theist. The former can live a life without dictation, the latter can't. The latter are also cowards.
God bless you for that.
In 20 years or so this man will be pontiff.
pğntif_ means?
Pope of the Catholic Church.
javier thx..
Is that true?
Yes, the intellectual bar to become something in the Catholic Church is set pretty low.
Looks like an awful lot of critics are watching this video. Wonder why if they are so against a rational explanation of the existence of all matter. What did they expect when they decided to watch it?
The "new" atheists get furious when they come up against the sheer logic of the argument from contingency. It flies in the face of their prejudice that religious belief is irrational.
The reason why atheists watch this is that you must understand the other point of view in order to argue against it. Would you rather have no atheists watch this and have no beliefs questioned?
Oh, Robert, we skeptics don't become "furious." Rather we become amazed that supernaturalists can swallow such tripe. It amuses us. Skeptics don't have a "prejudice" that supernaturalism is irrational. Rather, we have abundant evidence for that conclusion, and frankly, so do you!
When you, YOURSELF, consider the assertions of "other" supernaturalists, Robert, you consider their assertions in the light of our best, robust, broad, coherent, predictive, and falsifiable explanations about the Cosmos. If the assertions of other supernaturalists are incoherent with those explanations, you reject them, quickly and adamantly. Some supernaturalists actually kill each other over such disagreements.
On the other hand, you consistently fail to apply the same criteria to your own magical assertions. You have a double standard. You apply science to the assertions of other supernaturalists. And then you apply no standard at all to your own assertions.
One of millions of examples: You adamantly maintain that words said over bread convert it to a body. Billions of other supernaturalists think that you're delusional. Which is it?
This never ceases to amaze me. And I find it amusing! Not infuriating at all.
Naturalism Forever i can already tell u hes gonna say to watch his other videos for an explanation😆
Oh, Snoop...I've watched all of his videos on atheism, philosophy, etc. Barron is incapable of providing a robust, powerful, broad, falsifiable, predictive explanation for anything at all because supernaturalism is fundamentally irrational, based entirely on conjecture and assertion, as I've pointed out repeatedly.
Still, if accepting the existence of your inconsequential, irrelevant 3-part god holds anxiolytic effect for you, based upon untold numbers of fairy tales, go for it! Who am I to deny you that palliation?
Do you actually believe that the plan in which God sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that mankind might be saved from God's hate through his love is more plausible than what Hawking proposes?
Of course not. The problem, friend, is that you've presented a silly caricature of Christian belief. Study some basic theology and then we'll try this conversation again.
Fr. Robert Barron Which part of it is wrong? According to the chuch official soteriology by Anselm of Canterbury, the second persona of the Holy Trinity incarnated on Earth to redeem the curse of sin brought upon mankind by Adam and Eve in garden. He gave himself as a perfect sacrifice to atone for the the sins of mankind - a vicarious atonement. I think every part of my original comment accords with this doctrine, it is just a more direct formulation of it.
sauniz1 Friend, you're using the words, but you have no idea what they mean! The doctrine of atonement is that God the Father sent his Son all the way to the limits of godfosakenness in order to bring the light of the divine love even to that darkest place. The entire purpose of the Incarnation was to save the human race, not to satisfy the divine anger. God's anger is a Biblical symbol evocative of his passion to set things right. The setting right is what happened through a sheerly generous act of love on God's part.
Fr. Robert Barron Your videos are helpful, but allow me to humbly say that the entire purpose of the Incarnation was to save the Cosmos, including all Creation, and not just the human race.
Fr. Robert Barron But why would the human race need saving if it was created by a perfect, omnipotent God? Why not just make us perfect in the first place?
Bishop Barron is on the ball as usual. Such a rational, logical commentator, so hard to refute. Thank you for defending the Catholic Church in an age of atheist unenlightenment.
April Fools Day - The National Holiday for American Atheists.
LOL,
Your interjecting science with philosophy, what Hawkins means is that due to the nature of Gravity it is possible that the universe could have come from nothing, but we still do not know what nothing is, nothing is a very odd concept. An atheist would and should say, I do not know, because we don't, the universe could have being eternal, maybe it did come from nothing, but who knows.
+SuperDuper gravity is 'something.' Your (and hawking's) argument really ends up being circular, rather than explanatory of anything. I recommend the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin singularity theorem as a much better understanding of the universe and its beginning.
In regards to physics and cosmology, Bishop Barron is an intellectual featherweight and Stephen Hawking is a heavyweight.
When it comes to philosophy and theology, Bishop Barron is a heavyweight and Stephen Hawking is a featherweight.
Conclusion?
The heavyweight champs should stick to fighting their own weight class in their own league.... because when a 150 lbs amateur steps into a boxing ring with a 275 lbs professional, it ends badly for him.
My point? Bishop Barron does not embarras himself publicly by pontificating on subjects outside his expertise.
So Stephen Hawking should note the Bishops example, and stop standing on his soapbox and making proclamations regarding things which he is clearly neither trained in nor even an authority on.
When Stephen Hawking talks theology it's embarrassing to see his level of ignorance paraded as insightful exegesis. The comment on gravity existing, therefore there is no god, is so utterly incoherent, embarrasing, ignorant, outrageous, it really doesn't warrant a response by a theological heavyweight like His Excellency Bishop Barron.
No human mind is of sufficient cognitive weight to answer the ultimate question why is there something rather than nothing. Hawking is not heavyweight enough and neither is Bishop Barron. So nobody should pretend to expertise in something that cannot be known.
Hawking can suggest an answer based on his training in science and Bishop Barron can suggest an answer from his religious training but ultimately the only answer that rings true for me is "I don't know".
Goalie thats not true since the question why is there something rather than nothing is categorized as a philosophical question not scientific so bishop barron has more weight to his arguements than stephen hawking since hawking is ignorant or less familiar with philosophy than bishop barron
Hawking would say it is a question for science since according to him something can come from nothing - it sounds absurd but I'm not in a position to argue since I'm not a genius with a lifetime of training in physics.
Religionists like the Bishop would say that something can't come from nothing. God is the cause. For me the obvious question to ask is where did God come from? The Bishop would undoubtedly say God is the uncaused cause. This answer always has always struck me as a little too convenient.
My position is that I don't know and neither do you.
Sarah Prewara and the roles are reversed when you consider that Bishop Barron is probably one of the greatest modern-day theologians while Hawking's narrow-mindedness has blinded him to alternative realities. the very nature of string theory dictates that there must be laws of force in the universe we had not even begun to understand. how can you dismiss something when you don't even understand the very nature of his existence.
Sarah: Kindly provide the VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that assessing the ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE (MULTIVERSE) is NOT a scientific question. Thank you for your reply, which will undoubtedly be thoughtful, filled with verifiable evidence, extremely well supported, and mathematically reliable.
“Nonsense is still nonsense, even when spoke by world famous scientists.” Dr. John C. Lennox
so you do not get any modern physics and believe you should ridicule Hawking when he does talk about physics (being pretty much self contained without any need for a supernatural add on creation)...
now that is pretty stupid actually
Friend, the point is that he's not talking about physics when he speculates about why there is something rather than nothing. That is a metaphysical, not a scientific, question.
If you understand what Hawking refers to as nothing you are dishonest. If you do not you might try to start with ''A universe from nothing'' by Krauss which addresses that not in detail but that is why you can actually read it without a degree in physics and maths plus post graduate work in modern physics. ''The grand design'' sadly does not even realy touch the problem - probably because of how much effort Hawking has to put in every single word nowadays, do not know how he collaborates with Mlodinow.
And it is neither a slight of hand to discuss about what nothing means nor is it trivial but it is indeed pretty central to all philosophy in the face of modern physics/ cosmology. What fields (not realy...) do that have nothing but the possibility to spawn an instance of a set of laws of nature is at the center of that problem and also no one has come up with experiments the theorists themself already work with consistency constraints that make the theories much more likely than traditional philosophy or theology has come up in ignorance of the last hundred years of physics.
The problem with philosophers often is that they think they own a term's definition not being rattled by science making their old definitions nonsensical.
Hawking can speculate all he wants about philosophical questions. It's a free country. But he can't expect total deference when he ventures into areas beyond his expertise. The question you and he are avoiding is how to explain the existence of a contingent thing. The endless appeal to other contingent things provides no coherent answer. And Mr. Reason, if "the invisible looks exactly like the non-existent," you've just ruled out all of mathematics!
Bishop Robert Barron Well as the events in Turkey will keep me awake anyways I'll give it a try.
One point I would like to make right away is that Hawking does not speculate at all (with regards to the proposed need for a creator). He states correctly that physics has reached the maternity to provide a system that works without a creator. Of course one can still opt to believe in one but no such entity is necessary and if not necessary most educated people tend to agree that the theory (well about god I would say hypothesis because I think theology does not qualify as a whole theory where M-Theory does) that does not postulate an unnecessary entity is the better one.
Next point: He does not venture any inch from his center of expertise. He is one of the greatest minds in cosmology ever since the time of his PhD-Thesis. His ontology just happens to be evidence-based rather than on intuition (that sadly fails us all [even Harking] when it comes to quantum mechanics [and I suppose string theory, too - I am a bit to dumb for string theory I guess...])
-: You postulate the need of a first cause I guess. That is intuition but it is actually quite obviously false as this includes the naive understanding of causality and well - that is precisely what breaks down at the beginning of time (and there does not need to be a before that, that notion is intuitively appealing but nonsensical given what we know with pretty good certainly about the very early universe). Besides that even the intuition ends with either infinite regress or nonsensical Voodoo a la William Lane Craig defining meaningless properties of what that creator should need to be.
Further elaboration on that one: Actually causality breaks down all the time if you look carefully or at a place with strong gravity, that is strong space time curvature. So in both well tested domains of physics the very basis of applying intuition is simply not there. You actually need to do the maths and live with what you get (as it over and over again correctly predicts the completely unintuitive results of your experiments [best tested theories of all]).
Nope, maths does not need time, space or space time (though I certainly cannot demonstrate you how that works, but the publications are all public and the resent ones even freely accessible on the internet such as via arxiv.org/). Indeed it was even pretty difficult to find a meaningfull way to introduce time which I guess you'll need for contingent events, that is causality? Entrophy is the concept to look for to get a useful handle on that one. Around that one there are quite a few good books to be red and most of them are not really about thermodynamics.
But I might miss the intended meaning of your last statement ''the invisible looks exactly like the non-existent, you've just ruled out all of mathematics''. If that is not supposed to be what I refute in my previous paragraph then I would like you to try to reformulate, please.
Erik, you are talking to an catholic, so please, dont try to state facts to him.
He is not able to comprehend them, he actually dont want to.
The question of something that comes from nothing is not a philosiphical question at all, because the result is our universe and thats physical, it can be measured and mathematical explained.
So the premise that something comes from nothing is clearly a physical and mathematical, or in short therme a scientifical question.
But Robert claimes the question is a philosophical one, because he think thats the way he can uphold his faith in a creator.
I think, every time science discovers some new field, a new theory or a new method, theologians like our friend Robert instantaneous start to claim this new thing has its origin in his gods realm.
If we stop publishing any new scientific findings, his god would not reveal anything new from that very moment.
Here in germany, the universitys have a chair for eatch religious faith thats big enough to have an impact on society.
These "scientific bodys" has started an attempt to sneak into the real science by claiming, that science and religion are equal and in need of eatch other.
This morons are stiring her invisible soup since millenia and could not come up with on idea that holds water, so they try to jump on the science-train to make it in the next level by simply free ride.
And if a scientific finding does not fit into the "god is the answer-delusion", they have the
effrontery to reinterpret the origin of the question or claiming to know whats right without even understand the subject.
Thats the way religion works and thats his honesty in a nutshell.
"Go ahead and believe in God, if you like, but don't imagine that you have been given any grounds for such a belief by science." - Daniel Dennett
LogicalAtheismRising Well so what?! "Science" as such has nothing to say about the ultimate cause of the being of the finite world. The sciences are designed to analyze things and events within the empirical world. They haven't a thing to say about why there is something rather than nothing. That's a philosophical question.
***** No, that's not clear at all.
+Bishop Robert Barron Fr. Barron, could you please explain to me how the lack of scientific evidence for the formation of the Universe is actual definitive proof that God exists? It seems to me that if scientists are struggling to prove how the universe was created, the argument must stop there; We don't know how it was created. It seems like quite the logical leap to conclude that, since scientists have not yet explained the formation of the Universe, that God must exist, and not only that, He created it. It feels like you're just using lack of evidence as actual proof of your point rather than putting forth definitive evidence God created the Universe.
+Anonymous Dude Astrophysics? The study of physics, chemistry, and objects within the universe. Everything of which is within empirical world. Your statement makes no sense
+Anonymous Dude it is pretty clear that you don't understand metaphysics
Another brilliant explanation by Fr Robert Barron
Scientists will probably stop commenting on philosophical subjects like whether there is a god or not, when theists stop misusing science to try & prove there is one. I'll take the explanations that psysicist's like Hawking gives us over a 2000 year old myth, any day.
So saying something came from nothing is a silly argument? Yet you can't apply that logic to God? Also, great strawman, nobody is saying something came from nothing and that's how the Universe was made, anybody who gives that answer doesn't actually understand the science. The fact is, we don't know how the Universe was made, the Big Bang describes a situation where a compressed ball of energy blew up and the energy was ejected outward. That isn't something coming from nothing, that's something coming from something. If you want to talk about where this energy came from, we simply don't know. And saying that is a medieval superstition? No, that's called being rational. We don't know where the singularity came from, there are a few theories, but none of them are backed by any real evidence. But to say that the rational thing to do would be then to make up a reasons, is ridiculous.
It's classic God of the gaps, we don't know therefor God. We didn't know why Humans were being held onto the Earth, people assumed it was because of God, we discovered gravity. We didn't know why the tides went in and out, we assumed God, it turned out to be the Moon. So where everything came from is more than likely going to have a non-theistic explanation that could be explained scientifically and would probably follow a set of rules with predictive elements, since that is what happened with literally every other mystery we solved. "Magic sky daddy poofing everything into existence" is not a reasonable explanation. In almost none of your videos, you use actual science to prove your positions, you always use semantics and baseless assumptions. If you're trying to preach to the choir, than your fine, if you're trying to change minds, you are doing a miserable job at it. You go after these geniuses who use science to back their claims, and respond without using any actual science, just distorting what they say and throwing it back at them, and end up looking like a total moron.
You clearly didn't understand what Bishop Barron is trying to get across in the video, albeit it isn't a simple concept. First off the question of "then where did god come from" is redundant, because that is one of the biggest questions the existence of a creator, it's is said that God is "the alpha and the omega, what is, has been, and forever shall be". Also, while you are right that the God of the gaps is a shoddy argument, that is not how God works with science. If a mechanic was looking at a Model-T, and eventually fully understands it's workings, that mechanic isn't going to say, "I understand how this car works, therefore Henry Ford never existed." That would be stupid.
paranoidwaffles65. No I understood it, but the typical defense of this guy is "you just didn't understand him" no I understood him, you just don't have a reasonable defense. Life isn't as complex and put together as a car, we came as a result of millions of other species dying, it didn't take a million cars to create the model T.
+purpandorange the model T analogy isn't about life, it's about the whole universe, and yes it does simplify things a bit, but if I didn't, it wouldn't be a good analogy. But you still have not made a actual refutation, you are just saying his argument is bad
paranoidwaffles65. I refuted it thoroughly in my comment. Nobody says something came from nothing, they say that we don't know because we haven't gotten that far back. But science says it doesn't know, religion just makes stuff up and uses unscientific methods to back it up. If you don't think that's true than give me evidence of God that is testable, repeatable, and has predictive qualities.
+Standfor Reason if theists were to use the argument that " we don't know where we came from therefore God" what is the difference that atheists say "we don't know where we came from therefore nothing"
This dude is off base. The Scientific statement that the world seems to need no creator is only pointing out the state of physical knowledge. That is completely within Stephen Hawking's purview as a scientist. If you are sane, and religious, then you will simply make sure that your religious claims do not contradict the world as it is. For all we know, Hawkings may have rational religious views.
they Don't though. All Barron is saying is that scientism is dangerous. If the idea of justice contradicts science, which would you believe? of course science has no basis on this argument, but it's still something to think about. And the idea that the universe came from nothing is a philosophical argument, thus as a scientist Hawking has no right to make the claim. We don't even know what gravity is. we know how it works but that's the end of it. Stating that this thing we still know nothing about is the reason why everything came from nothing, you better be able to back it up.
+ItsThatGuy1989
No idea what scientism means. If it means all meaningful human questions can be solved by science, then I agree that's ridiculous. Science does not attempt to give meaning. We make our own meaning, and seems to me it's best if that meaning doesn't contradict objective reality. Stephen Hawking describes and reflects upon objective reality, exactly as a scientist ought too. What do you think he ought to be doing? This religious guy gets defensive, because objective reality messes with his mythology. That's the problem with fundamentalism.
+ItsThatGuy1989
You suggest we know almost nothing. That's a very relative statement. Contrariwise, looking at the enormous power wielded via scientific knowledge, you could argue we know an unbelievable amount.
I think the next step as a species is to develop stories/mythologies or even adaptations of the old mythologies which are inclusive, and allow us to function harmoniously with each other and nature.
But that's just my preference.
+ItsThatGuy1989 don't get me wrong. I'm not using the terms myth dismissively or saying there's no truth to them. I suspect they have great truth, but the kind that can be understood on the psychological, archetypal level. Tremendously important perhaps, but not easily studied objectively. Subjective truths perhaps?
+Rs 225 the problem is that science can't explain that. it can't explain why we have conciousness or other things. science is strictly empirical. Of course it explains a tremendous amount on the scale of matter such as atoms, evolution, etc. But it says nothing about what we as humans think. Scientism is the belief that science and science alone can tell us everything we need to know. Father Barron is being defensive because these popular scientists are basically insulting the ideas of philosophy and theology, which are much, much older than modern science, in turn making the general population believe that philosophy isn't relevant today.
May the Lord keep safe from sin. Our prayers are with you Father Barron
Strawmen and nonsense. The universe came from nothing is being researched heavily. You have to define "nothing," first and foremost, and then understand the physics behind such a notion. It's rational and plausible. Quantum field theory would dictate that something would arise from its potential. Time and space exist within the universe, not the universe within them. Even more interesting is that the total sum energy of the universe equates to zero, which would also uphold the law of conservation of energy.
As for philosophy and understanding "something" and "nothing," it's not really relevant, because you have no way of demonstrating anything beyond material reality, so why should we care about your opinions on the matter?
What you’re basically arguing is that “nothing” due to its quantum qualities is not nothing at all. That’s nice, but you see the problem is that you cant count a “thing” or “quality” as being part of “nothing” just because it is quantum. Quantum by definition is some”thing” at the smallest possible levels. So when you bring up the quantum or any potential you are not talking about truly “nothing” but some-thing. It really isnt that hard to grasp, the idea of nothing - you cant say nothing is nothing when there is something there.
Hawkin said at the time just before the "Big Bang" time was non existent, as it is in a Black Hole. He gives all sorts of equations, physics, and other egghead gobbledygook answers - BUT what's on the other side??? No one Knows! So to say there could not have been a god or deity because time didn't exist at or before the Big Bang is a little short sighted and at best a guess - What is on the other side???? Another Universe? Maybe even GOD!
Just because he can't see beyond where time, as we know it, stops doesn't mean nothing is there. It might be that we may not be able to recognize the forces that are the cause - yet.
Like the Bishop says Nothing begets Nothing. So explain how or what ignited the Big Bang... What was the catalyst?.....If you say gravity caused it then there was something there. So what created the gravity? Then he's wrong so far as there was NOTHING there! Remember what the scientists don't know and comment on is theory. AND Nothing More than Theory until proven! I remember someone said Einstein's Theory E=MC2 was irrelevant then a few years later found out that it was relevant. All I do know is that Stephen Hawkins and other atheists are all dressed up with no place to go when they die! JMO
+Sophia Perennis - You have yet to demonstrate anything in support of your claim. You appealed to authority, of which is illogical to boot. Further, you then posit spacetime is something anything could be outside of to begin with. The universe is defined as totality, all that is, and space and time are affects of the universe (not the other way). Therefore, by definition, NOTHING can be outside the universe, not even a god. It's a logical fallacy to claim otherwise. If you claim your god is part of totality, then how can it create what it itself exists within? If it is not, you've not demonstrated anything for its existence.
+Patrick Kruger - A black hole is a singularity that exists due to the nature of spacetime in correlation with gravity. We don't know how physics behave beyond the event horizon, so to posit otherwise is nonsense right now. Is there another side to a point? So why are you asking what's on the "other side" of a black hole?
The "catalyst" of the big bang was quantum potential. I'm not about to teach you physics here. Dr. Lawrence Krauss can talk ad nauseam about this topic. YT search some of his videos on "something from nothing." He's done lectures that can explain the ideas to you.
+Hebert Moran - You are horribly misinformed on quantum mechanics. "Quantum physics" gets its name due to the nature of reality at the microscopic level having discrete, quantized properties. Our understanding and observations of quantum effects is entirely contrary to our understanding of the meso- and macroscopic world. When discussing the potential of the quantum state, we can literally be talking about nothing. There can be literal no thing to describe, not even space-time itself.
You can research virtual particles to get a bit more understanding of what something from nothing can literally be. They do not violate our known laws of physics, yet they pop in and out of existence on time scales less than Plank time. They "borrow" energy, as it were, from the potential of the quantum nature of reality, and return it before an actionable amount of time in Plank time within the universe. Dr. Lawrence Krauss has lectures and information you can find on YT here discussing "something from nothing."
So did God spontaneously come from nothing?
God didn't "come" into being at all, since his very nature is to be.
Bishop Robert Barron But how do we know that for sure?
I love your way Bishop .:=))
He is the alpha and omega. He has always been.
How do you know what electricity is..."for sure"? The answer is NO ONE knows what electricity is. Don't believe me? Go to your local university and sit down with a physicist. We have no idea what it is but yet we trust it because we can see the results of it, by the fruit it bears.
Love Bishop Barron’s episodes. Raw and intellectual discussions.
No. In both of the cases you cite, it was Aristotle's Physics that was at issue. Metaphysics entertains an entirely different kind of question. Modern science, no matter how successful or "elegant," is no substitute for metaphysics.
terrance mckenna once said "modern science is based on the logic of "give us one free miracle," and we will explain the rest." and the free miracle is the creation of all matter and energy in the universe from nothing for no reason.
That's great. Perfectly succinct and rational. Will be using this
A wonderful explanation of the differences and intentions of religion and science.
God bless F. Barron……..Dec 30 2023
Words created the universe. They cannot explain that gravity does not exist before creation - gravity does not cause the universe to "recreate" itself. That which creates universes is a word from the Word.
I don't have to know it in order to get the argument underway. All I have to know is that you're contingent. Now please tell me exactly where you think this philosophical demonstration fails. And please stop with the pseudo-sophisticated science, which has nothing in itself to do with the argument under consideration.
Not a waste of time, but a drive to learn. We know God. He revealed Himself through His Son. The growing number of Catholics/Christians intelligence on the subject of God's existence is growing and exciting. I choose not to engage without informing myself, as I've been guilty of arguing against premises that sometimes weren't even the premises themselves. I enjoy listening to Catholic Answers, especially the programs for Atheist call-ins only. Don't give up, trust God to help with what you need.
So Catholicism hasn't changed much since the patristic period! Friend, take a look at even the simplest, most cursory treatment of Church history, and you'll see that your position is utterly untenable. I might recommend as well a look at the documents of Vatican II.
Spiritually Beautiful God bless you and God bless us all amen.
I was a catholic for 35 years and now I consider myself and agnostic Buddhist but I still quite enjoy these videos. Cheers Bishop Barron
And now?
@@idankpoaugustine1983 agnostic. But I do like stoicism and Buddhism as philosophies for life.
@@renzokukenleneyoyo522 I see. Why did you leave if I may ask?
@@idankpoaugustine1983 Read a lot of books on the emergence of spirituality and religion. How everything comes from shamanism. How Judaism adopted creed and myths from the kingdoms under which they lived, Persians, Babylonians, Egyptians etc... so basically the religion one follows is just built on a preceding religion. Hence all religions are right or all are wrong. Personally Catholicism was no longer a help in life but a hindrance or an unneeded crutch. So I decided to pursue the best life I could based on the education and principles provided by my family but not because of eternal damnation or eternal bliss... I do what I can, I try to stay in the path of my morals and ethics because it is the only human thing I can do in this life. Apologies for my English I am a non native speaker.
The most honest thing would be to admit we don't know. And this is why in modern minds, science is breaking new ground. Because science seeks truth through reality, and thus brings us new knowledge. At the end of the day, Bishop Barron's definition of God is simply a subjective game of semantics. We may use our infinite imagination to identify and explore new frontiers, but imagination alone is not reality.
@@crazyalarmstudios2012 Yes, and maybe one day we will truly understand this phenomena from a scientific perspective. It seems to me that mind and body are one, and so it's not entirely surprising that as a species we experience similar elements of our imagination.
This is all a red-herring. I'm not denying for a moment the influence of Islam or classical thought. I'm just resisting your complete caricature of Christianity as the opponent of reason and science. The modern physical sciences emerged precisely out of Christian universities. Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Newton, etc. all learned their physics, astronomy, and mathematics at Church-sponsored centers of learning.
So valuable! Thanks so much!
Thank you your excellency, I found this very helpful with my studies