List of reasons to believe God exists?

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Oh ok lol. I don't remember the bar scene from that movie so wasn't sure what you were referring to.

It's only a 4 minute video, and it has Matt Damon and Ben Affleck!  That's 2 guys you know!

Thanks for posting this.  I remember seeing a clip of the bar scene from Good Will Hunting on one of the movie channels when I was a pre adolescent, and it made me think  that it might actually be cool to be smart and "know things".

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ok, ok... I'll watch the video...

(Eta: response to wally)

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

[GrandizerII]

Ok, ok... I'll watch the video...

(Eta: response to wally)

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

Karlo Broussard's credentials from that site:

After a three-year apprenticeship with Fr. Robert Spitzer S.J. PhD., nationally known author, speaker, philosopher, and theologian, Karlo works as a full time apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers giving lectures throughout the country on topics in Catholic apologetics, theology and philosophy. He holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in theology from Catholic Distance University and the Augustine Institute, and is currently working on his masters in philosophy with Holy Apostles College and Seminary.

Brandon Vogt:

Brandon Vogt is a bestselling author, blogger, and speaker. He's also the founder of StrangeNotions.com. Brandon has been featured by several media outlets including NPR, CBS, FoxNews, SiriusXM, and EWTN. He converted to Catholicism in 2008, and since then has released several books, including The Church and New Media (Our Sunday Visitor, 2011), Saints and Social Justice (Our Sunday Visitor, 2014), and RETURN (Numinous Books, 2015). He works as the Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.

Not impressive compared to Sean Carroll.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, ok... I'll watch the video...

(Eta: response to wally)

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

I watched wally's video (scene from Will Hunting), not the one hour thing that someone else posted.

[Succubus]

Ok, ok... I'll watch the video...

(Eta: response to wally)

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

Says Brandon Vogt:
An evangelical Christian and Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.

Tell me Neo, where can I find Mr Vogt's analysis of Professor Carroll's interpretation of quantum field theory?

[downbeatplumb]

Wally, I have a question. What is your opinion on what humanity's moral standards should be based on? Or do you think there shouldn't be any standards? I am curious to hear your personal philosophy on morals and how you think they should be applied, what they should be based on, etc.

Morality is a mixture of empathy, i.e. I can imagine myself in that position, which could be ascribed to our prolonged nurturing of children and experience, there is also that as a social creature we conform to societies values.

Interestingly those values change with different cultures and over time so the last thing morals could be is fixed from some morality police on high.

Morality is subjective.

In the middle east and certain parts of the US it is not considered evil to persecute people of different sexual orientation.

In Africa they still kill kids as witches and there are other practices too odious to go into that are considered moral in that culture.

The Aztecs murdered hundreds of thousands of people to appease gods, that was moral to them.

Then you have honour killings and honour rapes all part of cultures that think that that is a ok.

So what should morals be based on?

On what I think is right obviously the same thing that everybody else thinks.

[Jehanne]

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

I watched wally's video (scene from Will Hunting), not the one hour thing that someone else posted.

Then you're a dope, sorry.  The TOS here will still give you the freedom to post on Big Bang cosmology, but it is clear that you know absolutely nothing about what you are trying to pontificate (pun intended) on.

[The Grand Nudger]

Moral disagreement neither implies nor demonstrates that morality is subjective.  I suspect that most people, placed in any culture and any timeframe, would find at least certain elements of a great many disparate moral systems familiar.  If they really sought to understand the underlying motivations, they would even find that things which seemed entirely counterintuitive and morally "counterfactual" arise from the same motivations that their own moral propositions arose from.

We notice, for example, that rape and pillagers didn't seem to have a particular aversion to rape or pillage..but we forget that they were unlikely to consider it a justifiable behavior when the victims were their own family, or when it was carried out between members of their own group.  This is a failure to extend their own moral propositions to their logical limits, and often enough it was a practical and explicable omission.  

Moral disagreement such as this is not moral subjectivity, but a subjective experience and selective deployment -of- morality.  If you asked them why they did not want their own daughters raped, or why it was immoral..in all likelihood, they would have told you the same thing that any father would tell you now.  Interestingly, a rape and pillager would have first-hand knowledge..as the aggressor, of exactly why he didn't want his own daughter raped.  

OTOH, they could tell you in plain language why they found it necessary to engage in raids.  They were thinking of their family.  They needed the goods.  If they failed to provide those goods, or provide them at a commensurate rate to the average, their family would suffer.  Necessity and want and suffering are notable for their ability to erode our own moral competence, today..and the same must have been true then.  Even a person who was not completely onboard with the raping and pillaging (and there must have been at least some, no matter what time or culture) would have went off and engaged in the raping and pillaging parties.

Rather than deny moral commonality or moral agreement in response to the claim that this somehow implies a god or lawgiver..it's more useful and accurate to ask what all of those human beings have in common.  The answer being so blissfully obvious that one wonders why a person would point to this, if they were pointing to things, to argue for god.  They're all human beings.  Common biology, common evolutionary history, common pressures and common responses.  It should come as no surprise that human beings are alot alike, we're defined as a group by that very commonality.   A person may as well say "Feet, therefore gods".   In truth, the existence of -people- explains moral agreement -and- moral disagreement.  There is no room for god in either direction.  

We -do- and -should- base our morality off of what we already base our morality.  We could always improve it by making it more consistent, by extending it as far as it's implications suggest, and by removing those items that do not have a proper justification from our moral systems...but there is no issue with morality absent a god.  All morality, in point of fact, is already absent any gods, it's commonality is explained by reference to ourselves, it's disparity is explained by reference to ourselves..and gods..themselves...are little more than projections of ourselves.

In all of this, we maintain that our moral propositions...contradictory as they may be to each other, arise from observations of some fact x that others can verify for themselves should they so choose. This doesn't mean that they all do, we have disagreements over these facts.......but it's difficult to maintain that -no- facts can be found in our moral justifications. Morality is..very much, an attempt at an objective system of reference, no matter where you go or whose morality you have under consideration. Our limitations and our compulsions, explicable by our common humanity handily account for each and every instance when we get this wrong. When we misapprehend some x for fact, when it is not...but also for each and every instance of getting it right. Of accurately perceiving and communicating some relevant fact of the matter at hand.

That an accurate perception and effective communication of these facts is beneficial to human life and human societies should be obvious. A group as small as a single family house won;t work when each member is at the others throats, indifferent to the pain and suffering caused by each member to the other. The problem is compounded exponentially by greater numbers. Some moral propositions concern things so fundamental and basic to functioning human relationships that their adherence is a matter of survival, and here again, it should come as no surprise to find that extant societies would share these..if no other, moral propositions between them.

Morality, common or disparate..individually or at the level of human societies, rather than being a competent argument for or reliable indicator of a lawgiving god..is a damning indictment of the very concept as unnecessary, nonexistent, and fundamentally irrelevant. Not even the tremendously lazy assertion that "yeah but, like, he created everything..so that's why you can percieve facts, because of the way he made you" can rescue this irrelevance. If we can perceive facts due to the specifics of our construction..than no matter who or what constructed us -in this way- we would be able to perceive those facts. Not only is the lawgiver unnecessary -as- a lawgiver...it's not even necessary as a creator.
(lol, think that just about covers everything......)

[Brian37]

It's only a 4 minute video, and it has Matt Damon and Ben Affleck!  That's 2 guys you know!

Thanks for posting this.  I remember seeing a clip of the bar scene from Good Will Hunting on one of the movie channels when I was a pre adolescent, and it made me think  that it might actually be cool to be smart and "know things"

Little known fact, there was a sequel to this movie. Yep, it was called "Ill Intent Scavenging."

[SteveII]

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

Karlo Broussard's credentials from that site:

After a three-year apprenticeship with Fr. Robert Spitzer S.J. PhD., nationally known author, speaker, philosopher, and theologian, Karlo works as a full time apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers giving lectures throughout the country on topics in Catholic apologetics, theology and philosophy. He holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in theology from Catholic Distance University and the Augustine Institute, and is currently working on his masters in philosophy with Holy Apostles College and Seminary.

Brandon Vogt:

Brandon Vogt is a bestselling author, blogger, and speaker. He's also the founder of StrangeNotions.com. Brandon has been featured by several media outlets including NPR, CBS, FoxNews, SiriusXM, and EWTN. He converted to Catholicism in 2008, and since then has released several books, including The Church and New Media (Our Sunday Visitor, 2011), Saints and Social Justice (Our Sunday Visitor, 2014), and RETURN (Numinous Books, 2015). He works as the Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.

Not impressive compared to Sean Carroll.

When a scientist starts offering opinions on metaphysical questions for which he is ill equipped, the best person to point out the flaws in his argument is not another scientist--it's a philosopher.