Bishop Robert Barron: "Religion and the Opening Up of the Mind" | Talks at Google

Bishop Robert Barron:

Show Video

Well. Welcome, everyone. Thanks. For joining us today we're excited. To host Bishop. Robert Barron for this talk at Google as. Part of a series of talks that the, Catholic community here, in a, range not, only for itself but also for other, religious. Or non-religious, groups that, we all so warmly welcomed. Bishop. Baron just, flew in, this morning all, the way from LA to share a message, that we believe to be very aligned with our core values here at Google especially. In regards to respectful, dialogue and respect. Respecting. Each other and each other's dignity, who. Is Bishop Robert Barron though I'm, glad you asked novice. Bishop. Robert Barron is the auxiliary bishop. Of the Archdiocese, of Los Angeles and he's, the founder of Borland Fire Catholic, ministries his. Website word on fire org. Reaches. Millions, of people each year and he's, one of the world's most followed Catholics, on social media along with Pope Francis and. His. Regular YouTube videos have, been viewed over 25. Million times and he, recently received, the YouTube silver creator Awards. So, Bishop Baron is a number, one best-selling author, on Amazon and he's, published numerous books, essays and, articles on, theology and the, spiritual life we. Have a few copies of his latest book to light a fire on the earth in the, back to give away today please, don't all rush over there right now but. There will be time after, the talk for a book signing and. Also Q&A, again, yeah, so. Without further ado let's welcome a, pizza, bar. Thank, you guys very much. Thanks. Well. Thank you very much thanks for that nice introduction, and it really is a delight, to be here at I mean, you all know this one of the most significant, cultural centers really in the world I've been very, warmly received so, thanks, for the invitation thanks, for the great. Hospitality, I. Want. To talk about religion. And the, opening. Up of the mind. Because. Very often religion, sort of gets a bad rap.

As, Superstitious. It's sub rational, it's opposed to the mind I'm gonna argue Oh contraire. Just. The contrary that religion authentically, construed, is meant. To open up the, mind and the will okay, that's my my. Goal today. You, know a term that now is common parlance but didn't exist when I was a young man is a search, engine and here. We are at the headquarters of the most popular, and powerful search engine on, the planet. And. Our fingertips, now quite literally, is almost all the knowledge all, the wisdom information, that the human race has accumulated and we can just press a button and up it comes just. Recently. I was with a older, friend of mine and he was mentioning. The 1937. World, Series and. He was convinced, that game three, ended, with a certain score but wasn't sure what it was I said well let's check mr. Google so of course we did and up came the information, about Game three of the 1937. World Series not, that long ago as with someone else and we were wondering about a passage, in the Divine Comedy of Dante and of course we're able to find it very quickly here's. One that was maybe a few in the room old enough to remember the show f-troop, remember, that from, the 60s, well this, is that good a few of you with, some friends from my you know era, and we're arguing about the character, than f-troop I said well let's ask mr. Google, so up came the carrot here's not an F Troop so, you know that that we have really. At this extraordinary. Civilizational. Moment, the capacity, to access. The. Wisdom of the race now see. Search, engine. Search. Engine, triggers, for me an awful, lot of, resonances. With religion. The. Mind. By. An inner instinct. Is restless. Even. Relentlessly. So right the, mind searches, for truth and, it, finds it finds a particular truth like the ones I just mentioned but. Does the mind ever rest, at that point no no the, minute we find, some truth usually. Twelve, more questions, emerge think. Of the way we all surf the web right we go looking for something but it leads us somewhere else than somewhere else somewhere, else again and then we find all this so fascinating, we forget what we were originally looking for the, mind is restless, even. Relentlessly. So it never rests, or if it does it's. The way a climber. Might rest on the side of the mountain just to catch his breath before, heading, back up right. It. Searches, it searches, the more it knows the, more it wants, to know. My. Great intellectual, hero is Saint Thomas Aquinas and, he. Spoke in the thirteenth century of, the. Intellectus. Odd gems. That's, his Latin and, usually it's transliterated. And English as the agent, intellect, which sounds rather you. Know cold seem, odd gems in Latin. Is a participle, doing. Making. Moving. Intellect. Asad Jones is the restless, searching. Mind. Now. Where's it going, the intellectus, odd gems what's, it looking, for here, I love the the, one-liner from the great Jesuit, philosopher, Bernhard lonergan lonergan. Says it's very simple the, mind. Wants. To know everything, about everything. Now, Google this should be familiar to you right but. That's the natural dynamism. Of the mind not to know just this particular, truth, or that. Not. Just the conglomeration. Of all particular. Truths the mind wants to know everything. About everything it wants, not just particular truths, it. Wants, the. Truth itself. It. Wants, the source, of reality. Itself, that's how hungry. The, mind is, another. Lonergan, line is is there's, an emptiness like the emptiness of a box. It's kind of a dumb emptiness, just waiting to be filled but. There's also the emptiness of the stomach, it's. Empty but it knows what it wants the. Mind is empty at the beginning of life but not like a box more like a stomach. Intellectus. Odd Jen searching, searching, until. It. Comes to its fulfillment only. In. Knowing.

Everything, About everything, the. Very source of reality. Okay. True. Of the mind, equally. True of, the. Will. The. Second, great dynamic of the human spirit the will now, the will seeks not the true, but. The good. So. Right now everyone, in this room we're all seeking, the good in some way so, I'm seeking the good of speaking, view you're, seeking, I hope you find it some good in in my talk. You. Know we talked about final. Causality. Aristotle, made that distinction right between efficient. Causality, like a pushing, cause think. Of all the physical sciences, the modern Sciences are based upon an efficient, causality, where do things come from what brings them into being but. Final, causality, Aristotle, thought was more important that's. The pulling cause right. What what attracts, or lures things. Now. That's a talk for another day we had we could debate final. Causality, in nature but, I think no. One would would disagree that final. Causality. Obtains in, our world. That. We human beings are drawn by. The good it lures, our, wills. Okay. But. Remember the intellect, asaji ins the restless seeking, never satisfied. Mind, same. Is true of the will. Notice. How any act of the will can. Be analyzed, in a kind of Russian doll manner, do I mean the one downside, the other that, every particular. Act of the will if we think about it is situated. In a broader, and wider act. Of the will which. In turn is in a broader, and wider broader. And wider etc, I want. To talk about think. About getting, out of bed in the morning, right so it's an act of the will unless you fell out of bet but, if you get out of bed in the normal way it's an act of the will you're seeking a good to start your day, but. See that good, Ness. In a higher good, why. Do you get out of bed well. I want to get to work okay. Why. Do you want to get to work well. I need to make money, well. Why need to make money, well. I want to support myself and my family, why. Do you want support yourself and your family well supporting. My family leads to their flourishing well why do you want that because, my. Family, flourishing. Makes. Me happy and. I. Want to be happy all the, time and. In. An unconditioned. Way. Just. As the mind won't, rest, until it knows everything, about everything, so the will doesn't. Rest. Until. It finds an unconditioned. Happiness, now let me analyze any act of the will that way I set, my car to the mechanic well how come so the car will run, better well why do you want that so I can get to work and I'll do that analysis, or so I can get to my friends more easily but, why do you want that well being with my friends is a great good that makes me happy and I, want to be happy all the time and an, unconditioned. Way I. Go. To a basketball game this is kind of easier to analyze well why do you want that well because basketball, is interesting, and beautiful and contemplating. It makes me happy and I want to be happy all the time and, in. An unconditioned, way see. The the will if. We analyze it sufficiently, is conditioned. By a, desire. For. Beatitude. Oh I'm using, this latin term on purpose because, it was thomas aquinas his term. Happiness. Beatrice, means happy and laughs beatitude. Oh is the. Happiness, i'm talking, about which, is not the happiness that comes from a particular act of the will like hey I went to you know Bishop barrows talk I was okay I liked, it you know it made me happy, in a very limited way okay, I'll be I'll be happy, if that's true but. Then Zi analyze. Any act including, this one and you'll eventually get, to the. Design higher at. The ground of the will, for. Beatitude, Oh, unconditioned. Happiness. Now. Here's the interesting thing everybody. Prior. To modernity prior, to the rise of the sciences. The. Principal. Question, that. Preoccupied. The minds of the best and brightest people in the West was. The nature of beatitude. Oh see. What what is it so, we all want it and, that's true by the way of the of the religious believer of the agnostic, the atheist everybody, wants. Beatitude, oh it's. The first mover, of the will. So. What. Is it and. Can I submit to you there is no question more, important, than that and, and, see one of the tragedies I think of our time is so often we bracket, that question, because, we're so preoccupied.

With The achievements, of our of Sciences, and God bless them I'm all in favor of them don't get me wrong but. We tend to bracket, the question that prior to modernity, the best and brightest people thought. Was the most important. What. Is this beatitude oh that all of us at least implicitly, are. Seeking. Okay. And I want to give you a little bit now of, Thomas. Aquinas his analysis, of this you, can find it by the way in the very beginning of the second, part of his, great Summa, theologia, his summary, of theology. He. Was interesting many years ago there was a prominent, Catholic Cardinal. Who, had a little quip that he often used he said good. Morality is, like good art it, begins. With a drawing of a line now. It's it's a clever line but I think actually it's wrong. Because. That's not the way Aquinas, stars. The. Drawing of a line like a law and, I'm, in favor of it don't get me wrong we have to get to drawing some drawing of lines but Aquinas. Begins not with the law that happens, in question, 99. 0. Question. 1 question. 1 and here is just like all his pre-modern, of, colleagues. Question. 1 what. Is beatitude. Oh what. Is the happiness, that is luring our, wills. Ok. So. He does a kind of process. Of elimination. He. Looks at for. Classical. Candidates. What. Great people have said and thought about the nature of beatitude Oh, so. First he says some people claim that. Wealth. Is. Beatitude. Oh. To. Be rich sufficiently. To be sufficiently, wealthy, that's the B attitude oh that, finally, I'm seeking, now. Is that a legitimate, position well in a way I mean I get it lots of very smart people have said that and may, I submit in our culture, especially you. Can find an awful. Lot of people I think that hold to. That if. I just have enough you. Know money. In the bank I have a big enough house nice. Enough cars, I have a commodious, life, I'll, be happy, and that's in fact what I'm always implicitly, desiring, and all my acts of the will. True. Acquaintance, says no. Wealth. Is it good but. It can't be the unconditioned. Good, how. Come let's. Just look what does wealth mean, he. Says wealth and the natural sense means and I give there's a quote here that, makes it sound kind of contemporary, he, says. Wealth. Serves, as a remedy for our natural, wants, such as food drink. Clothing, cars. Dwellings. And such like that's. From the thirteenth century but it sounds like today doesn't it I mean that, what's what is wealth give me it's, a remedy for natural, wants, so, these natural wants like I'm hungry, I'm thirsty I I'm uncomfortable. And, so wealth gives me food, drink clothing cars, dwellings, and such like goods. Yeah. But, it can't be the ultimate good why why, because Thomas, says those, things are, the.

Condition, For the possibility. Of much, higher goods and. Think about of a second you know once you've discovered you've found enough, food and drink you've, got a. Shelter, you're. Living in a sort of comfortable, commodious, way then. You, can aspire, to. Philosophy. And science, and, friendship. And conversation. These, higher Goods. Wealth. Is a proximate. Good it can't be there for the, ultimate, good, so. That can't be beatitude Oh what we're all implicitly, seeking. Okay. Others, have said. Beatitude. Oh happiness, consists, in, honors. Now. Think about for a second how many societies. Both of east and west around the world trans, historically. How, many societies, are predicated upon. Honor. And shame right. That, the worst thing you can experience is to be shamed, and therefore. Concomitant, ly the best thing is to. Be honored and I. Know lots, of people whose. Lives are pretty much centered around the, quest for honor, to. Be thought, highly of to be given titles, and prerogatives right, to, be held up. Okay. Is honor, though, beatitude. Oh and Aquinas, says no, it can't be, why. Because. Honoree says is like a flag. That. We put on something, good, noble and virtuous. So. You notice, someone who's got great ability, or their or their leading, a virtuous life and you, want to put a flag on that to say hey everybody look at that that's. Worth emulating. That's. Honor so think of titles and positions and, prerogatives and so on signs, of respect they. Are flags, of virtue or nobility. Therefore. They're derivative. They're, secondary. What. Matter is much more than honor are the things that are being honored namely, your virtue nobility. And so on therefore. Honor good, things sure. But. It can't be beatitude. Oh it, can't, be the happiness, that deep, down we're all seeking. Okay. Oh but here's another. Indication, that honor can't, be the ultimate good, notice. Aquinas says who in, society, is being honored the most, are. They the very best people, the. Question answers itself doesn't, age. To age think, of the people who get the most attention the most adulation. Are they in fact the best again, it answers itself. Others. Have said, you. Know what be attitude oh is its. Power. Power. And again this has a lot of weight. Across the ages, lots of impressive. Important, people have, argued for this and deep, down there, are a lot of people age, after, age who. Do indeed seek, power as their, ultimate good you, know go, back to the Tolkien movies, and the great Tolkien, novels, what's, the ring, but. A ring of power right, what. Are they seeking what's everybody, drawn, to, talk about final, causality. Right the minute the ring gets near anybody what's. The ring of power, it. Is indeed something that we all seek, I. Think. In our culture too I would. Correlate power, and freedom very strongly you know, for Americans, or many Westerners, what's the supreme, value but freedom. Well. You want freedom but but power right, it, don't try it on me don't get in my way let, me do what I want to do go where I want to go accomplish, what I want to accomplish and isn't, it true that we hate it when, people take away our freedom I do I hate it whether, that's in a physical, sense of psychological sense of spiritual sense and so. Ok power. Does, seem to be something very alluring, known. As to please so, keep talking in mind but, also keep in mind in the. Gospels, the great story of the temptation, of Jesus. What's. The highest temptation.

The, 3rd temptation. The. Devil takes, him to a high place and shows him what all the kingdoms, of the world in one glance, and all these I will give you if you but bow down and worship me, it's. A temptation to power isn't it. So. It is alluring, but. Is it beatitude. Oh. Aquinas. Says no it can't be why. Very. Simple reason. Power ii says is a. Source. Of activity, that, allows us to attain an end, but. Beatitude, o is an, end the, city means beyond, whatever this beatitude o is it's something that I'm going for that I want it's a good that's out there power, is terrific, as a means, of attaining ends, right, you give me the power to, do this the power to do that the power to attain but, power in itself is not what you want it's, the good that power gives you access to right. Therefore. Power can't, in itself. Be. Beatitude, oh, okay. So it's not wealth not. Honor not. Power here's. The fourth great candidate. And. I think everybody from a spiritual standpoint it's really helpful analysis. Because. All of us were all sinners in this room, I trust. We're. All beguiled, by these things in some way we all tend to mistake these for beatitude. Oh so. The fourth one Thomas, says is, pleasure. Now. This is a very old philosophical. Position it's called hedonism. And don't, make fun of hedonism, is just like you know eat drink and be merry hedonism. Is a very noble of, classical, position that, says what we all seek, deep down is pleasure, now, it could be pleasure in food and drink and so on but also pleasure, in the arts pleasure in sports, pleasure, in in knowledge. Etc so it can be a more refined, form. Of, hedonism. But. That pleasure it seems is this, ultimate. Good it. Seems. To be beatitude. Oh. Yeah. Might seem that way so the kindness but it can't be how come because. Pleasure, he says is a side, effect of. Something. Much more fundamental. So. When I achieve, some physical, well-being I, experience. Pleasure as a as a happy, side effect but it's the health of the body that's really substantive, or, when I make some great spiritual, intellectual, cultural. Attainment, I might feel a rush, of pleasure accompanying. That but, the pleasure is just derivative, isn't it from.

The The substantive, accomplishment. So, pleasure can't, be it. Okay. So we know we. All want. Beatitude. Oh everyone in this room again this is religious, non-religious, believer atheist. Everybody, wants beatitude o otherwise, you would not get out of bed in the morning. So. What is it what is it that's. Not well if it's not power it's not pleasure it's not honor. Thomas. Says, the. Desire. For. Happiness for, beatitude, o is an. Infinite, desire. Remember. I said we want to be happy all the time and in an unconditioned, way don't, we I don't want to start over some proximate. Good some, limited, mitigated, good I want, goodness, itself and, therefore. He concludes. Beatitude. O cannot be any good, in this world. Of. Wealth. Pleasure power on or anything else. None. Of that can. Satisfy, this. Longing, of the soul, and of the heart this questing. This searching for. Beatitude oh. It. Is only in God. Listen. To his quote, hence. It's evident that nothing. Can lull, a, person's. Will. Save. The universal. Good and this. Is to be found not. In any creature. But. In God alone. Now. Can I submit to you everybody this is is the the moral, wisdom of, the, great biblical tradition, and the roots of this go way back into the Scriptures themselves but. This is the way Aquinas, analyzes. It philosophically. What. We want cannot. Be met by anything in this world just. As what the mind wants, see. It does not correspond, to any particular bit, of knowledge within the world the. Mind wants to know unconditioned. Truth the will wants, the unconditioned. Good. That. Hunger. Is that. The source, of, religion. It seems to me that. Opening. Up of the questing. Mind and heart is what, it's all about. Okay, now, can I turn from that little philosophical, analysis. To. The Bible, and. I want to share with you a story that I've, always loved, and. I think, it speaks precisely. To this point it's. A story from. The. First book of kings in. The Old Testament. Destroyed. Dealing with Elijah, and, the, priests, of Baal now, as I tell the story you might remember. During. This period, Israel. Had gone over to false worship. So. King Ahab.

Remember. So Melville calls his you know Captain, Ahab and pork, abhinaya because we, hear in the Bible that a hab is worse than all the kings of Israel combined, and and. Knowing, the rogues gallery of, the kings of Israel that's saying a mouthful right so, Ahab is a really bad guy more, to it his wife Jezebel, has now drawn, him into the worship of false, gods. So. Elijah the prophet rises up we know nothing about him, except. He's from the little town of tisha now, talked to specialists, historians. Of the ancient world they don't know where Tish PO was so we know nothing about Elijah he suddenly appears, on the scene and he challenges, a.m. he, says you know the drought were having here in this country it's, because, of the false worship. Tree. Interesting thing now in the Bible never. Read, the. Punishments, of God is somehow arbitrary. God's. Is having a bad day and so he's imposing this arbitrary, no no it's, spiritual, physics. The. Garden, go back to the beginning what's the garden symbolic, of but flourishing. The flourishing, that God wants, for his people. Adam. And Eve expelled, from the garden not capriciously. Arbitrarily. But, as spiritual, physics when. We fall away from God we tend to fall into lifelessness. That's the point and so, the drought now of it Elijah points, out is a function, of false. Worship, now. Let me just I'm gonna dwell on that for a second keep, Aquinas, in mind and beatitude oh and the seeking, of the good right and keep, in mind those, substitutes. For beatitude, oh wealth, pleasure honor power. The. Very beginning of the book of Genesis we hear, about God making. The heavens and the earth right, and, everything's. Coming forth in this orderly, manner. Mind. You please not science, hi poetry, and this is right so, as things come forth in this orderly way let. There be light and there was light let, the earth come forth that came forth let the earth know teem with animals, and so on and so forth. Stars. And, the planets all, come, forth in this, orderly, procession from God two. Basic, moves are being made here symbolically. First. Of all the author is. Dethroning. All these, false, claimants, to divinity think. For a second of you know the planets and the moon and the stars mountains, animals, the river etc, what do they all have in common they. Were all at one point or another worshiped, in the ancient world, these. Are all God's worthy, of worship, the, author of Genesis is saying no, no no. No. No. These. Are all creatures. Of God not. God, don't. Worship them. Are. They good yes, and the, conglomeration, indeed is very good but. They're not God. Don't. Worship them, now. Here's the second point he's making and here, that the Catholics will understand what I'm talking about as these. Things come forth, in an, orderly manner one. After the other in a, stately procession was. That remind you of. It. Should remind you a bit of the mass and, of, the way the. Ministers, of the mass process. In, well. The mass of course the roots go way back into the into the Jewish temple rituals and so on right, there's. The idea nothing. In the world is God don't worship them but everything. In the world is meant to turn to, God in, right. Praise. As. The purpose, of creation is to turn to God and right praise and. Who. Comes at the end of this procession well. There's the human beings right Adam and Eve who. Comes at the end of a liturgical procession. But. The priest or the bishop the one who's going to lead the, ah that's, the idea. Dethrone. All. False. Claimants, to divinity nothing, in the world is God don't worship those things but. Rather let, all those, things be part of a great chorus, of praise. Led. By. Human. Beings who. Can give voice to, the. Praise of creation. That makes. Sense that's the biblical vision that's the biblical vision, right. Praise. I, love, this connection that you know the word, adoration. From. Two Latin words that were odd or rotc Oh odd hora, or, amis, mouth right ah Dora. Is mouth to mouth. To. Adore, God, is to be mouth to mouth with God it means lined, up, aligned, see, under the power of God, in. That stance, we, find, who, we are. Another. Little bit emoji thing, worship. Right our word worship go.

Back Now like Chaucerian, times, an older English form is worth. Ship. What's. The highest worth. That's. What you worship, now. Again let's me everybody there's believer or non-believer everybody, this is above this is religious person atheist, everybody. In this room worship, something. There's. Something of highest, worth, to. You, remember. Beatitude, Oh everyone's, seeking happiness everyone, there's no way around that what. Is it what. Is it and see, that the author of Genesis is saying don't, let, anything, in the world be the object, of your worth-ship. But. God alone. Wealth. Pleasure, honor power, any creaturely. Thing that. Will not lead you to the beatitude, oh that you want but. Only the right praise, of God and can, I submit you I think. That's lesson one of. The, Bible, it's, what the Bible is about from, Genesis, to Revelation it's. About right. Praise. And, don't. Interpret that in a fussy way but. Rather in this deep sort of metaphysical way. Right. Praise means the right ordering, of one's life worth, shipping. God alone. When. You do that where do you live in a garden, that means you live in a place of life, when. You stop worth shipping, God alone. Welcome. To the desert that's the biblical symbolism. Okay. So, with all that in mind go back now to Elijah. And and King Ahab he. Says the trouble here Ahab is you're, worshipping false gods it's always the problem, right. Fellow sinners. Right. That's always the problem I'm worth shipping, something other than God. Well. As they have happy about this no no he. Says, get lost you troubler. Of Israel and. Elijah. Again, all we know about him is his name but you know his name means it tells you everything Eliyahu, in, Hebrew, Elijah, Eliyahu. Means, Yahweh. Is my God -. His whole being is summed up in him I don't, worship Benny for anybody, but Yahweh Yahweh's, my god Eliyahu and, so. He prophetically, challenges. A.m. he's, what he says he's, it look you, get all the, priests, and prophets of Baal so the the gods that they were worshipping and let's, all go to Mount Carmel and I'm, gonna go up there and let's have a let's have a challenge, and, so. The, 450, priests, of Baal go, up Mount Carmel and then, the one Elijah right, now. In that there's an important lesson to. The. Avatars. Of the false gods are always thick. On the ground, true. Then uh-huh, true today yes. Wealth. Pleasure honor power by the way the, avatars, of those things are they everywhere. Uh-huh. They're always thick on the ground. The. Representative, of God tend. To be much smaller number, so the one Elijah against, the four and fifty priests of Baal and then. Of course that wonderful, story. Unfolds. Which actually is quite funny, and the, friends of mine who know Hebrew, really well I don't know what that well will, tell me that the humor really comes out in the, in the Hebrew.

Let. Me read you some of those, some of the lines so the, the priests of Baal set, up the altars, right and then they begin to supplicate, and to beg and to pray that their gods will come and send fire to consume the sacrifice because, that was the challenge right you call on your gods and see, what happens and I'll call in mine and we'll see which one responds, right so, they begin to. To. Beg and so on and. Elijah. Around, midday, begins, to mock them because they know fire is coming to answer there he, mocks them cry. Louder but. All is a god but you know he may be detained, and talked or maybe he's lodging, abroad or maybe, he's on a journey, or maybe, he's fallen asleep and, needs awakening, so. He's mocking them the priests of Baal and now, they're kind of stunned, by this and, so then they take out swords. We hear and they they slashed themselves, till they bleed that was a sign of greater supplication. Right and still, they beg and still they cajole and, still. No fire falls. Then. Elijah comes forward to his altar, he. Says hear me O Lord hear, me prove to all the people that. Thou art the Lord God and are calling their hearts back to thee and with. That we hear the fire comes down consumes. The sacrifice. Elijah. Wins, ok, but, here's what I want you all to see, please that, this is not just a you know my God is bigger than your God it's, not just kind of a chauvinistic, story. This. Is making the same point, that Thomas. Aquinas was making it seems to me. Look. Everybody's, got a hungry heart right Bruce Springsteen taught us that saying. The same thing everyone's. Got a hungry, heart everybody, wants beatitude, oh so what do we do we. Worship. Something. Everybody. Does it, paul. Tillich the protestant theologian said that all you need to know about a person you can learn by asking one question what. Do you worship, it's. Dead right it seems to me it's all because, your life will be organized, around what you take to be the highest value so, think. Of the priests above all no think. If you want of for, altars. Erected. To wealth pleasure. Power honor. What. Do most of us sinners do most of the time is we hop. Around, one. Or more of those altars. We. Worship, one. Or more of these things I, mean. Everyone. Can tell the story right I know lots of young people that got very early, on the train toward, wealth and they. Worshiped, it they, devoted, themselves to, it they hopped around the altar. Did. It satisfy them, no it can't, and we just saw why see, because the hunger is infinite, and no, amount of wealth is gonna satisfy that. So. What happens then. You. Get addicted. You. See why I'm, searching, for wealth and I, got it I got, my first million by thirty or whatever it is you know and I got a little buzz from that as, you do but, then the buzz wears off it has to cuz you're not you're not built, for that and.

When The buzz wears off I better go back to that altar I better keep worth shipping, there I better, keep hopping around that altar, and. I get my first 10 million by 40 or whatever a goal you have and and. The buzz comes back but what, will any addict, tell you we're. All addicts in this room by the way cuz we're all sinners well, will any addict tell you the buzz well we're all faster, right, and. So. Now I panic. Remember. The slashing, themselves, with, the names till. They're bleeding that. Will harm ourselves. In the, process of hopping around this altar. Power. Same. Thing same dynamic, talk, to people who very early on got hooked on power that's. What will make me happy so I'm gonna worth-ship at that alter, the attitude oh man that's its power that's what I want and I get power whatever. It was I'm going for by the age of 30 you know and I get a buzz from it but. It wears off it has to. So. I get more and more and I hop and I cajoled and. Then. Before I know what I'm addicted. To. Such a degree that I'm harming, myself in the process. Same, with honors talk to anybody who's, that mad train I never. Get enough attention they, don't appreciate me why did he get that job why do I not have the, honors I deserve. I've. Been worth shipping, at that altar all my life people will say it's. Not designed, to satisfy you because beatitude, o is not found there. What. Is the lied you representing again. Don't think of it so much you know how chauvinistic, Li and nationalistic, Li what is it Elisha represent, but. The. Worth shipping, the. Worshipping. Of the true God the. Infinite. Truth, the. Infinite, goodness of God. When. You order your life that way listen, out the fire will fall. That's. The point then. The fire will fall because. Now you hooked, your infinite, desire under the properly, infinite, object and the. Fire will fall and consume, the, sacrifice of, your life and. Make. It radiant, and and. Bring it to it to a heightened, fulfillment, there's. The Bible that's the lesson the Bible has for us which, is relevant. In 2018, as it ever was because. I can introduce you you all know this you do the same thing introduce. You to dozens. And dozens of people that I know who. Are hopping around these four altars right. It's. Only true worship, that will give me satisfaction. Okay. I'd make one more little step and then we'll bring it to a close here's. What gets I think really interesting. So. So. God. Alone, will, satisfy the deepest, hunger my heart okay got that. I've. Got to get God in me, right to satisfy, my desire for beatitude, oh, but. Who is God. In. The biblical reading, God. Is. Love. All. Right st. John tells us that and, that's a distinctively. Christian idea because it's not that God simply, loves or that. God has the attribute, of love it's, what God is. Father. Son Holy Spirit by the way lover. Beloved, and shared love that's who God is is, love, so. Here's the paradox. Only. And God is my soul at rest only. When I have God in me do I have B attitude oh but. God is love. Therefore. Only when, I. Give. Away. What. God gives me do, I have the B attitude oh that I seek. Love. Is willing the good of the other love is giving, away and so. As the, divine life comes into me what do I do with it don't. Hang on to it now, we read the prodigal son if you want the physics, there right father, give me my share coming, to me give me me me me give it to me so I can have it what happens to them fritters, away not. Arbitrary, punishment that's spiritual, physics you try to hang on to it you'll lose it but. When, you give away the divine, life that's flowing into you. Now. It increases. In you thirty. Sixty. And a hundredfold, right. You. Get the love that God is, in you, by. Giving it away. Is. Any way this Christian thing is so hard to get because it's so counterintuitive, fellow. Sinners, in this room what's, our hang-up, look, I'm unhappy, we all are by the way I don't mean psychologically depressed. I mean we're all unhappy we're, all we're, all unsatisfied. In this room so, I know I know I'm missing something, that's it I'm missing requisite. Wealth pleasure power, or honor right, that's, our instinct, I got, to get more of that I got to fill myself up that's, never, the answer that's, never, the answer in fact that's counter, it indicated. That will lead to addiction and unhappiness. Rather. Contrived. A way to, give your life away and.

You'll. Find, the, B attitude, oh that, you're actually seeking. Sam. Something about the questing. Mind, and the, searching, heart, when. They open up to the infinite, source of love, that's. When they find that B attitude oh they seek, so. How, about just give st., Augusta in the last word. If you go back to the great confessions. Of st. Augusta one of the you. Know master works of the of the Western world. Page. One you'll. Find this little pithy, statement of, Christian anthropology. Lord. You've made us for yourself. Therefore. Our heart is restless. Until, it, rests in thee, there's. No better statement of what. I've been trying to say all this talk, Lord. You've made us for yourself that's, see the infinite, hunger. We're. Not gonna get like a dog satisfied, its basic needs and goes blissfully, to sleep utterly happy terrific. That's what dogs designed, for we're not designed, that way, Lord. You made us for yourself we've, got an infinite, longing, therefore. This is beautiful in agustin therefore our heart, he says he didn't say Cordia. Our hearts. He says cor Nostrum, see. What he means is we've all got, this in common, this. Links, everybody, together cor, Nostrum our heart is restless. Until it rests in thee and that, means conformed. Unto, love. That's. Beatitude, oh. Thanks. Everybody thanks for listening. Thank. You bishop very good, please so, we're gonna have Q&A right now so Davao, is over there he's gonna run around with a mic if there's any live questions and. I will read out some questions from the dory so let's start with one from the dory. We. Have John Nolan and Mountain, View asking, when. Scientists, and atheist talk about religion, they seem to be stuck rehashing. Debates of previous centuries evolution. Age of the earth heliocentrism. What. Can be done to convince science. Minded skeptics that, religious, belief systems have, something valuable to offer in, the 21st century, yeah, good it's a question I wrestle, with all the time first. Of all all the things they've raised there from my perspective as a Catholic, are nine issues so. Helping. People how old is the earth don't. Ask me ask a scientist how, did how did biological. Things develop don't ask me ask an evolutionary. Biologist those, are scientific, questions, properly so the, Bible is not science, right, the last book of the Bible is written around the Year 100, AD the first scientific, texts are in the let's, say 16th century the Bible is not science, it simply isn't its. Spirituality, and theology making very profound. Observations. That are truthful about, the nature of reality, but, not in a scientific, mode so first of all to give science, its total do that we're not in a conflictual, relationship but. In the second move is this to. Overcome, our terrible, tendency in our culture towards, scientism, and scientism. Is the reduction, of all knowledge to. The scientific form of knowledge right, so, what, the scientific method can give us I love the scientific, method and look, around us I mean what is produced god bless, it but. We. Shouldn't reduce all forms, of knowledge to what can be delivered by the scientific, method. Get. Out of Plato's cave if you want to go back to the to the Republic of Plato get, out of the realm of simply looking at shadows on the wall and come, to much higher levels of reality accessed. I would argue through metaphysics, and through philosophy and so, there I would, give, science, its total, do right, and then we're not in a conflictual, game, with the sciences but, also not to allow the sciences, to draw everything into themselves. So. That's it that's a quick answer to a subtle, of. Set of questions there. Please. If, anyone has a question just raise your hand okay, so. Beatitude. Oh and the, way you describe, it with it's. Necessary. Longing, and desire and. Journeying. Towards it. Eastern. Ideas like the Four Noble Truths, say, that this is in fact something that we can move past that it's not completely. Universal, and that moving past this, desire, and this longing is in, fact a viable, path towards enlightenment is there, a way to resolve, those, Eastern, ideas with what you said today or is that a fundamental difference, yeah. It's a good question of course it would take us you know a year to search it out completely but I think that that's right there's a key difference because, it's the it's the quieting, of desire, you know Nirvana it's the blowing out of the candle of, desire that is the goal of the Buddhist tradition and desire, in a way is the problem, you know born of ego and so on and so, you know dependent, coronation.

And Through, intense. Meditation one finds, that point of putting. Out desire, where. The Christian thing and Agustin is is typical. Here if not, putting, out desire but awakening. And is and directing, desire, appropriately. Now. I think we can play as Thomas Merton did the true self all self game. And that's that's a good way I think to dialogue. With with Buddhism is. There a false, self, that's. Full of all kinds. Of weird and errant desires, yeah and that, should be put to death blow. That out if you want blow, out the candle, of that kind of desire but I, would say is a Christian there's not just that there's also a properly. Directed desire, an. Awakened, and heightened desire. But. Yeah you're onto I think a very fundamental, point, of demarcation but. I think true self false self might give us a Christian. Analogy. To the blowing out of errant, desire but. We wouldn't go so far as to say that desire quod. Desire, is the problem it's, it's. You. Know des. Lieux Bach talks about this the Claudia Castillo mistake, he is this weird. I'm crippling. Of desire that's. The problem but, that's a great question it's the point of demarcation I, think. Please. Go ahead. We. Have another question on the Dory from. Mike rile in Mountain View with. The growth of technology and the development of a globalized, community. What's, the most important, thing that we can do as a group of people dedicated, to the advancement of, technology, to, ensure that our ethical, and moral growth, as global population, doesn't, fall behind our technological. Growth that's. A really good question, terrific and I'm glad, it's, raised so you understand the dynamic, there that we get so enthusiastic, about our technological, advances, and again. God bless them, they're wonderful you know but. They, must always be, properly. Haunted. By the, moral question and the, moral question is the question of love finally, I will speak as a Christian to love, is to will the good of the other right. Not. My good through you but, your good, I want, what's good for you that's love and love, must always, dominate. Love, must always be the primary consideration and so as, our technology advances. Is it in service of love you. Know Saint Agustin said love, God and. Do. What you want on. This point there was as long, as love, is. Thoroughly. Dominant. In your life then then the rest will take care of itself, so, then your technological life, will find its proper place. So. That's terrific I'm glad that ethical, spiritual, question is raised or else our technology, will destroy us because, that's the thing look at wealth pleasure outer power. They'll. Turn on us see. If we don't know how to manage. Them spiritually. They'll manage us, again. Sound familiar every. Center in this room including me we know what that's about they, start managing us you. Know but. We, need to have, the sovereignty, of love and, then, these things find their proper place that's. Good, please. Go. Ahead please. Okay. Hi I. Think you might have already partially answered, my question, but you, know the during the course of your your talk it sounds as okay there's, the created, world and, ways. So you know basically worship, or love those things and then there's God and is, there only is, there a way to love, God I mean there's so many of us we're all so different is, there a one way or is there is there, you know how. Do we find our way to love. God is, there are there seven, castles, that we should be aware of or, or are, we so different that we have to make our own way that's. Good I mean you're talking there about the spiritual, tradition, and you're making reference actually to Teresa of Avila and so on the interior castle and there, are different, paths that spiritual, masters have laid out, and. So we, can find some of those general categories, everyone. Is different everyone's, got a unique personality, everyone. Falls in love with God differently. You. Know I would like to say John of the Cross who's, one of the great, masters, where John said, don't. Use the image of climbing the holy mountain which a lot of us will use like you know God's up there I got to find my way to get, to him but, rather God. Wants, nothing more than, to move, into your life in a saving way right, in, a life-giving, way so the idea, John. The Cross is to clear, the ground. So. The helicopter, can land so. I don't think I got to get up that mountain and, there's God distantly, out there and looking, judgmentally.

At Me as I strive to get up the mountain rather, no gods I get a helicopter who wants, to land in my heart but. There are obstacles in the way there's, their stuff in the way and I would say you know there's forms. Of false worship in the way clear. Those out so. The helicopter, can land so. It's like have the conference, that no God wants, in, my. Heart that's all he wants you know and I might just get out of the way enough, it'll. Happen, you. Know now, that's everyone's, got their own hang-ups. And problems, that they have to deal with but I think that's a basic, of, strategy. Please. Dessert I. Think we'll just do one more question from the dory and one more live question, and then we'll call it so, Eloisa. Wolf. From Mexico, is asking how, do you see our, as Catholic, employees, at Google. Well. She'd know better than I she's an employee. You. Know I first. Of all this. You'd, be a person of love that. Whatever, you find, yourself I go, with the little flower two residues ooh you know who's her so-called little way don't. Read that as, something, kind of twee and sentimental, the little way means in any. Situation. Find. The opportunity, for love and love. Again it's not a sentiment, it means willing, the good of the other so, wherever you are in whatever. Condition, you're. Sick you're in prison you're at work or wherever you are what's. The path of love find. It and walk, it so. That's, what I'd say to Catholics, at Google is walk the path of love as, fully as you can but. Then you know if you want to press the thing always. Be open as we here in first, Peter to, give a reason, for the hope that's in you so. If someone is curious about your, faith your, Catholicism, be ready to. Provide answers, we're. Going through a kind of a golden age right now of apologetics. I think, it's because the New Atheism I think it awakened, a lot of religious people to you. Know we got to defend ourselves here, and make the case to a, skeptical, public so, a lot of good material out there learn it so, that when people approach, you maybe curiously. Have. Something to say to them so those two things love, first and then, be ready to give a reason for the hope it's in you. Please. Um would, you mind sharing with us one way in which you've personally, experienced, God in your life yeah. Well I mean first. And foremost every, day when I say Mass I mean is the most powerful, but. I'll tell you when I was 14. It, was. Hearing. One of Thomas Aquinas his arguments, for God's existence so. I was, a Catholic kid going to Mass but, I wasn't all that interested, in religion, and it, was I was a freshman in high school and I see as I see Dominican in the back of the room a. Dominican. Friar in our religion class laid, out for us one of Thomas's, arguments, and honestly, I I never thought you could think about religion seriously. To me was it's like yeah, I go to Mass on Sunday but I never thought about it until that, moment I thought wow that's, a very intriguing. Presentation. And it, led me on this quest that I'm still on and, that's quite true that was, years. Ago. But. I've never left that path and that's where I really say God and, I look at it now in a decisive way kind of entered my, life and set. Me on a path that I'm, still on standing, before you today. Good. God bless you all thank you very much for coming. You. You.

2018-05-26 08:00

Show Video

Comments:

He speaks Truth!

Please help me, I need to know why I like guys and why I should join the chruch? I was not born religous and have gay parents who disowned me for wanting to learn more about it.

Excellent! Very enlightening and truthful.

Thank you, Bishop!!

Anyone who asserts a god has a non-functioning brain. If there were such a commodity, by any definition, it would either intersect the phenomenal, or not. If it did, then it could be located and observed. If it remained transcendent, then it could not be asserted to exist, as there would be no way of knowing what it is, that it is, how it might function or relate to the phenomenal. It could not be observed, nor located. There is no such thing as a god by any definition that is known to exist. Not to understand this connotes a non-functioning brain.

That is a long route to a dead end. No conclusions can be reached about what may lay at the end (beginning). This doesn't get down to causality. Its gets down to existence and what it takes to claim anything exists - this is more a case of epistemology. How do we know that we know something -- especially as we claim the existence of things. To speak of a god is to claim to know it exists. To claim to know it exists it has to claim it has definable characteristics. To have definable characteristics is a matter of study and observation - it is not a function of philosophical rumination. Anything that exists has to be able to be pointed to in some fashion that all might see and understand in the same way what it is. And to claim something exists that has so much ostensible control and impact on the phenomenal commands empirical proof. It has to exist specifically and thus, it has to be able to be observed down to its supposed specifics. They cannot be inferred. If something is non--specific, then it might be said to exist, but nothing can be said about it. Your god is very defined and specific -- especially in its supposed reach. You have to produce that god or call it a day. You cannot assign it a nebulous title such as the uncaused cause of all time and then just submit that it is the guy in the OT who went rampaging around, killing off civilizations.

You haven't begun to answer the argument! How do you finally explain the existence of contingent things? Once we have established the existence of the uncaused cause, we can get to his attributes, qualities, powers, etc. Just take one step at a time.

I am behaving. I just don't like lies, upon lies that point fingers, marginalize, and dehumanize. That is theism, and in particular, that is Christianity and Islam. Everything you state I have heard before and understand it to the point that it seems to support itself, but I would claim it is not tethered to anything knowable, provable, or real. You like to drive off into the philosophical weeds to promote arguments that cannot in any way provide proof for what is argued for, nor, of course, produce what is argued for. And what you seem to point to is necessarily transcendent, and as I say, we cannot know anything transcendent. We can state that something beyond space time must be transcendent, but we cannot know that it exists in that realm as our matrix for knowing does not extend that far. And thus, we cannot know what it is even if it does exist. Your god may be a necessity from a causal standpoint, but that does not state what that god is, it does not prove it exists, and it does not detail its essence or functioning. When you use the term god, you have to explain exactly what you mean - what that word entails in all formats - and then provide proof that what you say is true in terms that all can understand and agree upon. Whatever first cause may have spawned the phenomenal, we do not know and cannot say what it is. To apply the label of god is totally subjective. You cannot say that what may have authored the phenomenal is singular nor primary, nor uncaused. Furthermore, causes belong to the relative - to the causal universe. If there was a sentient source behind the phenomenal, it makes more sense that it merely intended the universe into being. It would have no need to cause anything - and it would necessarily exist outside cause. There are also counter arguments to your submission that there cannot be an infinite regression of causes to wit I would side with -- but even if there were not an infinite chain, we cannot know that the first link in that ostensible chain was the inception of this universe. And finally, your 'radically immanent" assertion is maybe poetic but grandiose. It would require proof. Your reliance on philosophy gets quite looping. I don't think 1% of your flock would follow it or have an appetite for it. People look at the term god to represent something entirely knowable and personal. The can talk about it endlessly as if they live next door to it. They consider it to be an actual being --- an entity that they intend to spend eternity with. Now, where oh where did they get such ideas and what is their proof it is real? Easy, they take the bible literally. If it's in the bible, then it exists and it is true. Now, how to you tie your uncaused cause directly to your tri-part god in the bible?

Man, could you tone it down just a notch?! I get it: you don't like religion. I was using technical language taken from the mainstream of the Catholic philosophical tradition. That there must exist some reality whose very nature is to be is the conclusion of the argument from contingency. Things that don't explain their own existence require a sufficient cause. There cannot be an infinite regress of caused causes, since such a state of affairs would finally provide no explanation for the contingent existence of any element within the chain of causes. This self-existing and self-explaining reality is what I call "God." Once you grasp the nature of God (more or less), you understand why he is both radically transcendent to the world and radically immanent to it. And this is why your original statement is, as I said, too dichotomous.

I had but two minutes to respond previously. You came down from the mountain to convocate with the rabble. A commendation may not be in order, but it is duly noted. You are at heart, a theist, and in your mind, a deist. You oscillate back and forth between something with all sorts of phenomenal droppings and footprints to something so esoterically parsed that but three people on the planet know what you are talking about -- and not that it makes any sense. I am talking theism - the personalized god forms that people claim knowledge of directly, a relationship with, and that has known laws, requirements, rewards, penalties, agendas, etc. If this god is what you define/describe above, which is more a principle or a philosophical construction, you still need to tie it to the personalized god of your bible and that every Christian preacher, priest and pundit has alluded to for the past 2,000 years.

Oh, nice try. I'll bet there are three Catholics on the planet who understood what you just laid out. I understand it but it is hogwash. How do you get from that definition to an extant deity, a la the bible?

Friend, your perspective here is way too simplistic, too starkly either/or. The claim of Catholic philosophy is that God, precisely as the sheer act of to be itself, both inheres in the world and transcends the world. Whatever is, in the finite realm, participates in the to-be of God, but nothing in the world is God. This is the analogical conception of being which is central to a right way of thinking these matters through.

The best talk I ever heard.

Thank you, Bishop, from one of your Presbyterian viewers. I'll be using this video in adult Sunday School.

God bless you and your students!

I thoroughly enjoyed this - thank you!

Bad ideas do not deserve respect. People deserve respect. Christianity is such a bad idea it deserves to be criticized. Beliefs are not immutable. They can be modified, challenged and rejected once shown to be false. The resurrection is a matter of #faith not a matter of fact. There is no bad idea that cannot be believe by means of faith. Faith is a flawed and dangerous epistemology. We need to challenge the preconceptions upon which the worlds monotheistic religions are based. Doubt is a virtue, skepticism is a light and empirical evidence the means by which we can progress our knowledge of the natural world.

Bishop Barron when commenting above failed to correct the misguided belief that the Gospels were written by the Apostles. Was that an oversight or deliberately keeping the faithful in the dark?

My OpenMind ... Is your name choice a mockery like Planned Parenthood? Like how they mock those who didn't use Family Planning; apparently given all the Choices to artificially interfere with Natural Selection and Sexual Reproduction to violate that Evolutionary Process but having failed to make that Choice, now choose death for someone else's body, saying it's a right to their body!?! Only it's not their body! That's why they're doing that, is now everybody's business! Especially Planned Parenthood, that made it their business, when they were indicted for selling baby body parts! If little people to be born, weren't a person and so valuable, why is their such an illegal demand for them? Why would someone admit on video their greed for selling them to buy themselves a Ferrari? See! I told you I was skeptical! Especially about human nature being all too selfishly self interested in itself when not focused on being of service to others. So how is it you claim you are open minded but rhetorically ask every question in the book with your closed minded answer.... No!?! Is this your attempt at comedy, dark comedy? Why you ask? Because... What are we dealing with here? A three year old toddler stuck in his terrible threes? But if we are, than I could understand your thinking the way you do, because of separation anxiety, lacking in object permanence, being so literal and concrete thinking, while confusing emotions for logic and feeling with thinking. It would also explain why given access to the internet to look up all those answers to your questions, that you're too willful and lazy to honestly investigate them on your own. However if you really were a three year old, you would be more childlike in your faith and not childish is your adulteration of not being a child, to deny faith and so acting very much like a lost like child. No wonder why Jesus felt compassion for his lost sheep, wandering around all by themselves lost out there in the wilderness. Thinking they are so powerful and independent, foolishly leaving the flock, where once they were safe, not exposing themselves to so much danger of losing their life! If only they would answer the call of Jesus their Shepard knocking at the door to their hearts! But here you are, like a lost lamb, hearing the call of one His Good Shepard's and your flipping him the bird! Not all that different than the two theives reviling Christ just before they all went up on the cross. Let's just hope you have an epiphany, get struck blind in your persecution of His followers, so you finally fall off your high horse, gaining some humility and grace, by becoming repentant so you can be saved like the Good Theif demonstrated in his rebuking of his fellow theif, so that he found Paradise, by God's grace mercy.

I appreciate you sharing your subjective opinion about what you believe, that doubt is a virtue. So in the spirit of appreciation of your sharing that belief, I should run with what you have taught me to be skeptical about your claim to openness. Further more, I will base this on strong empirical evidence that demonstrates the exact opposite is the truth, that skeptical doubting naysayers only know FEAR and not the truth. Since when did a naysaying doubting Thomas every innovate? Especially skeptics so full of doubt and little faith, because they are ruled by False Evidence Appearing Real (FEAR)! Isn't it they who because of their fear of not having control ignore the unintended consequences of trying to control natural processes by artificially interfering to disrupt them and in doing so, demonstrate disrespect and contempt for the very thing they claim to revere... Evolutionary Processes? Claiming to love Science, while violating her to narcissistically control and manipulate Nature by ignoring and violating the rules of Nature. Isn't that bastardizing Science into it's being about something it's not, Scientism, a pseudo religion that's anti-religious? But is this Gaslighting of theirs intentional? Are they People of the lie? This is the question we must ask ourselves while being skeptical and doubtful of what they claim.

The question of who wrote the gospels is a case study in how faith can close minds. The faithful desperately want the gospels to have been written by the apostles, no matter the evidence.

Who wrote the gospels? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops admits it is unlikely they were written by the actual apostels. See for example the USCCB introduction to Matthew, which states that "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable". http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

Bishop Robert Barron perhaps you should devote a video or two to the evidence for Christianity. Virgin birth ..... no Genesis myth .....no Global flood ......no Moses and Abraham.....no Evidence for exodus....no Life after death.....no Nativity in Bethlehem.....no Walking on water .... I don’t think so. Water into wine magic....no Resurrection.......no Are any of the supernatural claims of Christianity believable .....no. What kind of a fools do you take us for. Have you any evidence for your beliefs because Christianity is probable the most easily refuted religion. No wonder you want to indoctrinate the young and the ignorant. There is no evidence that the Christian narrative is true and plenty of good reasons to doubt its veracity. So why do you spread untruths? How is that moral?

I would actually encourage you to be more skeptical! You're operating out of lots of modernist prejudices and you have very inadequate understandings of both faith and resurrection. Keep thinking critically! Keep asking questions! Don't let modernist rationalism shut down your mind.

Zirious23 really? Show me the autographs. Where are they held? Of course we can see what they teach at respected academic institutions...... https://youtu.be/u72myyXDA74

My OpenMind: Bart Ehrman? He’s the pioneer of the “anonymous Gospel” claim. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as an anonymous Gospel Manuscript. All of the ancient manuscripts of the gospels _without exception_ are attributed to their respective authors in the original text. So he’s just not a good source on this. This is only the first reason why his claim isn’t logical.

Zirious23 You’re not a student of the Bible are you? https://youtu.be/rhM5lbVBgkk

My OpenMind: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the authors of the Gospels. Please let’s discuss this. I’m interested in your response.

KA Fleury who wrote the gospels? You see if you knew anything about the Bible you might question your beliefs. Who wrote the gospels? I look forward to your answer.

My OpenMind - quoting you: "The resurrection is a mater of faith not a matter of fact." Let's examine this critically: 1. In 2018, the resurrection is a matter of history, in that it happened some 2,000 years ago. Everything that was ever recorded as "history" in that time is a matter of faith for those of us who were not direct eye witnesses. We rely entirely on reports, and we must evaluate the credibility of those reports by matching up the content with other reports, and to some extent we must measure the credibility of the reporter. To accept some while rejecting others has to be based in reason. To simply reject (or accept) particular reports, or their reporters, out of hand, without thoughtful consideration, is nothing short of bias. It's not sophisticated, nor intelligent, being that it's based in preconceptions. 2. Dismissing the testimony of the New Testament Scripture writers must be based in reason, otherwise it's lazy prejudice. (Prejudice relies on faith, by the way). I find no reason to dismiss their testimony. They are consistent in reporting the Resurrection as eye witnesses to the Crucifixion. The Apostle and writer of most of the Epistles in the New Testament was a Jewish lawyer who took depositions and was skilled in collecting evidence. He notes in one Epistle that he personally took the depositions of 500 eyewitnesses to the Risen Christ. You might dismiss the people of those days as being more credulous than the people of today, and you would be wrong. In your belief system (yes, it is objectively a belief system), all knowledge began with the advent of the Scientific Age and the use of empiricism.... yet your doctrine contradicts itself by rejecting empiricism it doesn't agree with. That is, indeed, skepticism....which ain't a pretty trait. A skeptic doubts everything, even itself. Your belief, carried to its logical conclusion, is that it's impossible to know anything. Skepticism is a rejection of empiricism. And that contradiction suits the devil quite well. You hold contradictory beliefs. But back to St. Paul's deposition of the eyewitnesses: It was his natural reaction to dismiss the possibility of the Resurrection. People of that day doubted as much as any Modern. There's nothing more special about us than the Ancients. They weren't stupid, or naive, or gullible. If anything, skeptics are the most gullible people I know -- if a claim or proposal suits their view of the world, they'll believe it; if not, they'll reject it, and think themselves superior and witty. The Wonders of the Ancient World weren't constructed by aliens from other planets, and the educated intellectuals of the Ancient World addressed skepticism, and questioned certain claims as untenable. We are, indeed, their descendants.

He runs off the rails about 25 mins in

Duck quickly he said bible!!! oh wait here comes the word Christianity ahhh!!!!!! May our beloved Mother Mary guide you to the arms of her beloved son Jesus Christ.

Robert Barron is a Heretic, and should be excommunicated

lightning bolt Please elaborate.

Thanks for hosting this inspiring catholic man, google! Someone should bring him to their state college campuses. Now that’s where we need to invite our young adults to love and honor their religion.

Eloisa Magana Why "state college" campuses specifically?

Choose the path of love of your neighbor

Right on! Religion not required.

Beautiful and inspiring! What a gift we have in Bishop Barron! Amen!

Thank you Bishop Barron!

We are lightly-bound units of consciousness that derive from an infinite sea of consciousness. As we have the ability to consciously evolve our consciousnesses, which separates us from all other lifeforms, we do so over vast periods of time, transiting in and out of form – taking pauses to refresh, review, retool, and then to re-enter materiality which serves as a crucible of density that tests our ability to learn and to apply what we learn that it becomes a part of us forever and serves to expand and refine our consciousness. This incarnation cycle can last thousands of years. At some point, when the consciousness has achieved all it can in this process, it moves onward and upward to less dense realms to continue to evolve, more on a mental level – and the final act is the re-merging with the absolute field – the infinite sea of consciousness – and we lose our individuated status and exist individually no more. The purpose of life is to evolve. When it reaches an end point, it ceases to exist separately. There is no eternal resting point to this process whereupon a suspended state of stasis/perfection ensues such as depicted in theism. We do not win some ostensible race to a finish line and join some nirvanic after-party for eternity. That is both ridiculous and an insult unto life. And the further insult that only the few and the chosen achieve this exalted status based on which belief system they availed themselves with only adds to the insane hypocrisy. That the phenomenal had/has a sentient source/singularity that might have engendered it and continues to support it is a reasonable submission. That we know what that is, how it functions, and how it may or may not relate to the phenomenal, is not. It is rank conjecture based on nothing but supposition and ego. Mankind has invented a thousand gods over the past ten thousand years to plug the gap in his search and understanding for ultimate questions of being and existence. The fact that these gods have been personalized through myth stories has only added to the ignorance and confusion – and as has been keynoted by the likes of one Albert Einstein who railed against personalized gods and the weaponization that automatically ensues as people aim these gods at one another making all sorts of unfounded pronouncements upon one another that categorize, judge, marginalize, relegate and dismiss. Theism has been and continues to be the scourge of this planet. It is the playground for elitism, arrogance, and judgment. It is by far the worst invention of mankind.

Friendly tip: Please organize your writing using paragraphs to facilitate reading.

Excellent and thought provoking presentation!

The bishop repeatedly says we're all sinners. Repent! The Catholic Church teaches homosexuality, masturbation and using contraception to be mortal sins, making Catholicism harmful, immoral and regressive.

This comment section is surprisingly calm

OK, I went to the very beginning and located the phrase "religion and the opening of the mind" but after that nothing is tied back to it. This man is so chock full of references creating a smoke screen that is so dense and wide that all would submit that he is somone who knows what he is talking about and should be taken seriously - and then he lets fly with an epic hyperbolic cow pie like "the purpose of creation is the right praise of god". If that isn't totally mindless fluff of the nth magnitude then what is? This man knows nothing. He has stood his entire life on a book of pointless myth stories with no ostensible purpose for its existence and draws what he considers to be eternal wisdoms from these stories that somehow substantiate them as viable in any sense - and then he draws straight lines to epic conclusions that are so untethered to anything known or provable that it only places his sanity into question. Christianity is 100% false. And it is insane. It is a collection of sensational stories with no obvious intent or purpose - and without any tether to any known reality. In the broader sense, if there were a god, it would be known - a common staple to everyone's life and shared commonly across all lines of culture. The most obvious axiom on this planet is that there is no known commodity such as a god by any stripe or definition - and thus, to assert one denotes a non-functioning brain. This man has devoted his whole life to supposition that he pretends is reality - just as all his witless followers below have done. Theism is not a position, a phlosophy, nor a concept. It is a mental illness.

My public channel -- Brian Holdsworth has elsewhere noted that those who have an immature, childish understanding of God consider Him to be "the fluff-n-stuff of fairy tales." The immaturity is rooted in the presentation of the Bible at a level geared to children, but never developed further. Your immaturity is evident in your dismissive assessment that anyone who doesn't see the world as you do has a "non-functioning brain" and a "mental illness." If you actually understood anything about the brain and intelligence, as well as mental health, you wouldn't be so childish as to present a blanket psychological diagnosis, nor an intelligence assessment. If you're going to call people stupid, at least recognize your own stupidity.

So I'm gathering you liked the talk.

Bishop Robert Barron I am taking this opportunity to ask you if you would be kind enough to send me your Daily Gospel Reflection at my e-mail address : Aquarella26@aol.com - I thank you very much. I heard your message which I think is wonderful.

Mireille Romain you can find it all at wordonfire.org

Awesome!

As I am averse to subjecting myself to concentrated doses of mindless, rhetorical blather, I could only, once again, dance around this video in search of any specific wording or general discussion that highlighted the subject of this video - and I found none. And the initial premise that insinuates that money necessarily translates into a vacancy of being is quite sophomoric and aimed obviously at the simple-minded, which is what Christianity both attracts and engenders. A false equivalency coated in a familiar bigotry that attracts the weak and the mindless. The irony, which is wholly lost on Robert, is that he makes the case that things outside of us lead us away from truth and goodness and wholeness and meaning - yet he places a god outside of us and makes it necessary to locate, to attach to, and to translate this foreign element into and throughout our lives or face the same wholesale vacancy of being/spirit. As within, so without, Robert - or as your parlance would suggest - as above, so below. It all starts inside us - the quality and the expanse of our consciousness as it maps integrally to the greater cosmos without - and unto whatever might have engendered it. It's all about the refinement and expansion of consciousness - at developing the ability and the quality of the knower that ultimately maps to all that is known, and unto all this is. Christianity is wholly exoteric and thus, it is universally fraudulent. It makes life a contest with winners and losers as it peppers its way along with the bitter spicings of diametric opposites born of duality-driven consciousnesses - as in, the saved and the lost; the forgiven and the unforgiven; the chosen and the forsaken; the elect and the non-elect; the blessed and the damned; and on and on and on - all the pernicious trappings of exoteric, bigoted, hateful systems of control based on outside reward and punishment - the carrot and the stick motif - which is as old as man, and as primitive as it gets. Islam and Christianity are incredibly bigoted, hateful, arrogant, pernicious systems of belief that are wholly antithetical to universal form and function. Followers of these two systems are not followers of anything. They are captives to their own ignorance and egos. Islam and Christianity are the twin major mistakes of this planet, and that guarantee that it will never start to evolve.

For someone who wouldn't deign to waste time on something he found worthless, this My public channel guy sure spends a lot of time commenting on his personal assessment of the video's worth.

For someone "averse" to being subjected to "concentrated doses of mindless, rhetorical blather," you sure subject the rest of us to quite a lot mindless, rhetorical blather. For example, nowhere does Bishop Barron assert "money necessarily translates into a vacancy of being." Rather, he's emphasizing that money, on its own, does not lead to happiness. That does not entail, for example, he denies everyone has material needs which money can help to satisfy. Your comment demonstrates you have not understood Bishop Barron's talk, and thus is not worth taking seriously. You yourself pompously admit you merely "dance[d] around this video" rather than watch the talk in its entirety. If you can't be bothered to first understand the other viewpoint _before_ critiquing it, then your critique lacks legitimacy. Addendum: I read your comments and they made me see how futile it will be to try to discuss anything with you, because you instantly resort to insults the moment your claims are challenged. Someone who is so insecure about themselves that their first resort is to insult their critic cannot be reasoned with.

His Excellency is a champion!

sure you are saying worship the Eucharist !!! Get real buddy. Read the Bible and Pray God opens your eyes to see, ears to hear and heart to receive.

@ben R. Amen!!!!

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood,Soul,and Divinity of Christ. So yes, he says worship Jesus in his Eucharistic Presence.

We should ask the question: Why is supporting the dignity of other human beings a core Google value? Why do we believe every human being has value? Almost no societies on earth believed this other than Christian ones or post-Christian ones; why? Isn't it obvious that some people (like the severely disabled, extremely decrepit, unwanted girls, 5-month fetuses, slaves) are lesser in dignity? If not, why not?

So proud of you Bishop Barron! From the time I used the Word on Fire DVDs at our small home prayer group, to your everyday reflections, you are a inspiration and a constant guide on my faith journey.

Excellent!

Educate yourselves on 21st-century psychology/neuroscience and you'll see all religions under whatever guise are conservative dogmas with fake gods. Watch instead the Brain (David Eagleman, Stanford), Richard Dawkins (Oxford), James Randi, Derren Brown, etc. TEAR DOWN THIS GOD!

Dawkins is a HORRIBLE example ... he couldn't construct a logical argument to save his life.

I have been following Bishop Barron for some time and am very happy to see him speaking at Google in Seattle, a great City.

Awesome job Bishop Barron

Thank you Biship Barron.. Blessings to you...

This man is the type of celebrity that I am proud to follow.  Thank you Google!

This man is just a genius. He always refers to himself as the inadequate representative of an intellectual tradition that stretches back two millennia, but who could possibly be a more qualified representative?

Inspiring. His daily reflections are excellent. Subscribe!

A very instructive talk and a good summary of Aquinas. I am sure many of the audience could relate to the need to achieve the ultimate good. And I especially liked your defence of Christianity vis-a-vis Buddhism. It was clear and showed why Christianity is the superior religion - it is based on Jesus who is the way, the life, and the truth. However, there are a number of ways you could have been more persuasive. 1) Why did you use the term beatitudo, a term from the obsolete language Latin. It would resonate with no-one. There are many new testament expressions which sound less cacophonous, for example Jesus' expression living waters. This would have been straight to the Catholic believe that Jesus is the source of our salvation. 2) Your Old Testament example of King Ahab was also difficult to relate to. And your background to the point was unnecessarily confusing. Again, a New Testament example would have been easier for the audience to relate to, for example anyone of the many powerful people who came to Jesus because of some lacking in their life. 3) And finally, this was a shocker to me, that you failed miserably in explaining the simple answer to the question how do we know God. The answer Jesus told us many times is to pray and by our relation to the less fortunate. Jesus prays to God numerous times in the Gospels to relate to God. In fact, despite being one with God it is the only way Jesus relates to God. And Jesus says we will be judged by how we treat the less fortunate because that is how we treat Him. Despite these shortcomings I still enjoyed your talk and gave the video a thumbs up.

Again, the whole issue of beatitudo reduces to you complaining about the term. Bishop Barron, as an academic theologian, is much more familiar with the technical parlance that is commonly used in scholarly books and papers than either of us. His use of "beatitudo" could stem from the fact that it's a common term in the scholarly literature. That, at least, is the assumption one should make rather than complain. Plus, the effectiveness of beatitudo as opposed to any other term is entirely subjective. For all you know, that term may really resonate with someone else. It seems as if you're a Protestant who wants a Catholic bishop to cut himself off from the rich intellectual heritage of the Church so that his talk would be "more biblical." That, at least, is how it seems.

On the issue of the use of beatitudo you are correct, but Bishop Barron could have done better. If beatitudo doesn't sound pedantic I don't know what does. What could be worse than using a word from a dead language? And the sound is jarring. How many words in the English language end in 'do.' Not many, and they're not melodic. Compare that to 'living waters.' That just rolls off the tongue and conjures up very beautiful, scenic imagery. In addition it communicates on a deeper spiritual level the nature of a relationship with Jesus. Our relationship with him is the only way to ultimate peace which I believe the message should be about. Not about Bishop Barron's knowledge of philosophy. No one could ever possibly be a better communicator than Jesus. I'll copy him over ancient philosophers every time.

Of the issues you brought up? I didn't have a problem with the Bishop's use of "beatitudo." He was doing the intellectually honest thing by citing the origin of this concept as it was used in the talk in the work of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Bishop's point was simple: everyone is striving for some beatitudo, so the question becomes "What is the correct beatitudo?" His use of the term really didn't extend beyond making that point, so I fail to see how it would be an obstacle to someone's reception of this talk. Also, you kept bringing up examples that you thought the audience could relate to better. My assumption is Bishop Barron intended this talk to reach non-believers as well as believers, so it would be difficult for him to pick an example that everyone would relate to. But, again, he was using that particular story to establish a simple point: namely, worship God, not created things. Finally, I don't know which question you're talking about when you to refer to "the question how do we know God." Was it the question about how each individual is different and so there are different paths to God? If so, what was the issue with the Bishop's answer? Or are you referring to the final question about his own personal experience of God? If so, again, what was wrong with his answer?

grandmasterjoshh No, I'm offering constructive criticism. What do you think of the issues involved?

Basically, you're complaining because the talk wasn't exactly how you would have liked it to be.

This clown needs a chain and symbol round his neck to make him feel more important than you.

Why are you so quick to judge him because of his crucifix? Don't you think your condescending derogatory attitude towards bishop Barron is the chain that you wear around your neck to make yourself feel that way. You are quick to judge and assume what his crucifix means when in reality it represents the opposite. He is a servant of the Lord a servant chosen among servants to guide and shepherd the people of God.

"terror to demons" --- hahaha the fool is happy. He got you brainwashed.

You just alienated every adolescent in your audience. What conversation? You're talking about fairy tales. When you have something of substanceto say you can get back to me.

Brendan Abbott - pectoral crucifixes are required for Abbotts, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. Moreover, they are part of the tradition going back to the AD 400’s. It is a sign of humility in wearing the symbol of execution and apparent sign of defeat...like wearing an electric chair around your neck. It is also very samurai-like, ready to die and follow in the master’s footsteps. Lastly it brings terror to demons.

Adolescent ad hominem attacks help the conversation...how?

Meanwhile all Chilean bishops offer to resign for cruelty to children.

First, how do you see that as related to Bishop Barron's talk? Second, is there anything about the Church's teaching that denies all humans - including bishops - are weak and sinful? No. So what is the mass resignation of Chile's bishops supposed to prove?

This magnificent talk is the simple truth . I live through God first then let my life unfold as God wishes . : ) .. so many have to suffer to find this simple truth

Thank you Bishop Barron for everything!

Excellent, your excellency. Well done.

Thanks for posting this talk. So good to see Google opening up to this truth. In an increasingly secular world, this is so important to us all.

By the way, the title of your talk is either a joke or it was truncated down from: "Religion and the opening of the mind are in diametric opposition."

Nope. That's the secularist prejudice that I debunk in the talk.

Thank you Bishop Barron, you are a beacon of light to this confused world.

Bishop Robert Barron should be invited to Ted talks!

I’m technology person, work, sell, do consulting, save company lives (also people too), teach, do coaching, etc., but when I had my encounter with Jesus, I found my true and continuous happiness. Be a tech person, or a technology consumer, don’t give you the happiness. The way to get it, is giving the LOVE as results of Jesus encounter, to other persons. Catholic at Google: Learn about you Faith , Study the Bible, joint to the Catholic groups, involve it with your local priest and church, learn Apologetics, and show to yours partners how is be a Catholic. God bless you Bishop Barron.!

Thank you!

Bishop Barron is a perfect example of how God’s grace is manifesting itself in our culture despite its best attempts to quash anything that smacks of God, religion, and morality. The Q & A after his talk was excellent. Just listen to this...if nothing else...to hear one of the best orators of our time.

As you know, Robert, I do not subject myself to more than five minutes of insanity, and so, I skip around your videos and get impressions more than anything else. As you also know, there is no one else who speaks to you as I do, as I treat you as an equal. And so I spare no commentary where it is appropriate. I get the same impression from this video as I get from all your videos. You are a closet philosopher but not a theologian. Indeed, you are not even a theist. I didn't listen to much of this, but how much did you tie back to your invented god(s)? You are submitting more and more to philosophical ideal, such as love. And the reason you are doing this is because love is a reality that is shared ubiquitously and which can be discussed in common ways and in common terms that make you both understandable and relevant - and moreover, honest. Also, more and more, your god talk is a resort/retreat to abstraction, as you understand at a fundamental level within, that at best, god is an abstraction - hence, your dependence on arguments based on causality - which are suggestions more than anything else that something had to precede the phenomenal. But as you must also intuit, to suggest that something non-specific and non-local preceded time/space does not, in any way point to, define, nor distinguish what that is or even might be - hence, your quiet retreat from fundamental assertions and arguments for a tangible, knowable primary source/cause to the phenomenal. Yours is a very painstaking, yet inexorable march to reality - the reality that theism is a quantum load of bullshit. You know this at your depths. Your challenge is to first realize it consciously, and then to accept it, and then to live it honestly. You are probably many incarnations from this threshold in your evolution. What will greatly deter you in this incarnation is the unbridled affection/adoration from your unwitting flock. These people think you are sliced bread covered in honey. I see you as wholly confused, conflicted, stuck to the floor, and running in circles. That everything shares a common source is inherently intelligent. It is the basis for Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. Where Darwin won't go because he had no data to back it up was to proffer an initial cause, whereas you solve the issue by plugging in a gap-filling entity that cannot be demonstrated to exist, borrowed from a book that relies on talking snakes as being actual. The intellectual apostasy is egregious. It is evermore becoming a conscious decision for you to waste what's left of your lifetime - or not. Chances are, you will.

And here we we have it, Robert. Stunning evidence of the type of witless morons you engender. Look at yourself and take ownership of this wholesale disenfranchisement of intellectual acuity. This is what gathers at your feet like pigeons, dining on your every morsel of witless, theosophical, rhetoric tethered to nothing but your hind quarters. You sir, are bringing down the earth logos single-handedly to 5,000 BCE levels.

Love at the highest levels requires lenses of poetry, beauty, and joy. Divine love is goodness with no evil. Love is God (and vice versa) as much as a human being might comprehend the infinite. It is foolish to conclude there is no God simply because one experiences little love. Imagine spending only five minutes with your mate and grumbling the rest of the day about the inadequacy of human companionship. Loosen up and give love a chance.

GO FUCK YOURSELF BISHOP AND POPE MOTHER FUCKERS.

Outstanding, thank you so much.

Love this guy; just shared on several internet venues. Please do this also because you never know who Bishop Barron's talks or "Word on Fire" may prompt to come closer to God!

Amazing! Feeling inspired. Thank you, Bishop Barron and thank you Google for hosting.

Thank you Bishop Barron for another thought provoking, inspiring talk. I'm so blessed to be Catholic!

Bishop Barron is HUGELY INTELLIGENT about so much more than his faith practices. He has traveled the world to gather various knowledge to fill his brain. I love hearing his talks because he brings so many topics together to educate his listeners.

Uplifting and inspiring look into the journey of the quest for God in our life.

Fabulous!

As always, clear and very inspiring, rich dose of spiritual food for yearning soul.

"If God did not exist, there would be no atheists" (G.K.Chesterton) ... nor anything else.

“Hey Google, show me what’s good today!” ...And there it is, a wonderful talk from a brilliant human being :)

Hey Google people. I found this talk amazing. Is it possible to have it translated into other languages? Thank you so much.

Thank you, Google for having the courage to host Bishop Barron. Thank you for having the conviction to make Google and YouTube a platform for all ideas and voices. This talk greatly increases my respect and esteem for Google, even if it doesn't acknowledge Easter in Google Doodles.

I am so glad Google invited Bishop Baron to speak.

Except they didn't.

Thanks to Google, and to you Bishop Barron. Word on Fire has been a huge help to me in my conversion, as with so many others. Peace be with you!

If desire is the root of suffering then isn't the want to end suffering is also a form of desire PLEASE hence desire is good but how is desire being managed

Bishop Barron is awesome!

Thanks to the Catholic employees at Google for having Bishop Barron and recording this.

Kudos..Keep it up!

Thanks, Google for opening the technological mind to ancient ever new TRUTH. Please continue to bridge the divide!

It makes one think! Awesome!

Thank you for speaking the truth.

To be honest Bishop, I was disappointed with your bias defense of Amoris Laetitiae. You possess a brilliant mind and I admit that I should have not judged you by just one controversial moral issue which I believed would fizzle out. Let the truth prevail.

Simple beautiful. Everyone should watch this video.

Brilliant!

Excellent and beautifully articulated, as always from Bishop Barron!

Bishop Barron is simply one of the greatest of the Church's messengers. Bravo,my hero!

Bishop Barron... you may have covered this but early in the talk you say Thomas Aquinas referenced... cars... in the 13th century... that does not compute... what am I missing?

I think Bishop Barron, an expert in Thomistic thought, knows there weren't cars around in the 13th century. :)

Was hoping so... I'm a huge fan but... I've listened to it a few times and... well... I definitely was confused by the reference.

No, no! That was just my contemporary application of one of his principles.

Bravo to Google for being open to the exchange of cultures and faith

Great Job Bishop!

This is great. Thanks.

If Google supposedly is supportive of Christianity, then why is Google doodle anti Christian?

Opening the mind to a whole range of phenomena, including God, the Phenomenon that opens the heart and mind widest, when not misunderstood. The truth sets us free; we'd all agree...

As a Catholic I'm so proud of this man. A true gift to us in our time.

You can say that again

Thank God so much for the speak....Amen .....

Peace and warm regards. My comment here is somewhat meandering; maybe very; but somethings related to Bishop Barron's excellent talk; may be gleaned to help in the search for finding a way toward ultimate happiness. (The Pearl of Great Price - the fulfillment of all desire.) ~What is difficult to understand, is that something beyond Creation seems obvious once a person realizes this. To continue, we can see all around us goodness that helps others; and harmfulness that hurts others. A difficultly arrives; where did harmfulness come from if there is a source of Being which is only Benevolent. It seems to me, the question that science cannot understand; especially with historical citations and recent preponderance of the evidence that their is consciousness beyond the body; even with those who were stone cold dead for days. Although to that degree is very unusual. It seems to me, that not recognizing that there is something; someone beyond Creation that must be the source of consciousness --- there always ends with circuitous unfathomable suppositions that with analysis do not seem credible at all. And those type of suppositions always result in competition among self-wills. So the search for where is ultimate truth and happiness will never be realized by this type of thinking. How come freewill caused such a dramatic loss of ultimate happiness for everyone? ~ How did free will end up choosing not the ultimate good of one another resulting in so much painful harm; extremely difficult to understand when helpless children and others undergo unearned suffering. This is an extremely difficult question to answer. ~But since there is the search for ultimate happiness in everyone --- how do we end selfishness? We cannot do this without recognizing that there is a Creator who is completely Benevolent and completely unselfish; desiring our Return to ultimate happiness. *if* We start with that premise then, well, since God is Benevolent --- then where and how did God Reveal a way to return to happiness. There is only one person in history who has the reputation of goodness and claim to be One in Being with God who proved His unselfishness with ultimate extreme unearned suffering. And historically speaking, there is no honest explanation of the empty tomb but The Resurrection. Christianity would simply have died out without the Resurrection. And there are certainly more than two or three witnesses to the credibility of so many early Christians who suffered immensely for this, so others would know. So God proved Himself, by coming down to the depths of a hurting world; and took all the suffering upon Himself to bring the willing to ultimate joy and happiness. God offers strength, healing, inner peace for all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that flesh has been heir to due to selfishness. ~And since God is Benevolent; maybe not everyone had to see the extreme painful results of selfishness --- but it seems we had to see all this sorrow --- but take heart that our ultimate happiness is beyond the end of time as we know it. And even though many lives are spent in deep suffering and pain, moment by moment, day by day, year by year... something so difficult to fathom - yet there exists the consolation that in Eternal time; after 20/20 hindsight; pain lasts for a night, and everlasting joy is in the morning - reference is Psalm 30. Justice and peace with joy shall embrace forever and ever. ~Every other ideology and philosophy falls short of hope of ultimate happiness. They especially all fall short of the God given dignity and sacredness of life of every human being. An honest search will cause someone to see through the hypocrisies of history and families who used religion for wealth, power, pleasure, and honor to be selfish. Something very much condemned in The Holy Bible when properly understood through the lens of Christ Jesus, who certainly condemned those practices --- but never condemned religion. He said do as the hypocrites say, not as they do. And Jesus Christ practiced religion as was His custom. Why? Because God became like us, in everything but sin. Jesus Christ needed to stay in prayer and 'worth ship' worship of God The Father, greater than all; but Jesus Christ along with The Spirit of God are One in Divine Being with One Another. A weak analogy would be a carbon atom. The pi electron shell, part of the electron cloud according to physics has zero probability of being at the tiny nucleus. Yet, it the shape of the cloud is like four light bulbs where somehow the electron must go through the nucleus. Somehow, the pi electron cloud must interact with the nucleus. Just like God, through Jesus Christ physically entered into time and space. Yes, it is a weak analogy, compared to The Immense Majesty of God Who Always Was, Is, and Will Always Be Who Created time, space, matter & our very existence but I think it makes the point. ~Without the premise that God is benevolent; and therefore must have revealed Himself to a very fallible humanity --- a person denies hope of ultimate happiness --- and will not objectively search for who, what, when, where, why, how, in history God reveled His Benevolence and where to form the best relationship with Him.

His Excellency is tearing it up in these comments.

Gotta keep a sense of humor!

Bishop Barron, thank you for your humble brilliance, when I hear you speak I am drawn to God

Yes in God we trust. God is the ultimate joy of every heart. Every heart is restless until it rest on you oh God.

I have a BA in Psychology, a masters in Public Administration and have spent the last 30 years as a litigation attorney. I am not nearly as intelligent or well-read as Bishop Barron but I share a thrust for that something beyond wealth, power, honor and pleasure. Love makes sense to me as a trans-formative action where the more I give, the more I have to give. My age and background are disclosed so the reader may understand my youthful scientific enthusiasm for the emerging operant psychology (1960 - 70’s) of Harvard University's B.F. Skinner and his fledgling philosophy of behaviorism. It is hard to think of advanced artificial intelligence without at least imagining controversial notions of will, free will, imaginary will and general states of mind. B.F. Skinner was my St. Aquinas. He provided an intellectual basis to turn religious doubts into atheism. The problem is that the more I doubted youthful and literal notions of religion the more I could imagine the greater good and even higher means of justice. Doubts became imagination which turned into hope and eventuality into a reality that can only be described as love (a/k/a God). My intellectual mentor, B.F. Skinner, could not easily blend his scientific world of complex contingencies of reinforcement with a mind that was free to choose. At some point in my middle age, I reconsidered the meaning of a prayer known as the “Our Father” authored by Jesus Christ. I might have said the prayer a thousand times before but inexplicably seemed to understand the phrases with a new cadence and meaning. “Thy will be done” might be a conflation of Buddhist surrender, call to action, and joyful fantasy of what “His” will might be for those of us “on earth”. Any particular blend of wealth, power, honor and pleasure will be balanced for some tasks rather than others and our shortcomings need to be forgiven. In my imagination, “lead us not into temptation” is a reminder not to be less loving than we can be and “deliver us from evil” is a hope that we have sufficient health, options, wisdom and assets to do our loving best. I don’t think Jesus Christ believed in “free will” but he knew an awful lot about making good choices.

Jesus believed in a will that could be tempted because our options are never entirely free and usually not free at all. "So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin." Today's mass, James :4:7. Who really knows the right thing - as in "His will"?

May God lead you ever further into truth. I would argue against your proposal that Jesus Christ didn't believe in free will. If He didn't, then there was no sense in His coming to suffer.

Very wonderful comment most appreciated from another convert, very good Eugene Patrick....

Great the truth is God love is from God to God wonderful speaker honest is God!

Thank you! Will watch it again tomorrow evening, together with my wife and a glass of good wine. God is the (only) source of unconditional joy and happiness and that is the truth with shines through all your talks. :-)

Bishop Barron, an amazing speech, thank you.

For anyone interested in more Bishop Barron content, all of his YouTube videos are linked and organized by topic here: https://catholicreligionteacher.com/fr-barron-videos/

Awesome lecture! Inspiring as usual from Bishop Barron!

Couldn't have agreed more, great presentation from him as always. He usually gets you thinking about something, just as great philosophers does, and I'm not even a catholic, not that I care too much about labels.

Thank you Bishop!

wonderful wonderful and insightful. thank you Bishop

Religion, the biggest lie in the World and the cause of many many Wars (not saying that the only one, because ultimately it's human being fault) . My opinion and no one can change it.

Hi Ricardo, free will confirms you are right. No other person can literally change your opinion. The good news is we are not robots. We are all given the capacity (the gift) to choose. So what I would ask about your statement "My opinion and no one can change it." is whether or not you are willing and open to the pursuit of truth. I wish you well in that regard!

Yet, what is "religion"? Is it not a contemporary concept? But can we be rid of it entirely, or what it represents? You may enjoy reading The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion, by Mircea Eliade. It looks at this question from a scientific perspective.

Only 6% of all wars have been religious... https://carm.org/religion-cause-war

Check out the Encyclopedia of War. See what percentage of wars were religious. (It’s around 5%). Now consider atheist / iconoclast regimes: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. Religion pales in killing power to a virulent atheist regime. Be careful what you wish for! Get rid of religion and watch humanity strip itself of...humans.

Ricardo--Did you ever read history--Christian history to be precise? You want scientific & historical evidence of religion which is a natural desire for all of us. We have ear & eyewitnesses to the only first century Christian church. This same Christian church was the only choice one had if he/she was a Christian for the first 1000+ years & it's still in existence & standing strong. Research & read the writings of the early church fathers--start with 1st century & move forward from there. We also have archeological evidence that correlates with their historical writings. These same fathers/witnesses discerned the books of the bible then canonized & later compiled this book. Here is a list to start with: Clement of Rome (first early church father & 3rd successor to St. Peter) Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Justin Martyr, Polycarp of Smyna & others.

What do you believe in, Ricardo?

Ricardo Vieira that's not an opinion. Lol

@TheTicoRico True, religion also has good things (or brought good things to the Humanity). But in my mind I cannot say that I am a good person and I practice the good (and believe me, I'm and I do) because of my religious believes. Good things in humanity must happen because as you told, we are human beings, not because Religion "exists" or "there's a God that sets the rules".

@9FINGA True, Religion shaped our society and the humanity, that's a fact. Also, not saying that I have something against religion, my parents/grandparents and most of my family are religious, growing up as a kid I got a "religious education", but Religion did not evolve at the same pace as society evolved, and that's why I m sure, Religion will disappear in the future.

Good point. But you also can't know if religion enabled our society of today and the future or limited it.

@Ricardo Vieira: Tough one... now, how many good things have you seen in the name of religion? My opinion is that -as human beings- we all misuse things; some have graver consequences than others; but, if I focus on the negative I would never buy any product nor talk to anyone. If I focus on the good, I see a totally different perspective. Try researching about the good things that have happened as a result of religion, what's the score?

Ricardo Vieira Well, I guess that settles it.

Why is this guy relevant? Serious question. He keeps making claims (e.g., “the will seeks the good.”) without any concrete support. I’d like to know exactly what has convinced him of his beliefs, and if his method is reliable. Otherwise, he’s better off preaching than giving talks at Google.

What is your relevance ? Apparently the people at google found his ideas worth listening to. What methods did you use to suggest he stick to preaching rather then giving talks at google?

Jonathan Bowen thx u too

Johnny Smit good luck.

Jonathan Bowen umm OK atheist Dr phil

Jonathan Bowen OK lol i did not say any of those things. Hence why I called you an idiot. You are saying things you have no idea what your talking about. Also I did not insult you, so sorry that your offended. Please forgive me.

You didn't read it all because you are scared that I will take your faith away. And you will have to face death like a man rather than a child hoping for santa claus. Santa wont bring you presents and there is no heaven when you die. If you read my words you may loose your illusionary immortality. You are afraid of the words. You are afraid of truth. The lightening bolt of truth to wake you up out of your zombie faith based haze. You are stumbling around in the dark intellectually grabbing on to the odd chair leg (jesus) or the corner of the table (god). But when the lights turn on you will realise that you are wrong.

You are not even worth calling an idiot. You are a small mammal.

If you think that's a book its because you are used to childrens books. i.e hardly any words. You struggle with reading and writing. You struggle with your faith.

Your insults weak and boring. Not exciting, original or interesting at all (just like your religion).You are a wounded lamb. You find the world confusing. You are suffering. Pray to your god to make it stop. See if that helps. ( it doesn't)

Jonathan Bowen I didn't read all your cry baby blabbering but you need to see a psychologist or something. you sound full of hate and like your ready to shoot up a church or something.

Jonathan Bowen you are an idiot (three times)

Jonathan Bowen the guy that says I don't have a life writes a book response LMAO

I have a life. You however do not have one. Not one worth living anyway. You believe in a man in the sky dreamed up a few thousand years ago and you worship him as if you know him. You believe those stories that are quite clearly fabrications. That is no life. You are unconscious. You don't understand what life really is. It's not about god or religion its about truth and only truth. Its about understanding the true significance of reality not thinking some old warlord, or carpenter or prince or whatever is somehow connected to some sort of extra terrestrial being. You wouldn't have a life if it punched you in the face. I'm no zealot I'm completely comfortable whit you believing the the flying spaghetti monster or whatever (they are all the same). However when i see politics (that's what religion really is) on a channel that's meant to be about education and truth i get pretty disgusted. in the same way I would if i saw Hitler given a credible platform. Anyway I'm not too concerned religion is on the way out at least in most civilised countries. The data suggests that ultimately religion will come to an end in the next century or so. Most religion has ended already. Do you even think about the greek gods? Where are they now? The same place Jesus and Muhammed will be soon enough. But good luck with it all, youre stuck with it so you may as well make the most of Jesus and praying to the creator of the universe and stuff. I hope you get to heaven and some sort of paradise afterlife that no one has ever been to and lived! And not the same place you were before you were born (which is more likely). Or maybe you are nowhere and everywhere at the same time just like before you were born and after you die and,,,,, right now. Everywhere and nowhere... Maybe your consciousness and free will are illusions and you're just a human being a biological robot.. Maybe every single thing you do can be explained by the fact that you are simply a biological machine that is derived from extremely primitive organisms thats sole function was to carry dna and improve it so that it, or at least parts of it can be carried forward and prevail over inferior dna. Information and organisational war. That's what life is. Literally nothing more. Nothing more that is even remotely interesting in the whole scheme of things. You think this is special living on a rock in the middle of nowhere? Do you think you matter. You don't even matter now nevermind in 1000 years. Almost everyone is forgotten about after a few hundered years (apart from a few thousand notables such as Newton, Shaespear etc) and their dna is modified beyond almost all recognition. Nothing of you will remain in this life and there is no next life. So when you tell me i have no life. I disagree. However really of course i don't, none of us have in the universal sense. Your religion philosophically to me is like watching a childrens tv program. Basic, boring, crudeirritating and small. It offers no insight, no magic, no revelation or enlightenment. Jesus said a few wise things that's about it really. The rest is poison and a distraction meant to make peasants feel less shit. Every single benefit or positive of religion can be found in a secular format. It's the most basic shit version of philosophy and kids the common person into thinking they understand life. They don't and neither do you. It's 1% of human intellectual capability. It's not even morally efficient.. Look at the state of you.. You're a disgrace. Rude, angry and judgmental. Religion has failed you. Enjoy being part of a group and holding on to your collective identity crutch. I'm trying to help you by the way. Dropping a few truth bombs are you. Religion gets away with creating a culture where it cannot be criticized, blashphemy i think they call it. I'm creating balance. For your sake.

It's not sinfull to speak the truth? So why are you calling me an idiot (again).

Jonathan Bowen and I think you need to get a life. you are acting like a zealot. The reality is atheists are more rabid, emotional, pushy and crazy in their beliefs than the label they put on the religious.

Jonathan Bowen nobody is going to hell because you are an idiot. It's not sinful to speak the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience/featured Yeah give these guys a call and see how far you get! haha Watch the "popular videos" playlist just to get an idea of what happens.... Oh ignore my suggestion and get really angry , defensive and rude.

Eh? What wrong with citing a full bodied explanation in line with my own opinions. I'm not going to right a book in the comment section! And also of course my opinions are based on thoughts of others! What else are they going to be based on!?? Hahahah!!! Do you even know what thinking is? Do you know where information on the subjects of philosophy religion comes from? It's mostly human beings.... Very few people make genuinely fully independent completely unique observations. There have been billions of people talking about the same subject for millenia. I'm not too concerned that i'm influenced by at least some of their thoughts! Honestly i have nothing unique to the say on the subject of anti theism. Its a reflection based on a limited (numerically) claims made by religions through out the ages. There are not that mainly claims and there are not that many responses. I suspect about a hundered or so unique points and I probably know all the rebuttals to all of the claims. Nothing i have read or heard from religious people surprises my or causes me to think any more. The topic has been covered extensively and most people who seriously study it dont come out on the side of religion being a force for good or true. There is a phone in show that has plenty of youtube videos and people phone in and try to claim that religion is true and they have had i think probably thousands of callers and everything they said was debunked. Every single one. There is nothing you can say or do. There is no sentence of collection of sentences. There is no demonstration that is credible. Yet all of the claims you could make i could debunk one by one quite easily. In fact you don't even need to ask me. just type the claim into google and you will get a result.

Ah i see that youre struggling. Let me unpack my point for you. The point is your religion was forced into your brain at a young age without your choice. This is when people are more likely to be indoctrinated when you don't have the frontal brain cognitive ability. That's why its very rare that you would find an adult converting to a religion. Its statistically much more likely to be the opposite way round. This is because the more mental capacity one has the more they can see through the lies. Oh and so much for your religion teaching you manners and respect for your fellow man (calling me an idiot) you hypocrite. You will go to hell for that insult. Actually you wont. Because it doesn't exist.

But its simply not the case that no god requires the same amount of evidence of an existence of god. There are different types of "god" some for example created the universe life or whatever and sat back and then did nothing. The impotent god. And whilst this may be the case it essentially doesn't matter either way. There is no point in even thinking about an ineffectual god. Whether he exists or not simply doesn't make any difference to anything. However as soon as one starts making specific claims such as good created good and evil or, fate or heaven etc that's when the evidence is required and there just doesn't seem to be any, ever. Or there are more simple elegant and more likely explanations.. However peoples ideas of god are indeed different so its best for me not to make an assumption. Some "religous" people have definitions of god as being something like the universe, the infinite, the connection between all things etc.. Anyway whatever. Cheers.

Jonathan Bowen Also your clearly a lemming, you've just cited the opinions and thoughts of another person. In your brilliance you can't think for yourself.

Jonathan Bowen ohh if you were born in. different country you would believe something different. WOW GREAT ARGUMENT. You come of as an idiot

Jonathan Bowen I have, and did for many years. The truth is evident in many things, literature, art, philosophy, nature, etc. My move here is that the position of nothing (no God) must meet the same rigor as the contrary. Here is another constructive dialogue that might be helpful in understand the Bishops mode: https://youtu.be/B8n4iaimi0w Peace be with you!

I'm not here to sway you. You can believe this superstitious stuff if you like, Whatever makes you happy. However just understand that you never chose it. If you were born in India you would believe in different 'stuff'. Or 100 years ago different 'stuff'. Religion was imposed onto your life. You can break free but it will require a lot of learning on your part and you will need to become much more independent and confident. It's not possible for me to sway you in a youtube comment section. I would recommend https://samharris.org/books/ It would take huge courage for you to read any of those. 'Waking up' is the best. There are free audiobook versions on youtube. But i doubt you will. FYI I used to be religious. I have learned quite a lot about religions even reading the koran for example. The more i learned (particullarly when you notice patterns between the different ones) the more i realised that actually not only are they not true but also they are not good advice and not good explanations or particularly insightful. There are much better storys and non fiction to learn from.

Jonathan Bowen sway me with something other than a self refuting claim.

kittieconvoy the burden of proof is in the claim. Atheism makes no claim. It is merely the absence of religion. Religion makes claims such as words of God, creation, provides theories of mind, all sorts. And none of it has ever, ever been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be anything other than lies. Atheism is simply everything that is not religious. Be it true or false.

Jonathan Bowen 1. It's spelled "lying". 2. You have provided no proof for your claim.

your a hater!

Yes I cannot believe that they have this guy essentially lieing here. It's absolutely disgusting. Religion has no place apart from the gutters of history.

Well, don't take anyone's word for it – start questioning your own will. Whatever you do, ask yourself "Why am I doing that?" And, when you answered this question, ask again: "And why do I want that?" And again: "And why do I want THAT?" And so on... and see where it leads you, NO MATTER WHERE YOU START.

Kevin Martin i want to know too how reliable your claim.

Kevin Martin isn’t that as old as Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics?

Kevin, Bishop Barron has spoken about all kinds of topics over the last decade. I'm sure he has already answered any questions you may have regarding the content of his talk at Google, so I'd politely encourage you to check out the commentaries he's already put forth: https://catholicreligionteacher.com/fr-barron-videos/

Thank you Bishop Barron, awesome thank you for your edification. God Bless you.

What do you think the will seeks?! It's hard to mount an argument for a self-evident truth. Even the worst criminal is seeking at least what appears to him to be good.

Why does Talks at Google often host talks by religious speakers? Talks at Google should be an atheist platform. They need to be presenting lectures by atheists.

You also dont belive in all of the other many hundered relgions that you donkt and cannot follow. No need to prove the lies as you already don't believe most of them. Just go one religion further...

a telling statement.....

Jonathan Bowen provide proof of the lie please.

Gio San Pedro It's about lies made up thousands of years ago versus not lieing.

When atheists become the morally imposing. Oh how the tables have turned.

I agree. To have religion here is an absolute disgrace. It's the most damaging of mankind's inventions.

Why?

A.ROMERO78USN good argument, use your words...

Even if it was an atheist platform, there would be a place for this speaker.

@Charles: Speaking from the perspective of an ex-atheist: because atheism may cause nihilism if a relatively competent atheist run into consecutive failures (or unfairness) and consider him/herself an insignificant speck of dust within an infinitely vast universe. So to hell with it and whatever one can do to destroy this unjust world (which would be meaningless in relative to the existence of space-time), one would do it to satisfy the selfish desire to stay on top of the system. The more technological knowledge and advanced arsenal there is, the more important ethic and moral become.

uh...no.......

They had Christopher Hitchens speak years ago, so why not a theist as well? Doesn't tolerance cut both ways?

If you don’t understand the other side, how can we have dialogue then? Plus it said it was organized by catholic employees at google.

What happened to open-mindedness and listening to all points of view?!

I remember when I stumbled upon Bishop Barron on Youtube. I was in a bad place back then, I took some interest in the great questions almost all my life, was raised as a Catholic without much real understanding of the faith, I dabbled in Zen, Daoism and Philosophy, but at that particular time in my life it was all gone. I was living in a cold and dark world, and I was embracing the idea of death as a relief of the profound suffering being alive meant to me. I know that it is a huge cliché and I know that some people reading this will feel their opinion about religion to be confirmed, but that's when I started praying the way I learned to pray as a child. There was no background of faith at all at this moment, no theological finesse or understanding, I was just praying out of pure desolation and hopelessness. And man, did I feel bad. Did I feel bad for resorting to the "superstition" of Christianity. But my childish prayers seemed to brighten my life for a little bit, as long as they lasted. And so I started to google the topic. I can't recall it without a doubt, but I think the first video I found by Bishop Barron was the one on The Lord's Prayer. And boy, was I in for an astonishing and beautiful ride. I binge watched a lot of Bishop Barron's videos, I started to listen to the WoF-podcast – for the first time in my life I started to explore the richness, depth and intellectual beauty of the Christian faith. Encouraged by Bishop Barron's brilliant intellect and faith, I started to read again. I had been an avid reader for most of my life and only had stopped recently, and it felt like cool water in the desert. I even bought a Bible, I read Augustine, Ratzinger, Merton, Alighieri (No Aquinas yet, but he's on the bucket list!). At some point during that time, something within me started to unfold. It took me some months of doubt and struggle with myself, but one day I went to church again. For the first time in ages. I just sat there and tried to make sense of the inner "pulling" I felt. Soon after, I went to Confession for the first time in about 20 years. That turned out to be one of the most profound experiences of my life. I vividly remember struggling up until the very moment I entered the confessional booth, I just thought it was stupid and irrational and wouldn't mean anything but embarrassment. I was wrong. It was at this point in my life when my reconciliation with the Church happened, and I'm deeply grateful for it and everything that happened since. I still struggle, I still doubt and I'm far from being a decent human being, but my life has changed completely. I am living my faith, I try to share it, my life gained a "fullness" I never dared to imagine – because I started listening to you, Bishop Barron. Sometimes, God shows himself in unusual ways. Thank you for everything, and God bless you!

Great talk. I want to thank Google for having Bishop Barron to share this talk.  I love that way Bishop Barron gave this talk and is a true blessing to know that Google was willing to be open minded to share this.

Thanks Google, Thanks Fr.

Can't help you there. I encourage you to take a different approach in the future. You may have a moving story to share from growing up in a family arrangement the Catholic Church disapprove of. Their regressive positions are harder to swallow when facing the impact on real people.

T Njordhof My bad, I was seeing if any religious person would respond.

Jetta&Mittens: Exactly what I wish for you and your parents. All you need is love, properly directed towards other living beings. Catholicism is harmful, immoral and regressive.

Thank you, but you fell right into my trap. This an experiment to see what people would do. But no thanks, me and my lesbian parents are going to live happily during this life instead of waiting for the next.

Please take into consideration that the Catholic Church labels homosexuality a mortal sin and works politically against equal civil rights for people like your parents. From their perspective, you considering the church could be much like Jewish parents having their child join an anti-semitic fascist organization.

Jetta&Mittens: I hope you find a way to reconcile with your parents. Love here on earth trumps empty promises of pie in the sky.

It is obvious this is going to go nowhere and I don't need the intellectual exercise - especially as I now see that indeed, you are not prevaricating your way through life, but rather, that you actually ascribe to all that issues from your cranial cavity, vis a vis, god, religion, the bible, Jesus, et al. Your mission this incarnation is what it appears to be. How a person of such intellect can submit to such obvious poppycock is a bit bewildering. You, indeed, suffer from what most of the planet also suffers - that when it comes to the notion of a god, that you have no idea what you are talking about - but you haven't the first clue that you have no idea what you are talking about - and - that you cannot realize that when it comes to this topic, that you cannot know what you are talking about. Christianity is lies, myths, and fairy tales. It's not so much that it is wrong that it doesn't exist. The universe it would command doesn't exist. What makes you absurd is not so much the belief in a god but in what you posit about life, and how it functions. It is the idle machinations of five year mentalities. Your intellectual growth is in stasis. Amazing you have no sense of it.

It is you who are presenting the verbal runaround. That there might be something along the lines of an uncaused uncontingency from which all else ensued does not in any way point to what it is nor isolate or describe it. You parenthetically insert the term "god" to declare what it is. Now tie that to all else you declare about this god as being an immanent force/presence/agent in the phenomenal. I have stated that it seems rational to assume a sentient singularity that belies the phenomenal - but that is not proof. It is philosophical assertion - which is not what philosophy does or aims to do - and thus, any such assertion is wholly bogus. That everything ties back to a common source is inherently intelligent. I have also stated that. It is the basis for evolutionary theory. But the position is only a position. It is not proof of any type nor evidence. It is argument. Argument can suggest, but it doesn't produce what is argued for. You argue for a god through causation - one of many channels, as you know. Why you like this one especially is a bit strange. It doesn't actually end up anywhere. I would think you to be more ontologically oriented. Or maybe teleologically oriented. But whatever your orientation, you still fail to produce what you argue for as argument can only suggest. And we'll not even touch on the fact that there is zero proof for a man with twelve followers who went around teaching and performing miracles. Your gods are obvious invention. Which they all are. This whole discussion is moot. But you don't see it.

More verbal run-around I'm afraid. Let me propose a concrete example. You don't explain your own existence. I know this because you had parents, you eat and drink, and you breathe oxygen. Now, are those causes themselves uncaused or contingent? Well, they are obviously contingent upon a whole range of other factors. The point is that you cannot go on indefinitely with this kind of analysis, otherwise you've failed to explain your own existence here and now. There must, consequently. be some reality which is not contingent, which explains its own existence, whose very nature is to be. This is what I mean by "God." Friend, might I ask that you put your anti-religious prejudice aside for a moment and show me precisely and logically how this argument is inadequate.

T Njordhof, my reply, the source I provided explaining "authorship" during Jesus' time and your post about the US College of Catholic Bishops are very much in parallel. I think your problem is "comprehension". It's not enough that you can read and write play pathetic skepticism, but you must understand what you're reading. AD 70 is very much during the lifetime of the apostles and their scribes. Use your common sense a little. It's already 2018 and there are still books about World War II being written by very old people, the witnesses, the survivors of that 20th century war. Does this make their writings invalid just because they were published in the 21st century? And what do you have? skepticism to death? I'll repeat it again, you guys are not even authentic skeptics but already have prejudgments. In this age of information, ignorance is a choice. And talk about this giant search engine Google. Google more (but with an open mind and comprehension).

Tom Nod: The US College of Catholic Bishops argues in favor of an anonymous author for the Gospel of Matthew and dates it post AD 70: "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mt 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain. The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics. In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66–70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mt 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem." http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Matthew&ch=

The faithful prematurely commit to a belief, closing their mind for alternatives. The open minded skeptically evaluate multiple options and consider their likelihood, updating the probabilities according to evidence.

QUOTE: We must keep in mind that in the ancient world, authorship was designated in several ways: First, the author was clearly the individual who actually wrote the text with his own pen. Second, the individual who dictated the text to a secretary or scribe was still considered the author. Third, the individual was still considered the author if he only provided the ideas or if the text were written in accord with his thought and in his spirit even though a "ghost writer" did the actual composition. In the broadest sense, the individual was even considered the author if the work was written in his tradition; for example, David is given credit for the Psalms even though clearly he did not write all of the Psalms. Whether the final version of the Gospels we have is the word-for-word work of the saints [they are named for] is hard to say. Nevertheless, tradition does link the saints to their Gospels. St. Mark, identified with the Mark of Acts 12:12 and the Mark of I Peter 5:13, is mentioned in a quote contained in a letter from Papias (c. 130), Bishop of Hierapolis: "When Mark became Peter's interpreter, he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what the Lord had said or done." St. Irenaeus (d. 203) and Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) support this identification. The Gospel of Mark is commonly dated about the year 65-70 in conjunction with the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. St. Matthew is identified with the tax collector called as an Apostle (Mt 9:9-13). Papias again attests to the saint's authorship and indicates that he was the first to compile a collection of Jesus' sayings in the Aramaic language. For this reason, the Gospel of Matthew, at least in a very basic form in Aramaic, is considered the first Gospel and placed first in the New Testament, although the Gospel of Mark is probably the first in a completed form. St. Irenaeus and Origen (d. 253) again support this authorship. Nevertheless, some scholars doubt the saint's direct authorship because we only have the Greek version, not the Aramaic, and no citations are made from the Aramaic version in Church literature. The version of the Gospel we have was probably written between 70-80. St. Luke, the beloved physician and disciple of St. Paul (Col 4:14), has consistently been recognized in Christian tradition as the author of the third Gospel, beginning with St. Irenaeus, Tertullian (d. 220) and Clement of Alexandria. The Gospel [has long been assumed to have been] written about 70-80. St. Irenaeus identified the author of the fourth Gospel as St. John the Apostle. He does so based on the instruction of his teacher, St. Polycarp (d. 155), who himself was a disciple of St. John. Throughout this Gospel, the numerous details indicate the author was an eyewitness. Also scholars generally agree that "the beloved disciple" mentioned in the Gospel is St. John. This Gospel was written probably about 80-90. Whether the actual saint wrote word-for word, whether a student did some later editing, or whether a student actually wrote what had been taught by the saint, we must remember the texts — whole and entire — are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yes, the human authors used their skills and language with a view to an audience; however, they wrote what God wanted written. The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation clearly asserted, Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Sacred Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth, which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. (No. 11) So no matter who actually put the finishing touches on the sacred Scriptures, each is inspired. Interestingly, with the recent scholarship on the Dead Sea Scrolls, new evidence points to the authorship of the traditional authors. Rev. Reginald Fuller, an Episcopalian and Professor Emeritus at Virginia Theological Seminary, with Dr. Carsten Thiede, has analyzed three papyrus fragments from the 26th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew; the fragments date to the year 40, which would indicate that the author was an eyewitness to our Lord's public ministry. Father Jose O'Callaghan, S.J., studying fragments of the Gospel of Mark and using paleographic means, dated them at 50, again indicating an eyewitness author. Finally, Episcopalian Bishop John Robinson also posited from his research that all four Gospels were written between 40 and 65, with John's being possibly the earliest. This new research is not only questioning some of the modern scholarship [and dating] but also supporting the traditional authorship. Perhaps some mystery surrounds these texts and the identity of the authors. Nevertheless, we hold them as sacred, as inspired and as truly the Word of God. One last point: Given the blasphemous book The Da Vinci Code and its promotion of the Gnostic gospels, why were the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John included in the canon of the New Testament and no other supposed gospels? The simple reasons for their inclusion is as follows: First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship, as noted above. Second, these Gospels are orthodox in their teaching, particularly about the identity and person of Jesus. Third, they were used in the Mass and other liturgical functions. Fourth, they were accepted by the whole Church, not just by some sect. The Gnostic gospels do not fit any of these criteria, and therefore were rejected and condemned by the Church. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6976

Err, says the Davinci Code believer T Njordhof

T Njordhof your comments only reveal your nature is to play the Advesary.

T Njordhof talk about getting it twisted! Since when is a naysayers full of doubt and skepticism... Open-minded? And how is that closer mindedness a virtue? It's not. And it's not one to build Faith on either.

Ironymatt: Like the Bishop, I would encourage you to be more skeptical! You're operating out of lots of prejudices and you have very inadequate understandings. Keep thinking critically! Keep asking questions! Don't let faith shut down your mind.

Tom Noda: You did not actually make an argument for the Apostles having authored the Gospels. The evidence does not support the Gospels having been dictated like to a secretary by eyewitnesses.

Pfffft, please prove all your assertions or at least debunk the truths I shared.

T Njordhof A doubtful and skeptical mind is not an open mind.

Michael Perez: Lacking doubt and skepticism is not a virtue. Your comment adds to the case that faith closes minds.

T Njordhof is your goal in life is to play the Pharisee? It doesn't take a biblical scholar to see context of why you purposefully chose to try and infect others with doubt and skepticism, where there is none. You wish to play the Advesary. No mystery there. By whose authority do you wish to instruct the faithful? Your own? Let's be real and cut to the chase. If the Gospels were live steamed by the Apostles themselves, became transcribed with footnotes cross-referencing them with every annotation pointing out how they were a fulfillment of the prophecies of the promise of a Christ to save us back to all the other books in that library compiling that evidence, even if those were archived video footage by the prophets themselves, you would still be questioning the camera angle, lighting and everything else, because that's your nature.

Tom Noda: You're twisting like a pretzel to avoid realities getting in the way of your faith.

T Njordhof your question doesn't prove your assertions. The Bible means collection of books. It was "compiled" almost 4 centuries AFTER the Church was founded by Jesus. Take note "compiled" and was called Bible, not written during the 4th century. Scriptures also had "oral" and written traditions. And when your secretary writes your dictations, it's still your statement and not your secretary's

Ah yes, the old "religion will soon fade away" myth. Talk about wishful thinking! Friend, you join a long line of failed prophets in this regard: Comte, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Lenin--all thought religion was in its dying days. Well, we're still here.

Awesome talk! Beautifully structured, rising to a final crescendo of Truth. Thank you as always, Bishop Barron. You are a great teacher.

Tobias Kyon Amazing story!

Brilliant summary of the need for God in our lives by Bishop Barron. Love the way he relates to everyone, respectfully, wherever they may be spiritually and intellectually.

He is amazing. A REAL Catholic!

I don't know how the universe came to be. I just don't. I'm aware of the Big Bang theory, and it holds a lot of water that doesn't seem to be leaking any just yet. But a theory is never proven. It just ties together useful facts for explaining something until new facts come along. And even though the theory seems quite credible, tying the entire universe back to a single point in time and space, what it may never do is to posit whether or not the event was natural, and self-contained or incited from beyond space/time by some transcendent agent/agency. Now, alongside science we have other explanations that are not derived from the systematic discovery of facts. These other explanations don't really rely on anything but the imagination of a story writer along with the capacity for the reader to suspend disbelief, or a need for facts, in exchange for prose that inspires and supports a belief in a source creator with an intelligence similar to ours - something that is unknown, unproven, and many miles further away from any objective confirmation. We have a choice, I suppose, to stick with facts, and with what's knowable - or - to join hands, form a circle, and instead of admitting we dont know, adopt a sensational story with no known tether to facts or to anything real as actual, and summarily, simply proclaim we know because we choose to believe these stories. Now, to those of us with useful brain capacity, there really isn't a choice involved, as it appears that it's a matter of being honest and intelligent, versus being dishonest and palpably foolish and ignorant. Science will probably never get to the bottom of the matter, especially as it may connote a transcendent source/agent/agency. But to jump the gun, and to plaster over what is not known and probably not knowable with an appeal to blind faith/belief is a bridge too far - at least for me - and it will remain so as long as I am committed to using my brain. Which many people aren't.

There is a binary operation between existence and non-existence. You make a claim for the existence of something. It doesn't matter the format. It has to be demonstrated to be what is claimed and in common ways that all might understand and agree. You cannot present a philosophical construct as evidence nor proof. Such argument can only suggest. It might also point to something, but we wouldn't know it. And the proof is that you cannot tie your argument directly to the extant gods of the bible. You think I'm being simple minded, but I'm not. It is fine to believe in a god, but prove that your god is the next person's god and on and on. Most of your flock believes in a personal god. Produce it. Point to it. Present it for all to see that we might know it exists and how it functions and relates. You believe in the posiibility for a god. And you believe so strongly, you have elevated it not only to a probability, but an actuality - all based on an argument from necessity - that it has to exist to explain your universe. There are other arguments from necessity. Can they all be right? It is a mental black hole to assert a god. To use the term is a logical fail as it presumes we are talking about something known, that is known commonly, and that it is the same thing. The only correct sentence with the term god in it is that it is a word that connotes a construct that is individually interpreted but nowhere to actually be found.

Friend, the problem is that you're assuming there is a binary option between science and wishful thinking. There is an entirely rational path, which is not scientific, namely, philosophy. And it can tell us great truths about the nature of reality. In order to demonstrate God's existence, we don't necessarily have to invoke the Big Bang or the origins of "everything." We can start with any type of contingent existence, yours for example. You don't explain your existence, and I know this, because you had parents, you eat and drink, and you breathe. Now are those causes uncaused or are they themselves contingent? Well, they're obviously contingent. Therefore, they have to be explained. This process cannot go on to infinity, for then we have explained nothing at all. We must come finally to some reality which does not have to be explained, whose very nature is to exist. This is what I mean by the word "God." Now we can certainly argue about this demonstration, but I hope you would agree that there are people who accept the existence of God and have not abandoned their rational faculties.

Amen Robert - me too

What I have learned thus far: You are indeed confused. You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't the first clue that you don't know what you're talking about. You are unable to understand that you don't know what you're talking about. That you don't believe in a god because you have no firm idea or image of what that is or could be. That you are a subliminal atheist as your god is a total abstraction that cannot be demonstrated within the phenomenal, and thus, it can't meet a claim for existence. That you don't care that you don't know what you are talking about because the fruits of your position offset anything inconvenient like truth or reality. That your support is built in and is guaranteed for a few thousand more years as primitive, superstitious mind that has ruled this planet from day one has no intention of abating. Be happy and reassured by the fact that there might be three people like me on the planet and tens of millions like you. In the end, it's a numbers game, and you surround yourself with numbers to feel legitimate. My legitimacy far surpasses yours as mine issues from the fact that I'm not insane. You cannot say the same, as you cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, nor between existence and non-existence. There is a single mandate in Buddhism - to seek reality. Your religion commands the exact opposite. It relies on total submission to outrageous myth. One of us is totally wasting his IQ. Two guesses which of us is guilty - as you will need two guesses.

Bishop barron always talks words of wisdom God bless you.

What do you call the forced insemination of a woman, against her will, and without her knowledge or consent? Yes, yes, I know what it's called today - it's called rape. But what was it called 2,000 years ago? Simple. The glorious launch of a new religion. This is where you chime in, embarrass yourself, and expose the perfectly vile nature of your religion by explaining that it is all good that because of the nature of the child involved that it made it all A-OK, even with the woman who was raped without knowing it - because only a man can explain away a woman's horror as a walk in the park - and besides, we're talking about god here - back when god's Bill Cosby side was emerging - and not that a more humane plan might have been to bring the woman onboard first to avoid the psycho-emotional shock and horror. No, that would have ruined the myth story as it would have pandered to reality and to how things really should work, completely destroying the dramatic nature of the myth.

As long as the Catholic hospital system stays on the government tit instead of getting behind single payer with a payroll tax for hospital bills, their pious blather is just that. Yeah, $230 Billion a year and barely scraping by. The hypocrisy is so astounding it makes the pedophile scandal seem like a stolen kiss. And please, get rid of that overwrought, gay headgear from the middle ages when bishops had their own militias.

You teach generation after generation of children that the highest form of love that a parent can have for his or her child is to have them tortured and killed - skewered on a stick, not only for their benefit, but as a present to all mankind. You need to go into a closet for 30 or 40 years and to ponder that. A rational, sane, loving person would only require 10 minutes.

An argument proves nothing. it can only suggest. You have to produce a result that can be known and/or observed on a common basis. The most Christian country on the planet is 97% Christian. It has a mean IQ of 59, which is borderline moronic. Run your construct by them and ask what they think. Whatever you are trying to isolate out as your god is not what 99.999999% of the faithful would agree to nor understand,. You are caught in a philosophical loop. A philosophical construct does not a god produce. Pointing to something pre-phenomenal does not define, locate, nor produce that thing. Nothing can be stated about it. Perhaps the best and clearest case I can make is one you can directly observe - which is the witless following you have amassed. These may be good people, but they all store their brains in thimbles when they retire for the evening. And talk about untoward sycophancy/unbridled ingratiation - these people would submit to you in every way to any degree on any day of the week. If I had attracted such a following of even one person I would run for the hills. If there is but one extant clue that you have arrived nowhere in life, it is when you attract an entourage of suck-ups to this magnitude. And it's like you have the first clue what you are talking about. Which you don't. You speak glorified rhetoric. Meaningless, untethered pabulum. The sustaining gruel of the superstitious. Everything you know or claim to know is false. It doesn't even exist as this universe would not permit it. But whatever you do - don't listen to me. You have a position to defend and a rep to nurture. My only credential is that I'm sane.

My public channel Can we go back to the argument I proposed? Tell me precisely where you think it fails.

A major Christian player who doesn't tie his god back to anything knowable - who represents the #1 religion that paints its god as wholly personal. No talk of theology, dogma, nor scripture. You are hiding out in the abstract as it is the more defensible position. Eventually you have to explain how your abstraction directs and impacts the phenomenal. That would point to existence. Your three gods do not yet exist in any knowable format - which means that for all intents and purposes, they don't exist. I agree that the universe is perhaps a case within itself for a common intelligence source, but whatever that source might be, is it necessarily unknowable as it lay outside time/space, and hence, outside our matrix of knowing. You paint the picture of a non-specific, non-local construction and think that by doing that that you are defining and pointing something out as separate to the universe. It is like trying to qualify the unified field. You are caught in a loop and you know it. Your gods are invented. It is wholly obvious. All gods are, which has become obvious as they all recede into antiquity and are forgotten. You are clinging to a life preserver but there is no help on the way. Reality is going to snuff out your religion. It is all but dead in Europe. 5% of France which is 88% Catholic attends church, and it is mostly the retired generation. The average age for a priest is 70. Your mythology is finally catching up to your theology and people are seeing through it. People are finally being replused by the myth that a god loves us so much that he thought a present to all humanity of a murdered innocent being on a cracker would best represent his love for us. It's sick, it's sordid, it's twisted - but most of all, it's insane. You embarrass yourself greatly by proliferating such pernicious poppycock.

Friend, I'm taking things one step at a time. We haven't gotten to the Bible yet! At this stage, I'd be happy if you would admit that it's at least rationally plausible that there is a reality which explains its own existence, a reality whose very nature is to be.

T Njordhof you claim: _"the faithful desperately want the gospels to have been written by the apostles, no matter what the evidence"_ First I will say, Mark and Luke weren't Apostles. So a believer insisting such would be wrong. Second, I'm open to compelling evidence the gospels weren't authored by who they say they are authored by. My mind isn't just closed up like a fundamentalist to any facts and plausible conclusions. Just because I don't agree with the claim the gospels weren't authored by the four evangelists, doesn't mean I'm desperately ignoring facts and evidence. That's a non sequitor. I wouldn't presume just because an atheist denies the evangelists being the authors of the Gospels that they are therefore desperately trying everything they can to disprove the faithful. Not all the faithful even believe the gospels were authored by the evangelists anyway. Let's stick to the evidence we have and logical discussion without falling into presumption of others motives.

T Njordhof Wow, this conversation has gone a long way since I left. The USCCB intro to the Gospel of Matthew is an opinion. It's not the absolute truth. It's debatable and I have a different view than the USCCB intro and the scholars that agree with them have. I already see flaws with the intro because #1: "Q" doesn't exist. So they're discussing a non-existent manuscript to begin with and taking similarities between Mark and Matthew as "evidence" that it's "untenable" that Matthew is the author. That's not good scholarship, and matters of history aren't created through the opinions of the authors of an intro to the Gospel either. If that were the case I could just give the opposite view in a different intro and say simply because these people said it, it's true. It's not.

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is untenable" says the USCCB. The highest Catholic authority in the land is not hard to comprehend: The gospel was not written by the apostle. Yet believers gotta believe the gospels were written by the apostles. Faith makes you go blind.

I know where he is going, and as a man of God, who is all in for God and the promise of the after life, you kind of expect it from him. But money is a wholly different beast altogether. I worship money, not per se (I mean who does?) but as the door to all I've ever wanted from life, all I've wanted to avoid in life and the freedom to be what I want to be, with whom I want to be and where I want to be. To me life has always, at various degrees, been a storm, and money is the only worthwhile and reliable refuge from God's misery plan for me. Don't ask whoever puts you in a position where the odds are stacked up high against you (starting at conception for fucking Christ's sake) to shield you from the misery he decreed ab aeterno for you. This is where money comes in. Contrary to what he said, not everyone will feel dissatisfied with, say 2 million dollars. If you've been relatively poor, hating each job you've had and pretty miserable all your life, 2 million dollars will do for you what no one else, nothing else could do. ''Money is * the* source of freedom, it solves, arranges a thousand things in our existence, where everything is difficult without it. Except glory, there is pretty much nothing that money can't get.'' Paraphrasing a quote from French author Chateaubriand.

Thank you for your insight and faithfulness!

An argument proves nothing. It can only suggest. You have to produce a result that can be known and/or observed on a common basis. The most Christian country on the planet is 97% Christian. It has a mean IQ of 59, which is borderline moronic. Run your construct by them and ask what they think. Whatever you are trying to isolate out as your god is not what 99.999999% of the faithful would agree to nor understand,. You are caught in a philosophical loop. A philosophical construct does not a god produce. Pointing to something pre-phenomenal does not define, locate, nor produce that thing. Nothing can be stated about it. Perhaps the best and clearest case I can make is one you can directly observe - which is the witless following you have amassed. These may be good people, but they all store their brains in thimbles when they retire for the evening. And talk about untoward sycophancy/unbridled ingratiation - these people would submit to you in every way to any degree on any day of the week. If I had attracted such a following of even one person I would run for the hills. If there is but one extant clue that you have arrived nowhere in life, it is when you attract an entourage of suck-ups to this magnitude. And it's like you have the first clue what you are talking about. Which you don't. You speak glorified rhetoric. Meaningless, untethered pabulum. The sustaining gruel of the superstitious. Everything you know or claim to know is false. It doesn't even exist as this universe would not permit it. But whatever you do - don't listen to me. You have a position to defend and a rep to nurture. My only credential is that I'm sane.

One of the bad things about this Bishop Barron lesson is posting his video on Google with comments enabled.

I know where he is going, and as a man of God, who is all in for God and the promise of the after life, you kind of expect it from him. But money is a wholly different beast altogether. I worship money, not per se (I mean who does?) but as the door to all I've ever wanted from life, all I've wanted to avoid in life and the freedom to be what I want to be, with whom I want to be and where I want to be. To me life has always, at various degrees, been a storm, and money is the only worthwhile and reliable refuge from God's misery plan for me. Don't ask whoever puts you in a position where the odds are stacked up high against you (starting at conception for freaking Christ's sake) to shield you from the misery he decreed ab aeterno for you. This is where money comes in. Contrary to what he said, not everyone will feel dissatisfied with, say 2 million dollars. If you've been relatively poor, hating each job you've had and pretty miserable all your life, 2 million dollars will do for you what no one else, nothing else could do. ''Money is * the* source of freedom, it solves, arranges a thousand things in our existence, where everything is difficult without it. Except glory, there is pretty much nothing that money can't get.'' Paraphrasing a quote from French author Chateaubriand.

You argue a primary essence from which all else gains/borrows its essence. I would call it the infinite sea of consciousness. This is an abstraction. Your god is anything but an abstraction. It rises up out of the sea to author books, to smite civilizations, and to relegate souls for eternity to one disposition or another. Your god is phenomenally relational. People claim to abide with it, to commune with it, to communicate with it, to follow its dictates and to submit to its will. That is well beyond/outside abstraction. Show that this god exists. You are a deist. You claim an unknowable god as a first cause that belongs to the transcendent. An understandable and reasonable construction but wholly unprovable as it cannot be tied to anything knowable. You are glued to the non-specific, non-local versions of what you call a god when it could be called anything at all. The term god is noun denoting a person, place, or thing - which necessarily points to something extant. Not to a principle, or to a dynamic, or to an essence, or to a philosophical construction. If you label something a god you have to know what it is that differentiates it from everything else and then to point to it as separate from everything else - the person, place or thing that all your followers claim to know and to follow and to communicate with. At some point your abstraction has got to intersect the phenomenal and to give itself away. Where is that point and what from does it take?

My public channel So you have no counter argument at all.

https://churchpop.com/2018/05/25/the-amazing-humanities-dept-that-got-shut-down-after-too-many-students-converted-to-catholicism/

Constance incredible!! Thanks to share it....a wonderful testimony..

Arranged by Catholic employees at Google.

They didn't?

Christianity. Telling children for 2,000 years that there's this super wonderful guy in the sky who looks down on them, who watches over them, and who loves them more than they could ever know, and just to show it, this guy put his dead and bloody child on a stick for them to hold up, and to wear around their necks to remind them how much this "god" loves them, and if they promise to take time out once a week and to eat this dead child's body and to drink this dead child's blood, then this god will continue to love them and protect them, but if they fail or falter, then all bets are off and this great and loving god will toss them into a burning lake of fire for all eternity. That's your insipid, insane, preposterously stupid religion that you get all adorned for once a week and pretend to be an intelligent adult.

great news

It's actually more a case of sanity and common sense than it is of intellect, but on all three counts I could more than hold my own against the best and the brightest that both Islam and Christianity could throw at me, including all names from the past -- including, but not limited to every bishop, priest, cardinal, pope and Imam of note - and just for good measure - toss in Aquinas, Anselm, and Augustine. Put us all in a room and I will be the only one walking out. I will say it once more - to assert a god is to have a non-functioning brain. If you disagree, it's because you have a non-functioning brain. To know that a god exists is to know what a god is. To know what a god is, you have to already know that a god exists. This is where the conversation starts. I could go on for 32 years. But it would be a colossal waste of time as everything we would state would be sheer conjecture. There are a great many sophic arguments aimed at a conclusion that something had to precede the phenomenal and that engendered it. But an argument can only suggest. It cannot stipulate. And absent any tangible, knowable proof, we have nothing. But again, we wouldn't know what proof was if it were staring us in the face as we do not know the endpoint of what it is pointing at. This is a matter of common sense, logic, and reason. On one hand it is very obvious - but on the other hand, it escapes maybe 94% of the planet. People cannot understand when they don't know something. It is the anomaly of human kind. A black hole in human consciousness. Robert's whole life depends on the existence of a god that is known and knowable. He is so lost in the abstract the he may settle for white noise on his TV screen as his final version of a god. No one knows who I am and everyone here will dismiss me. I'm sure the elite university I attended and my genius IQ matter not a whit to anyone. But I would proffer that there is one man in history who agrees with me fully, and he has all the gravitas any of us could ever muster - Mr Albert Einstein. Although I need no support nor confirmation, if I had a wingman, it would be he.

My public channel Still waiting...

You, sir, are a real schmuck, and a total coward. I have laid out plenty. You have yet to comment on anything I've stated. You are out of your depth, and you know it. And your brain doesn't work. Serves you right that you will waste the rest of your life. Remember these words after you transition over. Again.

My public channel Still no substantive answer to the argument, just a lot of fuss and blather.

Bishop Barron, a prophetic voice of our times and a witness to the voice of God who is All in all!! Thank you, God bless you evermore.

You argue a primary essence from which all else gains/borrows its essence. I would call it the infinite sea of consciousness. This is an abstraction. Your god is anything but an abstraction. It rises up out of the sea to author books, to smite civilizations, and to relegate souls for eternity to one disposition or another. Your god is phenomenally relational. People claim to abide with it, to commune with it, to communicate with it, to follow its dictates and to submit to its will. That is well beyond/outside abstraction. Show that this god exists. You are a deist. You claim an unknowable god as a first cause that belongs to the transcendent. An understandable and reasonable construction but wholly unprovable as it cannot be tied to anything knowable. You are glued to the non-specific, non-local versions of what you call a god when it could be called anything at all. The term god is noun denoting a person, place, or thing - which necessarily points to something extant. Not to a principle, or to a dynamic, or to an essence, or to a philosophical construction. If you label something a god you have to know what it is that differentiates it from everything else and then to point to it as separate from everything else - the person, place or thing that all your followers claim to know and to follow and to communicate with. At some point your abstraction has got to intersect the phenomenal and to give itself away. Where is that point and what form does it take?

Really annoying that the captions replace "beatitudo" with "[LATIN]"

so inspiring. thank you

Its seldom to see a bishop so intellectually articulate and compelling. As strong as the bishop is faith is primarily a mystical life. Just to say regarding faith: the catholic experience or prayer of Eucharistic Adoration makes mysticism something v close and real. The mystery of Christ there causes our hearts to think. And light always comes if (I believe) you desire with all your heart joy and accept whatever sufferring comes. Thats no theory. Yesterday I spoke to another man I meet when I first went into the hospital. 30 yrs he said and its like yesterday. A bad car crash left C. with a hard brain injury, a man's sense of humour & a profound faith. Another man that time gave me books on Hans Van Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger & Henri Delubac. I learned equally from both. Speaking to C. he tells me the best family in the world lives in Kildare but tomorrow he said I wont even remember we spoke. Tomorrow you will forget what Bishop Barron said. But God loves us. Love was the bishops last word.

I appreciate your kind comments, but I wouldn't drive such a sharp wedge between the mystical and the intellectual. There is to be sure a priestly element to Catholicism, but there is a prophetic as well. And I don't know about forgetting ideas so quickly: heck, I remember books and ideas that have profoundly shaped me for decades.

great to read: TLIG Vassula Ryden (true nowadays prophet)

This is what you attract, generate, and sustain, Robert. Witless morons.

Just the sort of response I and so many other believers have come to expect....ie no real answer at all.

Thank you. I'm 20,000 years beyond your faith. It well may take you another 500 incarnations to start to suspect how deluded you are. The mentality of your religion is aimed at 5 year olds.

Question: How many actual Believing Christians do you know? I ask this because you might want to acquaint yourself with What we actually believe, and why we believe it. At that point maybe you'll be able to make a good argument against The Faith.

Can't tell you how much I'd prefer a real argument.

Just be patient. There's another bus in about an hour.

My public channel You're talking nonsense men....

A woman who I've always had great regard for - a highly-intelligent, tremendously human, kind, giving, unsssuming, unpretentious and humble as can be while sporting three Masters degrees - and who was also a very-lightly practicing Jew - was sitting across the dinner table from me at her abode when the topic of god came up - and the very first words from her lips, which I will never forget, and which caused me to respect her evermore were: "I have no idea if any type of god exists." This, boys and girls, is the ONLY SANE, RATIONAL, HONEST response there is. To state ANYTHING ELSE denotes a non-functioning brain. I know where Robert and the rest of you stand. You are all a combination of stupid, dishonest, and insane - unable to discern between fantasy and reality, nor between existence and non-existence. It is a lock that you will waste the rest of this incarnation smothered in theistic insanity. Christianity and Islam are mental illnesses. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with ANYTHING.

Let's talk about insults and character assassination and all the gay teenagers who have committed suicide due to bullying as a result of a Christian-based society that marginalizes, dehumanizes, and judges those who are not heterosexual. You are directly resonsible for gay men being tied to chairs and thrown off rooftops in the middle east. You are as complicit as can be. Before you start lying your ass off, watch the 10,000 youtube videos with Christian preachers denouncing homosexuality. You, sir, are the problem. You assume the mouthpiece for an invented supreme being and decide what it feels about and who it likes and dislikes as if it were livinging inside you. You are so far outside the lines of being human or sane that you assume the mantle of eternal propriety for all mankind - when what you are is an ego-driven insane person. If only Albert Einstein were alive to deliver your cumuppance it might actually register with you. But carry on unfettered as you will, you will continue to destroy the earth logos with all the piety you can manufacture. You are lifetimes from understanding that the existence of something and philosophical argument do not intersect. The distance between how smart you think you are versus how smart you actually are could easily berth the Milky Way Galaxy. That was not an insult. That was reality. Something you cannot recognize nor grasp.

My public channel Let’s see: I calmly offered a philosophical argument and you have consistently responded with insults and character assassination. And I’m the one who’s irrational?!

You can't prove a negative. There is no counter argument to a claim for existence, especially when the thing claimed cannot be shown to exist. I've been stating that his argument is an understanding and points to nothing that can be demonstrated to exist. He lives inside a philosophical loop. He is unwilling to understand as his whole life will be forfeit - which it is - but he chooses not to face it. Christianty is the biggest bag of bullshit ever concocted. To think of the people and the times from whence it comes should tell you everything you need to know about its potential veracity. It's a collection of classic myth tales and nothing more. If the people back then could see the people now wallowing in it, they'd laugh for a few thousand years.

From People like My Public Channel, if you.re waiting for a Real Argument, all I can say is Pack A Lunch

Steve Sawicki: If it inspires you to be a better person, good.

Christ show us how to love all. He was the first to call our the rabbis and the other high priests for their hypocrisy. Rather than show a sense of haughtiness-(stuck up) to do all things in love and humility. Even to our enemies. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you?....but love your enemies, do good to them, and lend without expecting anything back. Then your reward will be great... Be merciful as your Father is merciful.” Luke 6:27-36

You can do better. Religion not required.

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:27

“How do we let God move into our lives? “Great question! “We all fall in love with Jesus in a different way” because we are all so different. So true! I had a life changing encounter with God at 18 and I asked myself, what did I do to let that happen. I figured out that 3 things had mattered. 1/ I acknowledged the fact that I was missing something in my life, I had a deep desire for more. I wanted something to change in my life but I didn’t know what. 2/ I made a leap of faith and spoke to God and told Him : “I don’t know if you care about me, but if you do, show me.” 3/ I made myself available from time to time by leaving my noisy life behind and just spending time in silent. Encountering God was the best thing that happened to me in my life. It gave me a deep sense of happiness and fulfillment. Try encountering God, you won’t be disappointed!

My public channel Well at least you’re consistent. Not a real argument in sight.

Gift of the Godly gab! Always growing in "beatitudo"!

Gift of the Godly gab. Always closer to the 'beatitudo'!

Wow, ENLIGHTENING is an understatement, will resonate whether listener agrees or disagrees, THANK YOU for shining light and making it so clear that every single one of us is somewhere on that prism in our ultimate need for God.

First look at the psychology of you statement. You have gay parents who obviously had an influence on your disposition in life. Parents from the gay community who are always screaming for acceptance, and tolerance. Yet too often they are the most intolerant people to those who argue with their thoughts. Then there's the Church, who is ready to meet you where you are and as Bishop Barren said above, "Wills the good for you", ie loves you because we are all children of God, and is wanting to reveal to you the TRUTH of who you are in Gods eyes. I wont sugar coat it. The Church recognizes the reality of homosexual leanings, but it condemns the act as contrary to the natural law, and as poison to the spiritual health of the person. Going against the nature of Gods creation and the function he intended sexuality to perform, constitutes a lack of wanting the good for the other person. This in no way reduces the feelings I would suppose, but when you love someone sometimes you have to tell them a truth that hurts in order for them to then begin to heal. Or there are those who would have you stay chained to the way of life they live so that they dont have to acknowledge they sate of sickness the own soul is in. God loves you, and those of us that follow him love you because we want the good for you too. Seek him out in the Church and you won't regret it. It may be a little hard at first but you will be authentically happy when you Have Him. Best wishes!!!!

You are either 12 years old, or you're an idiot. Choose one.

The basis for your rant seems to be that Bishop Barren has offered an answer to a fundamental question of the human experience., " Why is there something rather than nothing?", in your condemnation of his answer when he says "that the purpose of creation is the right praise of God." This answer is not built on the premise of an argument from scientific refutability. It's an answer offered to a specific kind of question that science alone is not equipped to answer. And as for your known commodity, if God is so unknowable, why then do billions of people know Him?

So where are all these google genius types? Why aren't they chiming in? This isn't a fair fight. I'm shooting fish in a barrel. I want people with brains chiming in.

Thank you Google for confirming you are out in the quest for search ALL knowledge and information that lies in different minds. Certainly Bishop Barron life is a exponential of that search for ALL knowledge that leads to understanding of our hearts quests to good. Bishop Barron once more you never cease to inspire me how to share God thru his essence.... LOVE! the path of love....

Bishop, I’m lapsed Catholic & struggle with faith. I went confession few months ago after 15 yrs away from church but now find myself again not going mass. Your answer about Thomas Merton hit home because I listen to Anthony DeMello daily and love him but struggle resolving that with Catholic faith. His spiritual approach of “self observation” works great & I ask myself why do I need the Catholic structure? I read lines from Gospel like Jesus saying “sabbath was made for man, not man for sabbath” or how Jesus seemed anti-ritualistic with Pharisees and rationalize that for not keeping up Catholic responsibilities. What would Thomas Aquinas say to assertion that many of rituals of church (weekly mass, first communion, etc) and doctrines (eternal punishment in hell, original sin, etc) weren’t part of Jesus’ plain teaching but instead wrote hundreds years after his death? Read some of this in Sermon on Mount by Emmet Fox. I want go back church but these conflicting thoughts getting in way. Any suggestions? God bless

I think you perfectly explained the Christian equivalent of “blowing out the desire” in Buddhism when you explained how none of the “4 altars” of money, power, etc give unconditional happiness. So doesn’t that equate to Buddha 4 noble truths?

OK, boys and girls, it's time for a trick question. Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a murdered, innocent life form, and then bathing in its blood in order to purge one's self of one's iniquities, and to make one pure and worthy to approach the master. Is this Christianity? Or is it Satanism? Ding! Ding! Ding! IT'S BOTH!

My public channel By the way, still waiting for a substantive reply to the argument from contingency.

Because that's what morons do.

My public channel praying for you.

On its face your religion rests upon three pillars: Rape, incest, and cannibalism. 1. The forced insemination of a woman without her knowledge nor consent is rape. 2. If Noah's family repopulated the earth then his children had to start screwing one another and all their future children had to screw one another. We are all the product of the inbreeding of Noah's family. 3.The notion of eating a slain, innocent victim's body and drinking its blood to achieve special status unto the heavens could not be more twisted -- aside from being cannibalism. Myth cannot be unpacked nor dissected - to lend a serious eye to it at all causes it to fall apart as it is myth - rank fiction. It is not reality. It doesn't pretend to be reality nor to intersect reality. Myth is sensational stories meant to entertain, inspire, and to teach. You are a glorified myth salesman. If you are going to sell this bullshit as real, then you have to accept the reality that is thus imbued unto these myth tales. And before you start dodging and weaving your way around this, tell me how these stories are taught in Sunday schools, bible classes, and from pulpits around the globe - as allegory? or as actual true events?

You've just summed up your religion.

My public channel How about we move beyond juvenile caricatures?

If you only had a functioning brain how much better off you'd be. You cannot declare something unknowable as it lay beyond space time and then label it as if you know what it is, calling it "god" - imbuing it with attributes. That is a logical fail.

My public channel “we do not know and cannot know what lies beyond space time” You just agreed with Thomas Aquinas who said “we cannot say what God is but rather what he is not” by implying God is not within space time. Aquinas also said “God is unknowable”. It looks like you agree 100% with Aquinas

Nothing ostensibly transcendent would embody human ideals. It would exist outside such human inventions/conventions. I don't have beliefs. I have working understandings that are always in the process of refinement as I refine my consciousness. As such I cannot say nor speculate as to what may have engendered the phenomenal/spawned creation, but the question seems to revolve around whether it was a self-contained natural event or if it was intended by an outside intelligence. My money would be that the creation was intentional. The difference between me and you and everyone else here is that I go no further because I am honest. We do not know and cannot know what may lay beyond space/time and if it was indeed responsible for creation. You are quick to assign a label to it and then adorn it with all kinds of attributes - intentions - agendas - rules - penalties, and the like - which is perfectly insane. It is all invention. Not to see this renders one both stupid and insane.

My public channel “this is the only sane, rational, honest, response” So you do have faith in a higher ideal (embodying sanity, rationalism, honesty, etc), which some equate with God

As long as the Catholic hospital system stays on the government tit instead of getting behind single payer with a payroll tax for hospital bills, their pious blather is just that. Yeah, $230 Billion a year and barely scraping by. The hypocrisy is so astounding it makes the pedophile scandal seem like a stolen kiss. Imagine the harm the Church causes by helping to make healthcare MORE expensive! The bishops are sticking their heads in the sand like they did with the pedophiles. The 'See no Evil' gambit is gonna bite them in the ass AGAIN. Their moral authority is weak as a puppy without his shots.

There is zero evidence. ZERO EVIDENCE for a man traveling about the middle east with twelve followers, preaching and teaching, and performing miracles. ZERO EVIDENCE.

My public channel not true, lots of historical evidence of Jesus. Even atheists concede that

Sensational promises. Sensational threats. Neither of which are realized until after a person dies. Christianity. The original internet hoax of all time.

I love the reference at the end to God coming to us and that we need to clear the way -- is this really a John of the Cross reference (when all he seems to talk about is ascending Mt Carmel?) I would love that reference if anyone has it!

We are discussing insanity. Your religion wins every time just by turning everything into a discussion or a debate, which bypasses the determining operative dynamic which insures that not only will nothing come of it, but that your survival will again be maintained. The determing dynamic is that insanity only breeds more insanity. My disposition is to attack the insanity point bank, to call it out, to show it for what it is that all can see and be warned to avoid it. This is why my honesty is so caustic. Your insanity has maintained center stage and the spotlight for 2,000 years. I am here not to talk you off the stage, but to knock you off the stage. All you adhere to and profess is rank insanity. Your religion is the biggest and worst offense ever perpetrated against mankind, and you have the audacity to attempt to justify it all by reducing it to a discussion of contingency, as if you can resurrect a totally vile and corrupted thought system by making a case for an abstraction that totally avoids the elephant in the room - that all your followers would claim an actual, person-like god that they fully intend to spend eternity with. You are struggling to muster some integrity by giving yourself cover to both believe and to proliferate the wildly insane and damaging nonsense that is your religion by engaging a sane person on what you feel is level ground - philosophy. Your religion is the philosophy of idiots. How you can sort through the comments on your videos and not become totally distressed at the hugely damaged minds making comment after comment that is beyond insipid for even a five year old points directly to your utter lack of integrity - that this is what you have dedicated your life to. You have a real problem. I am really fucking intelligent. My existence negates all you profess and believe. You would have to talk me down 75 IQ points or perform a full frontal labotomy on me to become as you are. Your religion is false in every way. It knows nothing. It is all invention. It is resolute stupidity. You forget that I have someone on my side that you don't. Albert Einstein. And he was 27 times smarter than me. So you see the magnitude of your problem. EVERYTHING boils down to intelligence. But you have to be at a level where you realize that and understand what it means. Your religion is unintelligent. It defiles life and universal functioning, and by inference, whatever may have sourced it all. If there be something on the order of a god, your religion is an affront and an embarrassment unto it. You are wasting your life.

My public channel Well you might start by offering a rational response to the argument I made.

My public channel “this isn’t a fair fight” Don’t play victim. We’re having a stimulating discussion

My public channel I’m outside right now

You are really not bright at all. You should consider not going out of the house. Ever.

My public channel “beyond space and time” is your label for unknowable , it’s just a different label

My public channel “his argument is an understanding and points to nothing that can be demonstrated to exist” His argument is we can’t define God in positive terms (what he IS), only negative terms (what he is NOT) so he is not asserting God “can be demonstrated to exist”, since God is beyond confines of our senses & 3d world

My public channel “cannot be tied to anything knowable” Again you are echoing St Thomas Aquinas who said exact same thing & whose writings got Bishop inspired to life of faith

BIshop Robert Barron: "There must, consequently, be some reality which is not contingent, which explains its own existence, whose very nature is to be." Bishop, when you say "reality", "existence" and "to be" here, you don't mean in the sense of you and I existing in this physical world, right? Where we are detectable by the 5 senses? So this "reality", "existence" and "to be" of God is not within the same "reality", "existence" and "to be" as you and I? But its still part of this chain of contingence? Can you square that for me? I do find that part of the argument difficult but perhaps I'm seeing a contradiction where there isn't any.

"no way of knowing what it is" - again you're echoing St Thomas Aquinas description of God as "unknowable", so you are 100% in agreement with this Catholic saint

My public channel why can’t I be a 12 year old idiot?

I think of what Newton said, "I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me "

Surfdude12 1: Seems like Buddha got a leg up on that one.

Well Mary did actually consent so...

As long as the Catholic hospital system stays on the government tit instead of getting behind single payer with a payroll tax for hospital bills, their pious blather is just that. Yeah, $230 Billion a year and barely scraping by. The hypocrisy is so astounding it makes the pedophile scandal seem like a stolen kiss. Imagine the harm the Church causes by helping to make healthcare MORE expensive! The bishops are sticking their heads in the sand like they did with the pedophiles. The 'See no Evil' gambit is gonna bite them in the ass AGAIN. The Devil has more moral authority and better looking hats.

Bishop Robert Barron: So it follows the first cause is physical. Could it be a tortoise or a demogorgon? I'd appreciate your special expertise in determining its nature.

Bishop Robert Barron: From contingency, given that 1. Whatever begins to exist has a physical cause; 2. The universe began to exist; Therefore the universe has a physical cause.

What a precious glimpse into your journey with Our Dearest Lord, Jesus, most profoundly with us in the Eucharist, be praised! My next time at mass, I will thank Him for the miraculous work He has done in you &, as promised, will continue to do while He never ceases to invite us all to continue becoming 'more of our authentic beautiful selves'' in Him. Thank heavens your heart made that honest cry & precious prayer!

"if there is something on the order of god" so you're an agnostic since you at least concede possibility of god

Surfdude12 1 Given your listening to DeMello, you may also enjoy _Alan Watts._ Plenty of content right here on YT.

Bishop Robert Barron You've got a reply already on the contingency argument. Looking forward to your response.

Surfdude12 1: Awaiting Bishop Barron's take. The first premise is equally true with or without the "physical" but leaving it out makes the premise implicitly assume the conclusion that there is a supernatural cause for the universe, thus committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.

that was same question I had. Perhaps in your #1 above it would be just "cause" not "physical cause", since the argument would be God cannot be physical since that would mean he is finite, physical, within time and hence not infinite, metaphysical and beyond time, but I agree why can't God be physical? Maybe because "physical" means within Universe and God can't be within Universe since he created it.

Steve Sawicki: If it inspires you to be a better person, good. Religion not required.

Surfdude12 1 Been there done that.

Well, as usual you avoid 99% of what I state. I've stated that causes belong to the causal plane, but whatever. You further your case. And state why and how the term god applies to what you propose when it's a term that can mean anything or nothing to anybody.

My public channel So you accept the argument. Now if you’re willing, we can take the next steps.

And in a broader sense, what confers upon you the right, or the ability to know and to declare what a god is for all mankind? Wouldn't everyone have to agree for there to be one correct/valid version/explanation? That everyone might recognize and know that as the same thing and the right thing? Wouldn't something primary/ultimate have to be obvious to everyone as the same thing to everyone? You are selling an understanding. How could everyone have the same understanding about something that can't be known or demonstrated to exist? You are mired in arguments that you believe point to a necessity. But even if the necessity could be demonstrated as actual, you still have to be able to point to what you claim would necessarily exist to fulfill that necessity, and something, moreover, that it not only intersects the phenomenal, but impacts it in known and knowable ways - which is the intersection where you and everyone like you crosses over into insanity as you start attributing all sorts of things like wants, and needs, and dictates, and morality, and rewards, and penaities unto it. That is a total loss of sanity. The fact that you not only have no idea what you are talking about but that you have no idea that you have no idea what you are talking about even when it is pointed out to you is a red flag for insanity. Whenever you use the term god in a sentence you have driven into the weeds and you are speaking from within your own mind, while presenting it as if you are observing it as passing scenery. Theism is a mental illness. Everyone here is afflicted. The reason I don't fit in is because my brain works.

Strange that your thought processes boil down to this one argument. I've answered you 27 different ways. I've given you enough to digest for your next three incarnations and you have no response. You instead insist on talking about contingency. I have conceded that everything might back up to a single source - a primary/first/uncaused source. But that is not to say, to suggest, to define, nor to locate what that is, nor how it might or might not perform within the phenomenal. Contingency arguments go nowhere. But that does not stop you or your religion from extrapolating out from whatever that is and anthropomorphizing your way into the phenomenal via ancient textual stories that of course lack any substantiation. I have ignored your argument to instead provide sane, rational explanation that both encapsulates and dismisses your argument, but you seem hamstrung to comment back. When you speak of a god you speak either of a concept/ideal/philosophical construct or you speak of something immanent and thus, knowable. Although it could potentially be both, on both basis it is a fail as the first case, the more deistic argument cannot define nor produce what is alleged, and thus, it remains only suggestion or potential. As something extant or immanent, the burden falls on you to locate, define, and explain what it is that all might see and agree with your submission. This is reason 101. The sobering reality is that you don't have to be very bright to understand this but people's brains have been programmed not to function correctly, unable to even understand that their assertion of a god is completely without any type of empirical basis. It seems more a matter of pride - that they have their god, and their god is great, and they're sticking with it. I am only pointing out the obvious for those who are sane. My IQ is sitting the sidelines.

You know, friend, you keep telling us how smart you are. Prove it by providing a detailed answer to the argument from contingency that I proposed now over a week ago. What precisely do you disagree with? That there are contingent things? That contingent things require extrinsic causes? That there can't be an infinite regress of caused causes?

Thanks for your questions! Here's a first general observation. Anthony DeMello was a Jesuit priest, which means that he was carefully trained in an intellectual, devotional, and spiritual tradition. His spiritual insights came up out of that rich soil. My point is: don't think of ritual and doctrine and moral discipline as arbitrary impositions. Rather, think of them along the lines of athletic or musical practices that make a certain form of excellence possible. As for the specific doctrines and practices that you mention: the Mass comes out of the Last Supper and Jesus clear command "do this in memory of me." Hell, which Jesus mentions a lot, is the state of definitively rejecting the divine love. The only way absolutely to eliminate it would be to eliminate our freedom. Hope that helps a bit.

Bishop Robert Barron Leaving out "physical" in the premise brings you back to the flawed Kalam argument, with its premise that whatever begins to exist has a cause. Kalam commits the fallacy of begging the question, implicitly assuming the conclusion that the cause is supernatural. Stating the cause to be physical improves on Kalam by eliminating this fallacy.

The principle is by no means that whatever begins to exist must have a physical cause! That's over qualifying. The principle is that whatever is contingent has a cause. Now if that cause is itself contingent, we have to look again. This process cannot go on indefinitely; otherwise, we violate the principle of sufficient reason. Hence there must be some uncaused or properly unconditioned cause. Now, in point of fact, this ultimate source of the being of contingent things cannot be material, precisely because matter is, by its very nature, a conditioned state of affairs. Matter never exists as such, but only in a particular form, or at a particular speed or heat or consistency or intensity or size, etc. Therefore, we have to seek out the cause that put it this way rather than that. This is why the unconditioned cause cannot be material.

Bishop Robert Barron Friend, I am right here. You can't deny the conclusion that the unconditioned cause is physical just because you don't like it. The premises are true: whatever begins to exist has a physical cause. Unless the syllogism can be shown to not be sound, you have to accept the conclusion.

Sigh... When you're ready to return to the argument I've made, I'll be here.

Can't be. Whatever is physical is in some particular form or exists in some particular configuration or determination. And this means that it might have been otherwise. But this in turn means that it must have required a cause. The unconditioned reality is, necessarily, uncaused.

Oh, my. All this has led to this? Do you own a firearm? I need to shoot myself in the head. You're using the book of shadows, hoaxes, and epic nonsense as an inviolate resource to prove your point? I just wasted about 5,000 words on you, and on all these insipid, little clones. I have to be 700 incarnations beyond you. It's not strictly intelligence, but about refined awareness and understanding that comes with levels of consciousness that comes with lifetimes lived. Most of the planet is around their middle lap count around this oval called life on earth. You, indeed, are somewhere in the middle. I am at the end. The very end. This is my last pass through this dimension. I am a seventh level old soul. I am graduating off this plane, which is indeed obvious, as the contrast between me and everyone else could not be more stark. You and I are not two ships in the night. We are two universes that do not intersect. Now I know I've wasted years picking at you and on you as you are a product of mass consciousness. You and everyone else are stuck in 5,000 BCE. And irretrievably so, as your minds are useless. You have yet to start learning. There is no one and nothing that can get through to you. I have no idea how the theistically insane escape to sane territory when they have no desire to do so and wouldn't recognize it were they successful. Life is continuous/contiguous. That is its nature. To believe in final endings that are either glorious or calamatous, both of which confine life to a final static state, is both childish and insane. Your religion is for five year old children. Your religion produces only arrogant, ignorant, assholes who are necessarily the smartest people in any room and in any conversation based soley upon faith that what they proclaim trumps everyone and everything else. Common sense, reason, and intelligence be damned. You are in prison. And in prison you shall stay. I've just handed you a hundred keys to escape and you ignore them all. Reality and how the universe is ordered and functions is not a matter of belief or debate. That is the great lie of your religion. That you can determine universal form and function by theosophical fiat and point your insipid god at anyone with a brain who disagrees and end the threat. Your religion exceeds stupidity by billions of light years. And you are at the center of its universe.

Bishop Robert Barron As shown from contingency in the syllogism above, the uncaused cause is physical, not your immaterial god.

In accepting the argument from contingency, you've conceded that there must exist some reality which is uncaused in its own existence and which, in turn, is the cause of being in all contingent things. This reality, in short, is that whose existence is not conditioned or received in any way but rather whose very nature is to be. If its existence were conditioned, we'd have to enquire as to the cause of that state of affairs. But we've proved that this reality is uncaused in its being. With that philosophical clarification in mind, could I suggest that you take a look at the definition of God that is given in Exodus 3:14?

T Njordhof I see yes good point. I’m sure Thomas Aquinas addressed this argument.

Great talk by Bishop Barron. A very good directive on what should be our life.

The Catholic Church has severe baggage. If you're going to mass, you're voting with your feet.

Surfdude12 1 Aquinas may have taken supernatural causes for granted, believing reality to be filled with angels and demons.

Thank you Bishop and Thank you Google. Awesome lecture

Pray for church in Australia. We are under attack from devil. They are passing laws to break seal of confessional. Will send priests to prison if they don’t comply. You understand what that means. It is the start of serious persecution. Pray for us.

Molto bene brillante grazie

La beatitudine e il dono della fede che ci porta a casa in dio attraverso Gesù al padre e spirito santo nel eucarestia grazie mille

What an absolutely wonderful testimony. Brought me to tears.

Hi. Immense blessings.

Tobias Kyon thanks for the comment Tobias. God love you.

Lord Njordhof But don’t you see that it is you who are begging the question?! You’re saying “let’s assume that all causes are physical causes. God isn’t physical. Therefore he can’t be construed as a cause.” Well, nego maiorem.

What I find ironic is Bishop Baron's politics. Notice how he leaves it to other bishops to question the modernism of the current Pope.  Nary a word of criticism of Bergoglio, even when Pope Francis favors dissenters like Cupich, Lehmann, Tobin and others. Baron plays favorites and he knows where his bread is buttered.  He was appointed by Bergoglio and this fact is ever present in Baron's ecclesiology. In matters of moral theology, Fr. Baron so emphasizes the role of "culpability" that he fails to mention the objectivity of moral norms and the existence of intrinsically evil acts.  This is pure-Bergoglio.  In the Dubia, the four Cardinals asked the Pope about intrinsically evil actions, did he still hold to that teaching?  The Pope of course will not answer, he refused to be pinned down. Bishops and priests and popes are duty-bound to repeat the teaching handed down in the Church, this duty applies to the late Cardinal George and to Bishop Baron and to Pope Francis, indeed to all of us.

Great speech. I’m a cradle Catholic and only recently have come back towards my faith and am currently enrolled in RCIA along with my wife. I’m happy and feel blessed that I found your speeches on here and it’s helping me to further understand my faith for myself and my immediate family. Also it has enabled me to begin explain it to people who have all these misconceptions and downright prejudices against the True Word of God as it is expressed in the Catholic Faith. Thank you

That's what I said. Causes belong to the causal. However - I would suggest that creation can come from impulse. That an intelligent impulse, perhaps on the level of a mind, can tweak the unified field of pure potential and bring into being instantly without a creative process that bridges the gap between the transcendent and time/space. In other words, the universe could have been intended into existence. This derives from my study of the quantum mechanics of consciousness under the auspices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and my participation in the advanced TM Siddhi programme.

Bishop Robert Barron I call this the _Kalamity Cosmological argument_ : Whatever begins to exist has a physical cause; The universe began to exist; Therefore the universe has a physical cause. Given that the premises are true, the conclusion is undeniable: The cause for the universe is physical, not an immaterial God...

Bishop Robert Barron Construing God as cause results in a fallacy by assuming the consequent of the argument: Whatever begins to exist has a physical cause OR was caused by God; Universe began to exist; Therefore the universe was caused by God. The truth of the first premise is independent of the clause about God construed as cause. In fact, you can substitute _was caused by god_ with say _has no cause_ or _can’t be explained_ and reach conflicting conclusions without affecting the soundness of the argument. This shows that by assuming God as cause you are begging the question. Removing the _was caused by God_ clause eliminates this fallacy.

pope francis called jesus a sinner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsho2klcOZ8

Bishop Robert Barron Given that the premises are true, the conclusion is undeniable: The cause for the universe is physical, not your immaterial God...

Freni Sillona St. Thomas Aquinas? Seriously though, probably only the saints of old could be better representatives, he's probably the one of the best living reps for sure.

Beautiful.

You've got to be kidding, Bishop Barron flirting with the enemy. ...well you gotta go to the front lines I guess, love you Bishop, can't wait to hear this.

Amazing talk!

Mostly I hear from other family Members being hung up on prayers of intercession to Saints. They view it as a form of idolatry even though that’s not what is going on. Other Protestants have issues with Catholicism as a whole saying many of the churches positions are from scripture even though they don’t give an example. Also some were floored when I told them about priests ability to forgive sins through the Holy Spirit working through them. Pretty clearly shown that is in the Bible. They also have issues of works believing it’s just faith based that’s it. They don’t know what the Sacraments are or the Nicene Creed or Apostles Creed. What I see is my other family members and friends also do not know the history of Christianity really at all

Brian Farley I'm curious if you don't mind sharing, what are the misconceptions against the teachings of the Catholic Faith you have encountered among people?

I’m going through inquiry process. The only sacrament I have to still receive is Reconciliation. However my wife needs everything except for the baptism. But we’ve had pretty in depth conversations so far on scripture and what the Church is teaching. We go every Monday night. We have enjoyed the process so far

At your RCIA, how far along are you in the indoctrination? Have you learned much about what the Cathecism teaches yet?

Go fuck yourself.

Thank you for conceding the debate. By making it personal, and not addressing the issues in a civil, calm, and subjective manner, you have thrown in the towel!

How is it shown false?

Although you are an adept wordsmith, you may want to review a few historical facts. In reviewing the pre-Christian cemeteries, you'll notice a dearth of acknowledgement of deceased women. Jesus was probably the first true feminist. Regarding heaven and hell (yes they are both real), God doesn't damn anyone. He simply allows us to use our free will to choose to be with Him forever, or not! Although we may have to agree to disagree, please know that you are a child of God (just like the rest of us) and we each have the winning lotto ticket. The question is, will you cash it in, or rip it up and ditch it? I'm praying you'll make the choice of Truth, Happines, and Love!

Yes :), that's what I meant, living today.

Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him 3 times, all but one deserted Him during His Passion, but don't ditch Jesus, His Truth and Life because of the shortcomings of His followers!

Bishop Robert Barron Please tell us more about these _intrinsically evil acts_ in your reality. What exactly are you referring to?

james sullivan James, you obviously know nothing of my work! I have insisted again and again on the reality of intrinsically evil acts. But there is indeed a distinction between the objective and subjective orders in moral theology. To defend this classical distinction hardly makes one “Bergoglian.”

Brian Farley If you haven't already, before the Sacrament of Reconciliation you may find it insightful to review a confession guide such as http://m.ncregister.com/info/confession_guide_for_adults

No to usurp Bishop Baron's prerogative here, but direct killing of the innocent is always and in every case an exceptionless moral norm

Whenever a legitimate feature of moral theology (culpability) gains so much stress, we find that other aspects, in particular the objectivity of moral norms tends to regress even disappear.  Ford and Kelly distinguish between an excess of culpability and a outright caving in to situation ethics. But even an excess of culpability is troubling inasmuch as the action placed is no longer given its primacy.  We hurry to  invoke a modifier of responsibility (ignorance, passion, fear, force or habit) so as to lift the burden from the penitent. Sorry to suggest, Father that you were playing fast and lose with intrinsically evil actions. But the moral errors of consequentialism and situation ethics have been eating away at Catholic thought for decades. We need to put the brakes on "accompanying" or "looking eye to eye" (Cupich) when such posturing is eroding the objectivity of moral norms.

I've insisted on that publicly for years.

Abortion, contraception, euthanasia, slavery, the sexual abuse of children, human trafficking, etc.

Brian Farley Before the Sacrament of Reconciliation you may find it beneficial to review a confession guide such as http://m.ncregister.com/info/confession_guide_for_adults

Bishop Robert Barron thanks so much!! You helped a lot! I love looking at ritual/doctrine in the way you describe because makes it more of an aspiration than an ultimatum. Or looking hell as rejection of God. I love both of those interpretations but my mind is like “but that’s not how the Church sees them!” Any suggestions for quieting that stupid voice? (which is likely my ego afraid I’ll go back to mass!). I’m not one of lapsed Catholics concerned about abortion/contraception/etc stances of Church, in fact those Church stances have been magnet drawing me back in, along with individualism/free will underlying Catholicism where each person is judged for their own sin vs crazy collectivism we see everywhere now. I’m watching your 7 deadly sins video & it’s amazing thx so much! You’ve helped me go back to mass I just have that lingering “Church says ritual/doctrine are rules & hell is place!” stinking thinking

Bishop Barron you are a great gift from God to all of us. I learn so much from your talks. May our Lord bless you and our holy Mother protect you as you bring us closer to her Son.

Bishop Baron, you are Heaven Sent!

Alas, nobody has been preaching that sermon in the papal household since 2013.

i'd fukk him

God bless this was so amazing to see Bishop Robert Barron speak at Google !

20:25 Hedonism is not noble. Hedonism is absolutely the cause of our walking away from the light. Hedonism is not just pleasurable things, it's maximizing pleasure without regard for consequences.

Freni Sillona whoever says he’s qualified isn’t qualified

so true

thank u Bishop Barron!

All he is saying is that life has NO meaning and that when we die our consciousness ends FOREVER. So...believe in these FANTASIES or this REALITY will depress the shit out of you.

"Theodore McCarrick resigns from College of Cardinals over alleged sexual abuse" OH-OH!!! Another Cardinal bites the dust. These wacky men of God!

My public channel: Um, that's simply untrue. Sorry brother.

I will need to watch this more than one time... yes, yes.

Hey Robert, do you think the 302 priests mentioned in the article below, were opening up the mind? I think they were opening various orifices of their parishioners. Any comments? Pennsylvania’s attorney general released on Tuesday the long-awaited results of a damning grand jury investigation into how six Roman Catholic dioceses in the state covered up sexual abuse by 301 “predator priests” over the past 70 years. The 884-page report is the largest, most comprehensive investigation on the church’s sex abuse scandal by a U.S. state, according to Attorney General Josh Shapiro. The grand jury identified over 1,000 victims in the six dioceses examined in the report: Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Scranton. But the jurors suspected the true number of victims could be much higher. Shapiro said the report, which was delayed for months while individuals named in it raised legal challenges over what portions should be redacted, showed that church leaders in these dioceses knew abuse was occurring but systematically covered it up. “The pattern was abuse, deny, and coverup,” Shapiro said during a news conference Tuesday. The jurors accused Catholic Church leaders of working hard to avoid public scandal and protect abusers. The grand jury found that victims were “brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institutions above all.” Tim Lennon, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused By Priests, told HuffPost he was saddened and angered by the report. He believes it proves the church hierarchy was complicit in the abuse. They knew abuse was happening and didn’t work hard enough to discipline abusers, he said, which in turn enabled more abuse to happen over the years. “They knew for years if not decades of this vile corruption. Those in the church hierarchy went to great lengths to hide and dismiss the suffering of survivors,” Lennon told HuffPost. “How many children were raped and sexually abused because the church authorities covered up sexual abuse and did nothing?” Matt Haverstick, an attorney representing the dioceses of Harrisburg and Greensburg, insisted in a statement that the Catholic Church discussed in the grand jury report no longer exists. “The Dioceses I’ve gotten to know so well over the past two years are incredibly sorry for the harm to these survivors,” Haverstick said. “Today’s Church has listened and learned from its mistakes, and its reforms over the past two decades keep children safe.” The grand jury report faced heated, behind-the-scenes challenges on its road to publication. A group of individuals named but not indicted in it argued that their right to due process would be violated if they couldn’t hold hearings to challenge parts of the grand jury report and try to protect their reputations. In June, the state’s Supreme Court decided to block the report’s publication. Shapiro fought the decision ― at one point appealing to Pope Francis to step in and persuade the individuals to drop their efforts to block the report. Seven news organizations also petitioned the state Supreme Court to try to force the report’s release ― including the Associated Press, Telemundo Mid-Atlantic, NBC subsidiaries, and several Pennsylvania-based publications. In the end, the report was published with the names of some Catholic clergy redacted. The state Supreme Court plans to consider oral arguments on those individuals’ claims in September, the AP reports. The state’s Supreme Court tapped a county judge to help prosecutors and lawyers for clergy members decide what parts to release by the court-ordered deadline of Aug. 14. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro released the grand jury report into how six Roman Catholic dioceses in the state covered up sexual abuse by priests. Previous investigations have uncovered widespread clergy sexual abuse in the state’s other two dioceses, Philadelphia and Altoona-Johnstown. AdChoices Smaller states, including Maine and New Hampshire, have issued reports on the extent of the Roman Catholic Church’s sex abuse scandal. But Pennsylvania is the largest state to date that has conducted such an investigation. Norman Krumenacker, the Cambria County president judge, supervised the grand jury. During the investigation, which began in July 2016, the grand jury heard from dozens of witnesses and reviewed over 500,000 pages of documents from diocesan archives. The probe led to the arrests of two priests on child sexual abuse charges. One of the arrested priests, the Rev. David Poulson, is facing charges of indecent assault and child endangerment for abusing at least two boys in incidents that date back to 2002. Poulson allegedly assaulted one of the victims, a former altar boy, more than 20 times. The boy was also asked to make a formal confession ― to Poulson ― to receive absolution for the abuse. Shapiro claimed that the Erie diocese knew about Poulson’s behavior as early as 2010 but did not report it to law enforcement until 2016, and then in response to a subpoena from the grand jury. The bishop of Erie disputes that timeline. In April, the Erie diocese tried to get ahead of the report by releasing the names of 51 former priests and lay leaders who were credibly accused of sexual misconduct, ranging from providing pornography to minors to sexual assault. Erie’s Bishop Lawrence Persico said in a statement that it was “shocking to read the graphic details” in the grand jury report. In a letter that was read aloud in all 97 parishes of the 13-county diocese on Sunday, the bishop said it was clear that church leaders failed to adequately address the problem. “The most important thing I want to do at this moment is to express my sorrow to the victims of sexual abuse that occurred within the Diocese of Erie,” Persico wrote in the letter. “As the grand jury report demonstrates, they have experienced cruel behavior by the very individuals who should have had the greatest interest in protecting them.” Harrisburg Bishop Ronald Gainer holds a news conference about child sexual abuse by clergy on Aug. 1, 2018. The Harrisburg diocese followed Erie’s example in August, when it released a list of 71 priests and other members of the church who had been accused of sex abuse. The diocese also removed the names of accused bishops from its church buildings. On Friday, Pittsburgh Bishop David Zubik said a few priests named in the report were still in ministry. He said diocesan investigations had concluded that those allegations were unsubstantiated. Currently, Pennsylvania law states that adults who were abused as children can’t sue for damages after turning 30. Criminal charges can’t be filed after the alleged victim turns 50. The church has opposed moves to change the statute of limitations, claiming it would be financially crippling to Pennsylvania’s Catholic schools and parishes. Fifteen U.S. Catholic dioceses or archdioceses have filed for bankruptcy protection because of the clergy sexual abuse crisis, according to the watchdog group BishopAccountability.org. Lennon applauded Shapiro’s courage in empaneling a grand jury. But he said the work of exposing sexual abuse within the Catholic Church is far from over. “We see that when civil society investigates we get the truth,” Lennon said. “There must be a grand jury in every state.”

Values at Google??? Was that a joke? This platform (YOU TUBE) alone, notwithstanding the channels of various priests, ministers, evangelists with followers, is a sinkhole of non-religious thinking, and sinful attitudes. Narcissism on steroids and materialism have been monetized and weaponized here. Who are the wealthiest based on revenue, most popular personalities leading the dumb and dumber young astray? Those who push "me, mine, and bleep you". Those who argue for the acquisition of more things, more first class seats, more luxuries. Then we come to the whole underworld of the outright racists, conspiracy nuts of every variety, and professional paid trolls often operating from sovereign government offices seeking to sow discord in democratic open societies. You'll need more than His Grace doing lectures. Google and its policies need to profoundly change, but only the most naive person thinks you will. No, for the masters of the Silicon valley universe it is all about money, money, money. Their temple has no other values, not Christian, not even secular ethics and human rights. $$$$$$ is the king to whom all must bend low.

The major question I have- Has Bishop Barron done anything to stop or resist the homosexual mafia that has infiltrated the Church? Has Bishop Barron contributed to the disinformation campaign launch by Wuerl and others to deceive faithful Catholics into believing that Homo pedophile priests aren't really there anymore? All this smoke and mirror bullshit being spun by Barron, while McCarrick and Wuerl, plus others have taken and spent millions of parishioners generous offerings on lawyers and payouts. We are tired of you running your mouth Barron, you are a talker, not much of a doer....all intellect and no will. No spine either, you are a coward. When the smoke clears, we will have booted your ass out too. Get a job as an Episcopal minister, they don't pay as much, and the benefits aren't as numerous, less parishioners then in the Catholic Church but you would fit in with your "open minds" b.s. See you around. James~Son of Thunder

Thanks to Fr Barron for getting me back to catholicism. And thanks to Rev. Fulton Sheen and Youtube too :)

Free the Church of the homosexual mafia of priests. Stop selecting homosexual deviants over good candidates for the priesthood. Finally tell us how you plan to purge the Church of these homosexual predatory clerics so there are no more victims. Until then stop giving money. SILENT NO MORE

The reasoning process reminds of the ontological proofs of God's existence. They imagine something is more fundamental than something else and then employ the same strategy again and again. And then they jump to the conclusion that there must be something that is at the end of the procession and is the root of these all. But the reasoning is wrong. 2 is larger than 1, so is 3 to 2; does this mean that the largest number exists? What bugs me about theology is that theologians are so cocksure about the infinite and talk length about it while physicists and mathematicians carefully walk around it.

Other news