This is me but then without the growing-up-Protestant part.

Coming from your history, what are some key things you would suggest Catholics do in order to help lead others into the light?

@@illustrationdabbles8029 Well, I'm not sure how much this will help, but personally, I was able to make my way back to Christ and His Church through politics. Over the years I came to the realization that politics is downstream from culture, and culture is downstream from religion/beliefs/philosophy. It was a gradual process, of realizing that there were cogent, tangible, and *rational* reasons why social conservatives were against gay marriage and abortion. I guess one thing that absolutely shocked me and put the thought 'Christians were right all along' was when I found out the left is now pushing for 3rd trimester abortion, in addition to the child sexualization and child indoctrination/mutilation in the name of gay 'rights', transgenderism, and gender ideology. Basically, by examining the 'fruits' the tree of secular leftism/liberalism has wrought in our world, I was eventually able to clearly see the Culture of Death as Catholics have been saying for so long. I guess Catholics can talk about the fact that our current Left-Right Inc. paradigm is a farce that is owned by the Enemy and his pawns (who the pawns are). Behind politics and culture, is the root of religion; and in the case of this emerging Culture of Death, the LACK of the one True religion- Catholicism. I think if you can lay out and describe the absolute state of our world- the filth, the degeneracy, the decay- in an eloquent, loving, and almost in a sad way, and then use that to talk about social and political issues, especially regarding pro-'choice' and LGBT issues, and convince a person why social liberalism is wrong, you essentially have gotten a foot in the door. Most people, once being shown the ghastly and abhorrent reality of killing of the unborn, and shown the stages of fetal development, know abortion is wrong. Most people recognize child exploitation in the name of LGBT 'rights' has gotten too far and is wrong. Personally, I don't think you need to invoke the Church and God (yet!) when talking about this issue, because it can be convincing without Them, if the person you're talking to isn't a moral relativist. It all comes down to what is morally right, or morally wrong, and because our culture have been so morally bankrupt and bereft of any semblance of following God, there are a lot of things you can discuss that is particularly of interest to the person you're talking to, whether it be abortion, LGBT, pornography, sexual morality and why it's important, moral relativism, materialism, consumerism, socialism, Zionism, lack of marriage and family, open borders, forced secular diversity, oligarchical control of institutions, fake media and its propaganda, elite control of the economic policies, etc, etc. EVERYTHING is connected. Every issues come down to Truth- Truth on what is right and wrong. Every ill in our world are the fruits of the Culture of Death; and if you can get your foot in the door on one issue, you can gradually get them on board on other issues and eventually and gently lead them back to God, because He the founder of the Culture of Life, the antidote to the Culture of Death we *always* get when we put Man on the Altar instead of Christ. I hope this helped on *what* kinds of things to talk about, but as for the *how* you might have to study some effective strategies and methods to use when trying to convince a person. Most people won't straight up and change their mind through lecturing, however well-intended it may be, because it may come across as holier-than-thou or talking from a pedestal.

My experience has been exactly the same minus the angry edgy atheist stage. It's uncanny haha. I'm about to turn 29 and looking at RCIA.

Wow what a journey you had. It's clear you have come here because you genuinely seeked the truth. So many atheists don't want to know any objective truth, they want to justify their own truth. This is evident with the likes of the late Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. Hopefully they have the courage as you did to seek the truth no matter how much it may rattle you

Medievo Menes How did the 5 ways concert you?

It should have converted you to belief in God. Scripture speaks for God, not Catholicism.

I have no problem with the the idea of god. It is just that the Abrahamic religions are too much of a made up story for me. It has so many problems, which makes me unable to believe in them.

The RC ruses to treat women as equals. You are okay with it, really?

Elton Ron St. Thomas Aquinas probably spoke like this priest or rather, this priest speaks like St. Thomas. And St. Thomas was (and is) 100% Catholic. Go figure.

Your post has touched me deeply. Perhaps this is because I can relate to what you describe.

try reading Meister Eckhart as well, he teaches that every single thing has god in it. and by realizing this, you will be able to live like a divine thing

No internt is required.

If God does exist, 1) how can we be sure what God's instructions for our morality are in all cases and 2) how do we know that God's morality is in our own interest as humans?

@@tomandrews1429 Your first question is about moral epistemology rather than moral ontology, but I would suggest you consider Natural Law Theory . Your second question is a little odd if you accept the claim that objective moral values and duties exist. If they do exist then we do not need to concern ourselves whether objective moral values and duties are in the interest of human beings, because our actions are either right or wrong.

​@@tomandrews1429 In the first question you claim objectively, that we cannot maybe know objectively God's moral laws, which in itself is a claim of moral knowledge. So, we can know objectively God's moral laws. Is the second, there is a conflict in what we perceive as "objective" and what God does. If God exists, can we claim to know better than him, whats best for us?

@@tonyoliver2750 Does Natural Law Theory explain how we can know God's morality in all cases? Ok, supposing objective morality does exist, if following it isn't in the best interest of humans, why should anyone care about it?

@@caruya I made no such claim. I'm asking how we figure it out in all cases, a question isn't a claim. If God exists, no we cannot claim to know better than him, but how do we know God's moral code is in our best interest?

This is one episode from CrashCourse Philosophy kzfaq.info/get/bejne/is2ZpsiZ2q2zqY0.html

@@richardgomes5420 thanks, I’m just hoping the crash course won’t go shallow on this

@@vadymtymofiienko521 Please give me your feedback on that. I'm curious to hear your opinion. Thanks

@richardgomes5420 The crash course video on the five ways is not good. Matt Fradd actually has a video (or it might just be a podcast episode) about it. Crash course actually makes a lot of the same mistakes as someone like Dawkins (confusing am accidentally ordered series with an essentially ordered series, thinking that Aquinas is arguing for a finite pass, saying the arguments don't prove the Christian God, asking "who caused God?")

@@aaronmueller5802 True, the man there doesn't explain all the details necessarily but he just skims over and then the arguments don't seem so massive or logically weighty in the history of philosophy.

What is a “wicked smaht”?

@@pelle5817 it’s from Good Will Hunting. I’m just saying he’s wicked smart but in a Boston accent.

'Our boy's wicket smaaht' - 'We got snacks, now' guy

It need to be explained well. Metaphysics is the subject

I don't think he said it was an easy jump, just easier then the initial jump.

@@joshuaphilip7601 You're correct, my bad. :) However, I still don't see how it's easier. I really wish they'd elaborated on that, although I understand that that's not the point of this particular video...

@@zlatickoxt for me coming from being an agnostic and even at one point “person who argues from an atheistic viewpoint on the internet”, it resonated with me and it’s something I talk about with friends who are unbelievers. Why try to convince someone of the veracity of Christianity if they don’t even believe in the existence of God? Foundationally they have to be moved from that lack of belief at all first. Christianity is a pretty advanced topic along that journey. But once you do believe in the existence of God (my interest in Physics and the “fine tuning of the universe” argument was extremely persuasive after thinking deeply about it), then the next logical step is “ok God is necessary for the very existence of something instead of nothing, then which religion is true”. Which leads down the path of figuring out what evidence each one relies on for being true. Simply telling someone “read the Bible” literally does nothing for an unbeliever. Once I did believe and then went on that search for “which is potentially true and has evidence for me to consider for it being true” it was rather easy to dismiss several candidates. Then when actually reading the Bible as still somewhat a skeptic of Christianity, I wanted historical context every step of the way. I read it with a “prove it” mentality and studied outside of the Bible to simply find what historical or archaeological proof there is out there to gain an understanding of what I was reading. When I found that held up beautifully, it was very easy to completely surrender myself to belief in Christ and what His coming means for humanity. So there’s a being that created every atom and construct of reality, what’s that about? Oh, so He expects certain loyalty and devotion and rewards it in this reality and beyond, while punishing those who purposely turn against Him, well I guess that makes sense since it’s His universe, we just live here, so how do I get on the right side of that? Then off I went. There’s a reason many people consider it a journey not just “read the Bible and poof…you’re a believer”. At some point after realizing there IS a God who is necessary for existence to even exist, you start purposely searching for information that supports and strengthens that construct and quite easily see through the fallacies of nit-picky arguments to the contrary. Yes it’s confirmation bias, but it’s unavoidable when dealing with the most important questions of life and reality. If God exists, what does that mean to and for me? If I have already broached that chasm in my thinking, I continue on that journey, I don’t go back. So for sure, going from belief in nothing to belief in God is harder than going from belief in God to belief in Christianity and Christ. It’s akin to going from no existence whatsoever to time, space and matter existing, being something harder to do than picking what hobbies you want to spend your time doing within that created reality (if that analogy makes sense lol)

Michael Drew he is ed feser.

I don't see the argument here. Why does everything need God to keep it moving once the universe started? You have a defined set of initial conditions and rules governing the interactions of our matter. No need to "keep everything moving". The stage is set and the actors on stage, the job of the writer is done.

@@MagnificentXXBastard It"s not a question of getting the universe started, but of keeping it going. The act of God in astronomy is for instance to move the aether from ocean level to star level around the earth. It is a circular movement, and it would stop if it weren't kept going.

@@hglundahl 1) wtf is "Aether"? Thats not a scientific term. 2) That is also not how motion works. Something stays in motion until a force stops it. No need to keep anything going. So no god needed, inertia got you covered.

@@MagnificentXXBastard _"1) wtf is "Aether"? Thats not a scientific term."_ Used to be and I'm reviving it. The "fluid" in which atoms are bubbles, light is ripples and vectors take place. _"2) That is also not how motion works. Something stays in motion until a force stops it. No need to keep anything going. So no god needed, inertia got you covered."_ Would be true of rectilinear motion at constant speed. Any circular movement by definition involves "acceleration" since not just shifts of speed but also of direction are acceleration. Plus, taking this equivalence of rectilinear motion at constant speed with absolute rest is perhaps even unproven.

The 5 ways observe indirect evidence of the God who we cannot measure directly. I'm curious what's wrong with logic being old. Have the Metaphysics of Aquinas been disproven since 700 years ago?

Infinite doesn’t exist except as a concept. The universe had a cause…matter and existence and the laws of Physics and reality had a beginning. And the alternative is that everything came from literally nothing. It’s really not a giant leap of faith to accept that a being capable of purposely setting it all in motion is logically necessary for existence to spring from nowhere and nothing.

@@warrenjoseph76 Prove that infinity doesn't exist. Does time appear to be slowing down or running out to you? Then why would you assume it can start and stop?

Aquinas is not talking about an infinite regress of causes in time. He didnt have a problem with an infinite universe.

@@danielulisesalberdi7319 Then his arguments should have gone something like this: 1. There can be no unmoved mover, no first cause, nothing that is contingent upon nothing. 2. Therefore the universe is infinite and there is no need for God.

@@TenTonNuke Why cannot be unmoved mover?

Sebastian Torres I think you miss the point of the video

Hi again Sebastian, I can share more with you if you want.

@@johnnewburn4750 Sure, Thanks.

@@SebastianTorres22 Let's start this way. If you were an all-powerful, infinitely-loving God, how would you reveal yourself to humans so they can be strengthened by your love while not being overwhelmed and consumed with fear of your sheer magnitude of power? From this question, let's decide the categories of evidence we're looking for, then search together for how the First Cause must be Yhwh. By the way, is it alright with you if I use the short form of citing Scripture? Like John 3:16 means the Gospel of John in the Bible, chapter 3, verse 16; or would you rather I say it the longer way? I'm flexible with whatever

@@johnnewburn4750 if I were an all-powerful God, I gess I would have "construct" humans in such a way they don't be susceptible to overwelming if I show myself as I really am, whatever my real form might be. I don't know, let's say that given the actual circunstances I would appear as some form of hologram or something simultaneously for all my subjects humans, but something not too scary.

Eh, I don’t see much use to the Buddhist religion. You could achieve most of it in any other religion.

@@grosty2353 I’d say you don’t understand Buddhism then and you should try to understand it and see how you go.

@@SunsetHoney615 I have researched Buddhism. There is no real after death purpose, and the 8 fold path is not exclusivist. Furthermore, the historical and philosophical evidence for the Christian God is much stronger.

@@grosty2353 I don’t wish to get into a debate here, but it seems to me that the fundamental claim that Christianity has access to “special truth - revelation” that no other religion has access to is simply untestable. For that reason, no Christian can defend their faith by appealing to reason. If you live Buddhism, rather than study it, you’ll find that it makes no such claim and describes the world as we find it very accurately. Best of luck.

@@SunsetHoney615 totally disagree, but if you don’t want to debate that’s fine

Study Jesus from a historical perspective.

Hi Marcel! It's cool you know so many fancy words. I think the word 'motion' in Aquinas' 5 ways is used differently than we think of 'motion' nowadays. I think of motion as changing locations. I believe Aquinas meant 'motion' as 'change.' Newton's object is not 'changing' itself from static to moving, nor changing itself from moving in direction A to moving in direction B. The outside force would do that. Let me know what your thoughts are, John

@@johnnewburn4750 Hi John... yes upon re-reading my comment, I noticed that I did waffle on a bit. I must have been in a peculiar state of mind when I wrote that. I agree that 'motion' means 'change' as opposed to merely 'locomotion' but it certainly does encompass that. The point I was making was that Newton's first law speaks of an object ...continuing in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. So for example, if you threw a tennis ball hard enough with escape velocity that it exited earth's atmosphere, it could continue to move in a straight line in space with no significant external force acting upon it at all... This is the dilemma of a 'projectile' and it is the most difficult aspect of Aquinas' first way. Newton's first law seems to suggest that an object in uniform motion will continue to move in a uniform straight line when not acted upon by a net external force. This is true. But some people say, hence it appears to 'move itself'. People confuse that as being contrary to Aquinas' first way. But in fact, it actually accords with the first way, but not from the aspect of an external physical force. Aquinas (and Aristotle) are only saying that an external actuality is required to reduce the potentiality to actuality in the moving object and this is not necessarily a physical external force (and certainly isn't when the object is in uniform motion in an inertial frame of reference). It is in fact the 'actual law of the universe' that God breathes into existence in allowing this Universe of ours to have 'motion' (and in this case, locomotion). But yes, the proof is otherwise easily demonstrable from other kinds of change such as heating wood from fire. But it must be remembered that the ultimate unmoved mover in this chain of vertical movers that Aquinas is referring to is a spiritual being and not a physical being, so you will never see the physical hand of God keeping things in motion, you will only ever derive God's metaphysical existence from a proof that must be so in order to accord with reason. Hope I haven't waffled on again! MS

@@marcelvictorsahade Me throwing the tennis ball outside of the atmosphere, means that I am an outside force, right? The ball didn't throw itself. So the ball doesn't move of it's own accord. I'm grateful that you care enough to speak with me that you would write so much. The past few years of highschool, I've struggled to be short and concise; otherwise, people don't want to read what I say. I read what you said, and I think you can reach even more people with the truth if you can make it more bite-sized. God bless! P.S. I like that word locomotion for location-changing motion. I'm gonna use that word. Thanks!

@@johnnewburn4750 Hi John, Yes, you are correct that when you throw the ball, you are applying a force which begins its motion. But your force ends the very moment that it leaves your hand. The ball then starts accelerating downwards (literally de-accelerating, or slowing in speed, even though it is still moving upwards) due to the gravitational force of the earth which is acting upon it (momentarily at least). But since it has enough momentum (escape velocity) it actually exits earth's atmosphere and any significant pull of earth's gravitational field. So it then continues to move in a straight line with no external force acting upon it. Now Aquinas' first way demonstration is not concerned with forces that begin motion some time ago in history (like a first domino falling at the dawn of time). It actually speaks about something being kept in motion by an existing actuality presently acting upon the object in motion. This is what we mean by a mover on the vertical plane of existence as opposed to a horizontal plane of existence. It is not a past event. It is a presently acting event. So when Aquinas says, "That which is moved is moved by another" it is a little ambiguous, but what he is actually meaning (beyond any shadow of a doubt) is "That which is in motion is being kept in motion by another" (and that 'other' cannot regress to infinity, and so we arrive at God). In other words, God is present and existing in order for anything to continue its motion. And so to summarise: In the case of a projectile (where the initial moving force ceases the moment the object is projected or shot or thrown) and where you have uniform motion (in accordance with Newton's first law) then the only 'actuality' that we can point to that allows that kind of motion (which is presently acting right here and now) is the actual law of the universe, and that demonstrates God's existence - by the very fact that we have a Universe that allows motion. But it cannot be confused with a presently acting force in the Newtonian sense, for there is none, and that will only confuse and throw off scientists from accepting the metaphysical proof. As to your other point, yes metaphysics is, by its nature, very hard. It is the third level of abstraction and so the choice of words itself gets very difficult (unlike physical science where we are only describing what we directly perceive with out senses). Someone once said to me that metaphysics is like a fine wine that you have to nurture and live with in order for it to be palatable. (I have given some KZfaq clips on Aquinas' first, second, third and fourth way demonstrations. I don't think you can provide a link in a response, but if you type my name Marcel Sahade into KZfaq, I think you will find my channel. There are a few other videos there too which you can ignore. P.s. Whilst the first way demonstration is the most challenging, it is strangely enough, the most boring. The fourth way demonstration is the most beautiful metaphysically! Start with that one I say!)

So the argument is bascially: We live in a universe with laws of nature that allow for motion therefore God must have created it? That makes no sense to me, sorry. Why can't the universe be simply the product of some natural processes on a level of reality we have no acess to or understanding of? Why can't the universe have come into existance from the void, similar to how quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles behave?

It’s atheist argument 101...they never philosophically afress that subject, but turn it around into accusatory dialogue

@Spaalone Babagus in answer to your question, no.... I've never gained a single concession from them by using this line of argument. But I have shut their mouths with it.

Actually, the argument is usually God considers these acts immoral, and has himself promised punishment to the perpetrators of the acts, yet when the Church itself engaged in the most vile of acts, didnt correct or amend the situation Darwin's argument is similar to Epicurus's, but in Christianity's case, we know God is good, omnipotent, ominescent, and has (supposedly) acted in the past for trivial reasons (he sent an archangel to make sure Tobias got married, sent angels to attack the armies of Assyria), yet when people starve, or are killed in his name, he is silent

@@vincentadultman6226 and my obvious reply would be to ask, "what makes such acts and hypocrisy vile?"

Basically, rape and murder are not okay (under any circumstances) NOW, in the modern age Read the Book of numbers again to see that God himself takes no shame in butchering people if they dont know he exists

Atheisism is a faith on somthing that can't be proven. Therefore it's a religion with a doctrine of ideas and practice.

Justin Souza atheism is a lack of belief in God. Not a faith driven belief. You’re misinterpreting atheism.

@@michellerodrigues4293 yes, you have an unproven belife that a God does not exsist. You belive God does not exsist on faith.

Justin Souza no??? I’m an agnostic atheist. I doubt you understand atheism.

Justin Souza You have an unproven belief that a God exists. Because as a theist you’re making a claim, I’m not.!

With an infinite regress of causes, how would the chain of causes arrive to this present moment? Wouldn't it be eternally en route to this present moment?

@@johnnewburn4750 With an infinite causal chain, there still exists a past, present, and future. In an infinite number of falling dominos, there is still a domino that just fell, that is falling, and is next to fall. You're making the mistake of imagining an infinite timeline like Zeno's Paradox (must first go halfway then halfway, so never reach target), which means you've been listening to too much William Lane Craig.

@@TenTonNuke Can you help me understand more? In Zeno's Paradox, there was a measure halfway and the traveler goes exponentially slower. Infinity does not have a measureable, real-number halfway, and the progression of the present moment through the timeline of history goes at a more or less constant speed. So it appears to me as if Zeno's Paradox does not apply to infinity. I'm not an expert, but does this sound reasonable or am I missing something?

@@johnnewburn4750 It's not a matter of speed. It's a false way of thinking about an infinite timeline. Before you can go a distance, you must first go half that distance. And half the remaining distance. And so on. And because you must always go half the distance first, you will never go the full distance. When I refer to an infinite timeline, I don't mean a series of infinite points. I mean an infinite series of finite segments. Not only can I run the full distance and back, I can do it an infinite number of times.

@@TenTonNuke hmm, this is rather sidetracked from talking about God and God as a person. and at this point, I'm not trying to convince you; I'm just curious about infinity and bouncing ideas off you. can you explain more what you meant? I don't think I meant exponentially decreasing sizes of time segments like half of infinity, a quarter of infinity, an 1/8th of infinity, etc. If I choose each finite time segment to be an equal length like a billion years, I still will be forever en route to the present day, right? because no course can be charted. Or can we conflate the two and say that traversing half of infinity (with its infinite series of finite segments) is the same as traversing half of a finite segment of time (like half a billion years) with its infinite series of infinite points? You seem to be drawing a distinction between the two. Honestly asking, did I miss something? I hope your day is awesome! - John

The argument is that without Morality being grounding in God (objective), all moral judgements by humans are merely subjective opinions. One person can believe murder is completely justifiable and there is no objective standard to say otherwise. There is no distinction between Hitler’s moral view and your own, it’s subjective. You say that atheists are no less moral than religious people, I agree. But by what standard are you measuring this against without an objective morality? Therefore, anything is permissible without an objective moral standard.

@@SoyBooru oh I've heard this argument from Muslims before. There is an objective right and wrong outside of the idea of GoD. Do not treat others how you wouldn't like to be treated yourself.The golden rule. Don't t infringe on others Space. I don't see GoD as objective on moral matters anyway. In Deutronomy GoD Commanded Moses to kill all young men and non virgin women. According to your definition is objective,as this was decreed by God it was therefore moral. But it distinctly doesn't feel moral to me. This is the least interesting exploration of metaphysics and whether God exists- (he literally says "imagine if there was no God that means you could do whatever you wanted in the bedroom ") It's such an odd comment,the reason people pursue moderation in life is not because God exists but because its optimal. As you can imagine ,plenty of very tame boring atheists out there who lead lives of moderation and temperance because its an optimal way to function as a human being.not out of deference to God. This is boring anyway ,God's majestic creation and the infinite have far more interesting ramifications. Also it's one thing to say God exists (an interesting conversation) and quite another to say God Revealed laws through prophets for Humans to abide by in the Torah,and depending on your persuasion new testament and the quran. Or indeed in another non Abrahamic creed.

@@jdlc903 Hi. You are conflating tenants of religious text with the idea of Objective morality. It’s not about what is said in the Bible/Quran. It’s saying that morality as we define it has an objective standard that exists OUTSIDE of human consensus. It’s attributed to God for reasons I could go into, but you can just think of it as an abstract idea. Without outsourcing morality, humans can shape morality to how we see fit because anything is permissible. Your comment itself posits value judgements without realising where your values and morals are derived. “It doesn’t feel moral to me” Based on what? I don’t think most modern people realise how much of their thinking are values are derived from religion even if they purport not to believe in it. The golden rule originated from The Bible. Our legal systems are built upon presuppositions that Religion has given us.

@@SoyBooru OK, so if we leave religious texts aside(and therefore laws revealed by prophets) Even if there is a God,that doesn't necessarily reassure us that there is more of an objective morality outside of what we humans have designed. There may be a GoD but it/he/she could not ascribe any Objective morality for creation to hold as a standard.

@@jdlc903 it’s not about the practical application of the idea. The argument is merely that human society needs the concept of objective morality to form consensus on what is right or wrong. Try to think of it in purely abstract terms, and then explore the implications. Whether it’s true or not is a separate issue. I’m just saying that the assumption of objective morality is necessary.

Can it be argued that there are some revelations which correspond best and most fruitfully with our natural human reasoning and intelligence? Christianity seems to me to encompass reality as it is in the most comprehensive and harmonious way (though I'll admit I've never studied Hinduism). In Catholicism fides et ratio (faith and reason) are married.

Hi Luke! You seem to be a man seeking for the truth. That's really cool! jlmk if you read this. You're right that we can't just default to whatever god our family believes. This opens the door to a wonderful pursuit of the truth, but we can easily get misled. Divine Revelation doesn't need to be written down to be Divine Revelation. Humans were painting the divine on cave walls 70,000 years ago. The beginning of the Old Testament says that God revealed Himself to humans at the very beginning. It was there rejection of God that led to some of their children not knowing. Why would God wait to correct false revelation? We don't fully know the mind of the Supreme Being. But one interesting thing is that technically, the Bible and even Jesus arrived 'early in the game.' Only 2% of humans had been born yet by the year 30 (CE or AD) and the explosion of Christianity was uniquely positioned when the Roman Empire had created a system of roads to journey all over.

I'm not sure a qualitative statement was necessarily made between Decartes'thought and Aquinas'; they merely note that they are different in premises--ie, Descartes chooses to doubt the existence of everything (except the faculty to doubt, at least initially) while Aquinas takes [reality] at, more or less, face value. They did actually praise Descartes a bit after their comparison.

Modern is different from contemporary. Modernity and the philosophers of modernity have specific differences between them and pre modern thought which makes them more alien to the religious experience.

Maybe God is the energy that underlies all creation but it is only man who has made up all the sacred books, rules rituals etc etc.

Wait, are you a geocentrist? How? We literally have sattelites in orbit. We KNOW the earth is going around the sun.

@@MagnificentXXBastard We have satellites in orbit, agreed. "we KNOW the earth is going around the sun" - not agreed.

@@hglundahl How so? The lighter body orbits the heavier body. Thats just common sense. The earth is much lighter than the sun. Also, have you ever used a telescope? Or even binoculars to observe the night sky?

@@MagnificentXXBastard _"The lighter body orbits the heavier body. Thats just common sense. The earth is much lighter than the sun."_ It would be common sense (or sth at least vaguely like it, if not on all detailed issues) if one could limit causalities to the double one of inertia and gravitation, both of which are concerned with mass. If you allow - not just posit, but even allow - God and angelic movers of single planets, then this conclusion becomes a non sequitur. _"Also, have you ever used a telescope? Or even binoculars to observe the night sky?"_ I was at age 8 a member of MARS - Malmö Astronomiska och RymdfartsSällskap - and used their telescope in Oxie to watch the planet they are apart from acronym named for.

@@hglundahl You didn't really pay attention then when using the telescope and listening to the people there. Geocentrism simply can't explain the movements of the planets. Retrograde motion for example, or planets getting larger or smaller. It is also literally impossible to design a geocentric model of the solar system that accurately predicts where the planets will be at a given time in the future. Not possible. Very easy with heliocentrism, the models of the solar system work and accurately predicts the location of planets in the sky at any given time in the future. Explain that please?

Ontological argument?

If god created the universe then he must be outside of it, outside of space and time. If he merely exists inside of some universes and not in others, then who actualized him? An even higher power? if so, then is our universes god even a god if there is something mightier than him? You create an endless loop that has no solution

Not quite. Check out phenomenology (Hegel, Heidegger, etc) and the development of the scientific method. He basically just described the theory of science in a nutshell.

Lekwis, the problem is evidence. It seems absurd that a God so secretive and mysterious will judge people for not believing hard enough in their imagination. There's no testable and demonstrable proof of a super natural being, not by sight, smell, touch, hearing and feeling. And as we know, these are the only tools humans have in our tool box. If there's a God that lives in a different dimension than our reality, then that's not our concern... Unless he wants to communicate directly with us. As far as written revelation, look at the thousands of religions (many within Christianity), hardly a clear and uniform revelation.

How did God come to be? How does he sustain His existence?

Why is there God instead of nothing?

@@kerry8506 God is Necessary Being-Itself. His existence is explained by His own nature. He's not a contingent being, he has no "come to be" nor an external sustainer. He simply is "I AM WHO I AM".

The answer's quite simple: He exists and sustains His own eexistenc because He is pure Existence

These answers are so cool! Aquinas calls God: 'To Be.' There is so much richness in this to explore. Let me know if you want me to share some resources from Catholic theologians. The reason we know God is the reason for His own existence is because of the logical necessity that you can't have an infinite series of causes.

haha! The point is that, as Aquinas was growing older, God revealed even more of Himself to Aquinas. Aquinas experienced the infinitude even deeper than he ever had before, seeing that human reason IS STRAW compared to the infinitude of God. Just because our understanding if so small on the grand scale of things doesn't mean we should give up. As kids, we wouldn't give up on learning multiplication if we see someone's Calculus homework. Multiplication is true, but Calculus has cross-product multiplication, dot-product multiplication, and constants multiplication; the multiplication of Calculus is such a deeper beauty than mere childrens' multiplication, but both maths are true concepts. We don't give up; We dig deeper; we have a newer hunger. Let me know what your thoughts are.

@@johnnewburn4750 All the Christian has to go on is a Sumerian fable about a bare naked lady taking dietary advice from a chatty snake and then chronicled by copies of copies of copies of copies from lost manuscripts by unknown authors. Aquinas believed in revelation at the end of his life. Hardly a proof . Faith is mere opinion without evidence. Usually the result of childhood brainwashing whether it be religion or politics, such as arrested ideologies like Christianity, Islam or Communism & Nazism.

@@robertlight5227 If that's all a Christian has to go on, I wouldn't be Christian either. :) That story is quite different if you read Genesis chapter 2. If faith is mere opinion w/o evidence, I want nothing to do with it. Faith is believing what God says because God has proven Himself to be a trustworthy authority for truth. I can show you how God has proven this time and again. Aquinas is the biggest manifestation of scholasticism which combines faith and reason together. Faith and Reason do not conflict, they bring out more of each other. Aquinas' 5 ways to prove God exists are philosophy and reason that are independent of Divine Revelation and the story in Genesis of Adam and Eve disobeying God in the Garden of Eden. Can you help me see how you are connecting Nazism and Communism into this?

@@johnnewburn4750 Prove u can do logic. I see none in your message. Who brainwashed you as a child?

@@robertlight5227 I was not brainwashed. I grew up Catholic, had a faith crisis as a 9-year-old, witnessed a clear miracle that convinced me of a good loving God, encountered the person of Jesus whom I am friends with, and fell in love with truth and philosophy and theology as my #1 hobby so I can logically prove what I believe in. Sure, I'll give it a try. I love logic. We have been doing mostly claims to set the stage for understanding each other before diving into the evidence. First, may I ask, what type of evidence would you want a God to give to reveal Himself? a God who is so powerful we would permanently cower in fear if we beheld His full majesty, but a God who loves us too much to leave us, a God who wants us to know He unconditionally deep-seated-ly yearns for what is best for us. What should He do to reveal His love without us hiding ourselves?

That's an interesting, true insight. We should put together some proofs to lead atheists to belief in God, then they would recognize your statement as true.

@@johnnewburn4750 I will never believe in a god because i believe in reason over faith.

@@z0h33y What in the universe necessitates that there should be any physics and scientific rules and Reason in the universe? Does the intelligibility of the universe explains its own existence? Just clarifying, I was agreeing with Steve that all of us, including atheists, wouldn't exist if God didn't exist to make us. But that's not a proof for God in itself, so I was acknowledging the need to discuss arguments that point to God.

@@johnp.newburnspianocomposi6552 Man's mind necessitates reason and science. It is irrational to assume that we can comprehend a God whos very being is incomprehensible. For example, according to the law of identity nothing can be infinite, and yet God is?

I just talked with a math teacher who majored in philosophy and believes in God. He gave me some answers I don't fully understand but he convicted me that I don't want to be someone who pretends to know all the answers. So I admit that is more important than whatever headway I could make in our actual discussion on infinity. If you want, I can share what I remember.

no beginning would mean an infinite regress of causes which is impossible because nothing would ever have happened since the things required for something to happen have yet to happen and so on and so on. it's absurd and time would basically move backwards.

@AVal nope, no beginning would not mean an infinite regress regress of causes as there wouldn’t have been any causes.

@Belokonev0527 firstly, the second law of thermodynamics only applies to things within our universe as far as we know. And second, we do not know if the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang was just an expansion of the universe, not necessarily the beginning of the universe

+AVal Whats your evidence to say that infinite regression of causes is impossible ? No one knows, scientists never say they know for sure what was the state of things before the Big Bang, they merely say that our current universe began from the Big Bang but they never said there is no other state of existence before the Big Bang .. Religious people are always over-reaching using their flawed intuitions to deludedly assume things they have no proofs for ... and then make lots of logical leaps to assume certain doctrines are true and use those doctrines to impose their will on gays and people who do not share their beliefs ... thats really problematic ...

@Belokonev0527 that’s just one kind of infinity. That isn’t the same as an infinite regress. The grim reaper paradox does nothing to disprove anything about an infinite regress.

If I told you there was Gold in in Alaska you would have dig up ever square inch to prove me wrong. Likewise, creation provides evidence to a creator and this is God, you could never prove to me wrong so the only sensible thing to conclude through rational reasoning would be to affirm an uncreated being, unmoved mover, a first necessary cause. You can only hold the beach ball underwater for so long, eventually its going to come up. Your time is very limited my friend. The burden is on the atheist to prove otherwise which can never happen. Living a life of no hope or purpose denying your only hope for salvation in Jesus Christ.

Hi! Can you explain your first paragraph for me? I don't understand it. I really appreciate your openness for the truth and good faith in believer's logical pursuits!

@@johnnewburn4750 I can't remember to what that was a reaction exactly. But I think it is a critique on a reasoning that would be something like: for a car to exist, first you need a car so some creator can understand what a car is. I'm sure I'm not particularly steelmanning their point, but is seems they didn't explain their point clearly.

@@mysterion9686 You're right that the car thing is illogical. Maybe what you were referencing was when they were talking about action and potential in the middle of the video. They give much better definitions in the video than I can. But what they say is that the Original Mover (Aquinas means motion as a category of change broader than changing location, but also change in size, color, etc.) holds all potential realities in His imagination. Then He gives actual being to the potential realities that He chooses. I imagine the idea of respecting you Mysterion; thus there is a potential reality. Then as the creator, I give actual existence to that by agreeing with the truth you say and politely sharing further truth with you. It's not like I need to respect you before I know how to do so (see a car before I can make one). Rather, the car goes from potential reality to actual reality. Does that make more sense Mysterion? Please let me know what you think.

@@johnnewburn4750 Yes that makes sense. But it's also a very human way of looking at reality. It's being anthropomorphic with respect to the process of creation. To me, passive processes where imagination plays no role whatsoever, are also able to convert potential being in to being. So yes, physics and evolution, without the need of some 'mover'. That sounds quite cold and simple. But I think that from the perspective of our own experience, a product that is high up in complexity as a result of such processes, we can only do our best to get explicit in our understanding what is inherently implicit in those processes. There's a lot of implicit wisdom in that process that created us, that we are unable to fully see. But it gives us our feelings, emotions and intuitions. I find that mysterious and amazing. To me, an implicit wealth of knowledge only presenting itself explicitely throught intuition etc., is as we experience it, 'God working in mysterious ways'. I'm not affraid of using such language, as it it is the only language that actually captures our experience of that mysterious spiritual realm. But, in the end I see it as a result of passive processes being amazing, and without a 'mover'.

Clean your ears

Can you explain specifically what you are saying meant nothing to you?

I wish I was good on a pogo stick. I think that mocking people is unhelpful on both sides. Some thiests mock atheists. You mock me by asserting that I'm basing my "entire theology on the incomprehensible ramblings of a 13th Century Aristotelian." Can you help me see what's so incomprehensible about my theology?

@@johnnewburn4750 Classical theism is derived almost entirely from the writings of Thomas Aquinas. All you have to do is read any page at random to understand what I’m getting at. He literally spends hundreds of pages describing the biological make up, physical properties, and social structure of angels. Aquinas was a lunatic.

@@AntiCitizenX There are 1300 years of strong Christian theologians predating Aquinas. Aquinas is not the 'almost entire' source of classical theism. Aquinas doesn't think angels are physical. In the response in Section 2 of Question 50 of the Summa, Aquinas says that angels are incorporeal, i.e. they are purely spiritual and have not physical properties or biological make up. But God gave angels the power to manipulate matter, but Aquinas clearly says that the matter is not the body of the angel. I can swing a bat but the bat is not part of my body. This theory was trying to understand how angels appear to humans' physical eyes in the Bible. So Aquinas is basing his beliefs on a classical theism that predates him by thousands of years.

@@johnnewburn4750 The majority of modern classical theists are openly Thomist. They are not even shy about it. Why would you dispute something that the people who self identify with it are openly proud of? It’s like you’re so desperate to prove me wrong on a trivial nit pick that you’re denying the de facto reality of the issue. It’s weird.

@@johnnewburn4750 *Aquinas doesn’t think angels are physical.* Again, are you even remotely interested in a serious conversation? Or are you so hell bent on playing philosophical “gotcha” that you have to behave like a pedantic imbecile? Aquinas talks at great length about issues like whether or not angels can travel instantly or occupy the same space. Those are “physical” properties, whether you like it or not. You also seem to be utterly incapable of recognizing the actual point of the issue, which is not (I repeat, NOT) the question of whether or not “physical” is synonymous with “corporeal.” The mere fact that a guy would devote hundreds upon hundred of pages to this stuff is a sure sign of outright lunacy. The simple fact that you utterly failed to recognize the issue (but instead deflected with a red herring), only further demonstrates the sheer insanity of Thomism. This is not rigorous philosophy, my friend. I strongly recommend you stop wasting your life on it.

Matt grade goes to a Byzantine liturgy I think so defo as orientem

And philosophers can say the reverse too. Which is why religious philosophers laugh at Dawkins and atheist philosophers are embarrassed by Dawkins.

Prove that the scientific method is the only model of decerning all reality and all knowledge.

@@socksonmafeet8088 It is up to the one making the claim that must set out proof. I have nothing to prove as an atheist. What is your argument and where is your proof/evidence?

It's a branch of study not something you can empirically study numb nuts. Without metaphysics you deny the existence of potency and actuality.

You might as well just ask someone to prove that the "so called logical exists," or the "so called ethical exists." The question is nonsensical

@@socksonmafeet8088 What is nonsensical to ask for reasonable proof for such huge claims?

Hi again, I'd love to share some evidence if you're interested.

@@johnnewburn4750 sure. List your best evidence. No claims please.

@@Wordoffakes Would you like me to start with trying to show the reasonableness that there is a god in the first place, or would that be a side-track from your question of how the existent god is in fact the God of the Bible?

@@johnnewburn4750 take your pick. Keep it simple though so I can respond. Then you can go into more details if I see it as reasonable. Fair enough?

@@Wordoffakes Yes! My pet peeve with chat-thread discussions is that there are always loose ends that don't get addressed. So yes, I love your idea to go slowly point by point. For now, let's investigate how the God of the Bible (I'm using the Catholic Bible which has all 73 books) is in fact the logical identity of the God of the universe. I'll use bible reference form like John 3:16 instead of 'The Gospel of John chapter 3 verse 16' unless you prefer I say it the long way. So here' my first bite-size point of what the Bible claims. I'll use it as a premise to a long string of logic: the God of the Bible is omnipotent/all-powerful. Jeremiah 32:17 "‘Ah, Lord God! It is you who have made the heavens and the earth by your great power and by your outstretched arm! Nothing is too hard for you." Let me know if I can move on to the next premise. :)

Hector Torres Well, boys. Theism is no more.

I like how you used cold hard evidence to back up ur opinion.

And the word became flesh and dwelt among us

@Hector Torres The name of God is I AM. Whether you do or you don't believe in him he is the Living God. Notice that they mentioned that he 'IS'. " You have made us for yourself Lord and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." (The words of a man who was an atheist but is now a Saint)

A word is an expression of a reality. If God was only the Word, then there would be nothing to reflect. Jesus is the Word/Logos as @P G quoted from the Gospel of John ch. 1. Jesus, as the second person of the Trinity fully expresses the Father more perfectly than a mirror reflects you. The Second Person in the Trinity is the Word, yes Hector; but, as a whole, God is more than a word.

Can I ask your opinion about something in common with atheists and theists? I find that, especially on this forum, both atheists and theists come on here to teach not to learn, to act like they know everything rather than to be humble and explore with a prudently-open mind. How do you think we can rise above this debate-setup that makes us armored artillery vehicles rather than thirsty roots? How do approach each other willing to trust, to give the benefit of the doubt?

@@johnp.newburnspianocomposi6552 you're wrong to think that I'm not trying to learn both sides. It's just that every time I see a Christian debating atheism they're full of lies

@@privateprivate1865 I wasn't saying that about you. :) I don't know you well enough to say that. I was just noticing a trend within myself and others and I value your opinion as to how atheists and theists can overcome that challenge.

@@johnnewburn4750 one way atheism and theism can never come to challenge is honesty.

@@johnnewburn4750 I do see a lot of ego on both sides which is disgusting to me.. and that's a separate issue but it is important. But at least be f****** honest in your debates. And I swear most theists and debates resort to dishonesty and semantics

Prove by evidence the Trojan War happened.

@@slhopf Like Jesus there is no proof it did.

@@robertlight5227 K

@@slhopf The onus of proof bears on the claimant. Xtians claim with no facts.

@@robertlight5227 Sure

Atheism was never alive.

ACRX SLS lmao disagree

J w “small- minded”, “bitter” people? Wow. This just shows how rigid you are towards your views on theism. Pathetic.! This is one of the reasons why theism finds so much of disgust. “Oh you’re an atheist? You must be small minded, and bitter” How awful of you to say that. I hooe you realise it, it’s called ad hominem fallacy. Atheism is quite logically consistent too, unlike most theistic arguments.

"Atheist are still unjustly persecuted, but that is because they are an old minority, not a new one." G.K. Chesterton I think the point was that the militant atheism of Dawkins is losing steam and not winning converts at the rate it formerly was when the "New Atheist" first burst into print. And although religious belief can be said to be contracting in the West, this doesn't hold true in a global sense. Religious belief is growing globally as populations grow globally. So taking the human race as a whole, atheism is but a snippet of human thought and has never been anything more than a tiny minority. And there is no reason to believe it will ever be more significant numerically than it has been in the past.

Atheism carved an important pathway towards logical and reasonable dialog. I don't identify as an atheist, but from my observation, they won the logical argument. Get Sam Harris at the table with this guy and you'll understand what I'm saying.

Read the proofs and the proofs' explanations.

Hi, I'd love to discuss this with you. You seem like someone interested in the truth because you are on here. Would you be interested in discussing this with me?

Veranicus, these nonrunners published books on nonrunning, hold debates to argue against running, organize in weekly nonrunning meetings and create codes and rules towards pushing their agenda of nonrunning. There's more to the new atheism then just not believing in God. It's a movement with organizations, literature, leaders and a mission statement. Seems a lot like a religion to me. As far as your statistic on religious rapists... I'd really be interested in where your source is for that but even if it were true it doesn't really prove or mean anything. It's sort of like saying a high percent of guilty criminals were law abiding citizens of the country. Your argument seems to say that rape is condoned in religious way of life, when you know it's not. Seems the same with criminal law, if 100 percent of criminals were law abiding citizens, it's the act of breaking the law that matters, not the standard or societal rules that they didn't hold themselves accountable to...we wouldn't abandon law because some people choose to not follow it. If religions approved of rape, then there would be a real argument there.

That is one of the most ignorant comment i ever read. Sorry but your to far gone.

Your problem lies in religion. God did not create religion, man did, that’s why all religions are flawed. Atheism is a religion. This fact is irrefutable and agreed to by most all philosophers

@Real[ity] just google the word definition of the word atheism, please. And it is not shameful to admit you were wrong. Please do yourself this favor . Atheism is a religion like nonstamp collecting is a hobby. Atheism is The word for the absent of a belief in a god. It is by devinition pretty much a true opposite of religion, only despicable liars are using the phrase "atheism is a religion". Just google, man

Veranicus your utter ignorance and lack of common sense must be a great embarrassment for you. You obviously have faith and a belief in the absurdity of atheism. Faith and belief is what religion contains so open a dictionary and learn. Admit your wrong. Stop playing video games in your mommy’s basement and learn something

What are you talking about? Atheism has never won

@@pg-jr8sy He's referring to one of the most illegitimate aspects of an illegitimate church. Men in robes, who do so, on a pretense of legitimacy.

@Log Cabin Man those who do not have the treasure of Faith and the living God in their hearts are the ones who lose. " you have made us for yourself Lord and our hearts are restless until they rest in you" ( words of a man who was an atheist but is now a Saint) :)

You must not have listened