I teared up a bit as you mentioned how the scientist reacted to the pi joke -- I had a very similar experience with fractal calculus, just thunderstruck in the middle of studying where I just started thinking *why* does this work? Why is the universe like this? Why does it seem *so* intentional? These feelings eventually pushed me home.

You've highlighted an interesting and and counterintuitive point: Faith is entrenched not in unintelligible phenomena (miracles), but in the phenomenal (miraculous) intelligibility of the universe.

This episode was fascinating, especially since I am a catholic in the sciences (biology and forestry degrees). Science and religion have always been compatible. The smartest person I know was my highschool physics teacher, Sr. Ethel!

I will have to listen to this multiple times. Not because it was not in an easy to understand form, but because it was simply amazing and beautiful!

Some extremely sensitive poets like Wordsworth reached the same conclusion as scientists from observation and reflection on the natural world alone, that there is a common spirit giving rise and sustaining all things and that at it's heart it's benign. He says: I have felt A presence that disturbs me with the joy Of elevated thoughts; a sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns, And the round ocean and the living air, And the blue sky, and in the mind of man: A motion and a spirit, that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought, And rolls through all things.

One of the reasons I've always dismissed the simulation theory is the sheer stability of the universe's laws point to the Divine and not just some great intelligence. Good talk!

A good example of how weird the intelligibility of math seems at times is Euler's identity, the equation e^(i*pi) = -1. It seems so weird when you try to explain what e, i and pi represent that when you put them into an exponent in this way you get an integer spit out. It's often re-arranged to be e^(i*pi) +1 = 0 because having those remaining additional fundamental numbers, 1 and 0, all fit so neatly together in an equation is a great example of mathematical beauty but also an example of 'unreasonable intelligibility'.

Looking forward to this series. Thanks Joe!

The universe is intelligible not only rationally, but morally as well. ❤

I like this. “How do you know God exists?” “Cuz, math”.

Can't wait for the Heidegger segment. My, and one of Bishop Barron's, favorite secular philosophers.

Awesome video. Will share with my agnostic friends

I loved your talk at the conference on this, so I am happy to see you expand on it.

i'm very intrigued by Week 4. i've been a life-long fan of Edgar Allan Poe. i even have his middle name. looking forward to that.

It's really interesting that computer programmers are creating game worlds all time. They see how much work must go into programming rules of physics, color, speech, etc. I wonder if programmers ever sit back and say, "Hey wait a minute...if a game world must be meticulously created, how much more must it be for the universe?" Now, they could take that a different direction than God and say that we live in a simulation. To that I would argue: we do in a way. What's really the difference between saying we live in simulation programmed by a higher intelligence and saying that we live in a reality programmed by God? We are just disagreeing on who owns the simulation, or perhaps disagreeing on the nature of the simulation creator, or disagreeing on the tools of creation. If you think of Heaven, Eden, and Earth as different programs God created, then one could say we live in the Earth simulation and still believe in God. Wouldn't it be easier to believe in an omniscient God creating our "simulation" than to simply think an advanced civilization created it? As Joe said, programs have bugs. Our reality does not. Unless that's what UFOs are. :p

What I always found interesting was that with all of Einstein's religious talk in his pursuit of science he always claimed that he didn't believe in a personal God. It never really made any sense to me. What was his god? Just a divine intelligence that made all these really cool things and then left it to its own governance?

Beautiful case. It really is awe inspiring to think about

Love all these lately Joe but we need more Protestant ones. Recently was told by my Baptist family that the Catholics kept the Bible from the masses, Luther gave the people the Bible and the Catholics wouldn't let ordinary people get confession if they didn't pay money, would love an episode on that😅. Also read your indulgences blog the other day and it was so great! ❤🙏 Keep up the great work, you're our favorite apologist 😁😁

Thank you

I have always found it funny that people act like the study of science is for “intellectuals” who don’t believe in the idea of a creator or divine being, when in reality religious folks have been involved for years. Heck, the Catholic Church was a supporter of the sciences and Francis Bacon (a monk in the 1600’s or so) helped develop and sort of gave a name to the Scientific Method. Not to say the base ideas of the SM were made by him, but he did pull things together in a way that took off. The Big Bang was also thought of by a Catholic priest, who was laughed at for the idea because everyone thought it was unlikely to improbable the Universe had an origin. Even Einstein had manipulated his famous formula to precluded the idea of a BB like event, only to later regret ever messing with it as more evidence and study went into the idea. Not to say the Church always got the science right, but scientists also don’t always get everything right either. I would say, having the boundaries of there being a God or at least Creator in the scientific studies seems to be the best way to study something. Early Christian scientists were inspired by a desire to understand God’s creation that led to them conducting experiments, ideas, theories, etc to see how everything ticked. I won’t generalize all scientists as I know the field itself is pretty large, but I would say devoted followers of The Science(TM) miss out when they close themselves off to only the physical and not save at least a little room for the possibility of something beyond current human understanding.

Really appreciate this video.

My apologies, going by the title. If this video helps someone great! However, my understanding was that Einstein was deist, which in pratical human thought patterns is almost indistinisible from atheism. I also have my deep doubts that the "Hey look! This guy who 99% disagrees with the Church agrees with us on this one point." is a very strong argument. It' does not feel like an argument from strength. There are many Catholic scientists who deserve more press than they have gotten. Much of what we take for granted in modern science was studied by a Catholic or a Christian. Einstein himself was sitting on the shoulders of giants.

Thanks for this enlightening episode.

Quite shameless. Good work!

Simple but profound. Very enlightening. You make it easy for the reasonable man to see a reasonable supernatural being behind reason in nature. No wonder Jesus often appealed to the understanding of his disciples: Matthew 13: 15-19 ".......lest they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and be converted, and I heal them..........The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart. They do make perfect sense although In Geometry books they are not proven but given that opposite angles as well as corresponding angles are equal. Why is a circle a circle? It is what it is in the same way as God describes himself: "I am what I am."

Excellent. That’s all I can and need to say. There are no real atheists. There are just people that don’t want there to be a creator. Deep down, they KNOW there is a designer. Consciousness, science, and mathematics presupposes a designer. Otherwise, these things don’t really exist and are a futile joke. They exist, so therefore there has to be a superior author. How would such a superior designer communicate this to the puny designed intellect, maybe something like…. “In the beginning….”

Great podcast as always... *Was it not Issac Newton who discovered gravity, not gallileo??

Great video!

I admire how you approach and explain most topics but the skeptic in me doesn't buy this argument about the intelligent design of the universe. If the physical constants weren't perfectly the way they are, the universe wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here to observe it. Any number of big bangs could have occurred prior to/apart from this one but never created universes if the physical constants were different or imperfect. That doesn't mean the universe was intelligently designed, it's just the one that lasted long enough to create beings to observe it. I think that's considered the anthropic principle. FWIW, I've got a BSME, like Bill Nye. I look forward to the rest of the episodes on this topic.

One question I’ve always had about math is this. Since God is a Trinity, did God create math or in other words, quantity?

I understand what you’re saying, and agree that the universe is clearly intentional. It makes sense that Einstein would come to that conclusion. However, as an observant Jew like him, I don’t find your evidence compelling that this proves the divinity of Jesus. I suppose you aren’t necessarily trying to prove that though, only the monotheistic G-d.

FOr me idk if I would consider god a mind. God feels even more vast than a mind. It also feels that god could be both personal and impersonal.

I'm not sure I like this argument. I'm not sure I'll be any good at articulating why but here goes. I don't think you will ever convince an athiest with this argument and that's presumably the intent. Let's just say we grant every premise. We have no idea why the universe is intelligible or why math maps it out so well. It just works for some reason. What's to stop the athiest from simply making their version of the argument from motion that terminates in these scientific principles are just brute facts. On paper that seems shallow but it doesn't seem too far off from how we say God needs no justification, he simply is. Tl;dr I don't think this argument does an adequate job of making the connection from the universe being intelligible to the universe needing an author.

Faith doesnt go beyond reason. Its a way to fool yourself.

You have to be careful quoting Einstein when it comes to god or religion, because he uses these terms in deceptive ways that confuse many believers. You're not the first believer to get tripped up, and you won't be the last. When Einstein talks about 'god' he doesn't mean a god as Christians, Jews, or Muslims might understand it. Einstein's god is the laws and mechanics of the universe -- an entirely naturalistic view. He also tends to use the term 'religion' to refer to deep thinking, contemplation, and meditation -- not organised religion. True, Einstein refuted the term 'atheist', as he had what he called a "cosmic religious feeling" when contemplating the big questions about the universe. But he didn't believe in a personal god, an intelligent designer, as he demonstrated in a letter to William Hermanns when he wrote, "God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." Einstein thought that deep thinking about nature and physics was a kind of religion, and could lead to spiritual feelings like those of religion. As he wrote, "My feeling is religious insofar as I am imbued with the insufficiency of the human mind to understand more deeply the harmony of the universe which we try to formulate as 'laws of nature.'" There's a handful of writings in which Einstein addresses organised religion directly. Of Christianity he wrote (in a letter to Eric Gutkind), "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Of his own Jewish faith he wrote, "For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them." During the reds-under-the-bed scare of the 1950s, when Einstein was accused in the Press of being an atheist (and by association a Communist), a leading American rabbi challenged him to put on record what exactly he meant by the term 'god'. This is when we get the famous "I believe in Spinoza's God" comment. In effect a pantheist view of religion that sees the natural universe as being 'god', rather than a supernatural agent. The Spinoza comment is pretty definitive, and ties in with other comments Einstein makes about god in other letters and writings. He rejects a personal god, like the supernatural intelligent designer found in the Abrahamic faiths. For him Nature itself is god, god is Nature, and there's nothing outside of that. When Einstein says the universe has an intelligent design, he thinks the designer is a natural process. To steal a famous trope from Evolution, he agrees there's a watchmaker, but he thinks the watchmaker is blind. Thanks for the video.

Einstein was the biggest plaguerist of all time 💫

Heb 4:10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his. Heb 4:11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Heb 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

14:11 Bill Nye has a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering from Cornell. Not that that makes him an expert scientist, but it’s certainly more than an associates degree in “science”. Not the main point of the video, granted, which is an astounding one, but a distracting oversight that could lead people to discredit the rest.

I think guys like Hawking and Dawkins are serious scientists who have done good work. Einstein was wrong about religion generally speaking because he was a physicist not a theologian. Similarly Dawkins is wrong about religion because it is outside of his field. The God Delusion was, more or less, a stupid and narrow understanding of religion. Of course, it wasn't really his field of study either.

Irish mathematician John Lennox has some amazing work on this subject.

38:03 Obviously you know the thoughts of the late Antipope Ratzinger better than I. So, is this "intelligibility of the universe" (which I agree on, and agree with him is a prerequisite for the "reading of it" just as I agree with CSL in Miracles the intelligence of the reader and the applicability of his intelligence is also a prerequisite and also above non-Theistic explanations) at the heart of his maybe even gut reaction against Fundamentalism? You know, in 1994 the document about reading the Bible in the Church contained a paragraph that for the first time _ever_ from what millions took as Catholic magisterium condemned Fundamentalism as Fundamentalism. I think he had this gut reaction, and that it took him away from the faith. I'm not speaking about condemning a Protestant qua Protestant, for sth he shares with Luther rather than with Leo X or Calvin rather than with St. Pius V. I speak of condemning him for having sth in common as much with Leo X and St. Pius V as with Luther and Calvin. So, is this gut reaction perhaps rooted in some kind of impressionistic impression or urban legend that the view of reality a Fundy has would make the universe less readable in a scientific way?

Atheism isn’t a claim. There is nothing to prove or disprove

you are making is an dishgusting but thankfully obvious lie at 12:06. Einstein does NOT say that there barely are any atheist scientists that are any good. you dont have to be theist to have "a peculiar religious feeling of its own". Even atheists can have that. And what eisntein means with that is a state o awe and wonder. Not a belief in abrahams god or something naive like that.

God created Science

Creation is science, not human science, but Higher science. God says the wisdom of man is just foolishness to him". "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: He catches the wise in their craftiness". 1 Cor 3:19. Think about this: "Male sperm makes contact with a female egg, life immediately begins to form, and nine months later a baby is born". "What human science can achieve that without sperm or egg donors?

I've actually lost a lot of respect for this channel. Bad arguments are bad regardless of which side makes them. So -> 1) Bill Nye has a BS from Cornell. 2) Most 'scientists' don't believe in God (in overwhelming numbers relative to the general population). Based on those two facts, your rhetoric of suggesting true scientists would believe in God while subpar associate degree scientists like Bill Nye might not is very very misleading. Now, I'm not going against Einstein's argument that the pinnacle of Science presupposes and recognizes religion but your swipes at Nye and suggestions that more educated scientist would understand this is ridiculous and a bastardization of Einstein's enlightened points.

1. We have no other universe to study. So claiming this or that probability for a certain aspect of this universe to be different seems quite pointless, in my opinion that is. 2 The opinion of Saul in Romans 1 is, to me, just that - an opinion. 3. Natural causes or a personal idea as the origin of the universe? I don't see any way to answer this from studies of the universe. So far we can only observe the universe as it was some 380,000 years old. We can recreate what we think conditions were when it was less than 1 second old. But this it not direct observations. Going from this to a creation event or prior to such, is pure speculations and not science. 4. Phillsophy deals with proof. Science does not. 5. The term natural law or laws of physics or similar, is very unfortunate. The use of law in this contex makes the user think of written laws as the primary stepping stone. The laws of nature are no such thing. Observable patterns is what those laws are. We dont know how universal those patterna are. We have ideas, but we do not know. 6. Einsteins opinion on this matter is interesting but he was hardly an authority thereof. 7. I fail to see the immediate connection between us being able to figure out parts of the universe, and the conclusion that the origin of the universe must be intelligent. But I might just be too stupid tl see it. 🤥 8. Regarding Wiegners idea, I'd argue that we develop mathematics as we need it. So why is it that peculiar that it is successful? 9. 31.00 The center of mass of both rocks has to be at the same distance from the center of mass of the earth for this to be true. This means that the resulting velocity will not be the same in Topeka Kansas as at the North pole. 10. Chaos on the quantum level... A W boson has a mass of 80 GeV (78-82 is the normal range). But for a neutron in carbon-14 to decay a W boson having a mass of 0,000156 GeV has to be created. How can this be, when the mass is 80 GeV? A miracle perhaps? Or is it that the mass in reality can have any non-zero value?

why is it the Catholic institution does not listen to the Word of God but the word of men? why does the Catholic institution teach the doctrines of men and not scripture? Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. why does the Catholic institution avoid Daniels prophecy's? the legs of iron and toes mixed with clay the small horn that rises from among the 10? could it be that they want to deceive as the serpent did? is it that they want to make god in their own image? read, study and understand what God is trying to tell you unless your pride is to great!

Never believe in God or religion. You will only become confused and upset with the contradictions and lies.

Presumptions are not an option: Words have meanings" Jesus said. "No one has ascended to heaven except the one who came from heaven" John 3:13. On the Other hand, the catholic church says Mary is in heaven. In John 3:13, Jesus didn't say, No one else has ascended to heaven except Me and Mary. So where does the Catholic Church get its information from about Mary in heaven? The Catholic Church boasts of numerous apparitions of Mary. Did Mary tell the Catholic church in any of those apparitions that she is in heaven? Are any of those apparitions ever really taken place? The closest I got for an answer about Mary in heaven was, "We assume that Mary is in heaven" If any of those Mary appartitions are real then why assume that Mary is in heaven?. Assume is not an inspired word. If it's not revealed in the Bible, it's not coming from God.