Why Catholicism Is True

[rotting bones]

https://youtu.be/7X_HmSQ6A1A

/s
Search Randal Rauser for universalist counterarguments.

[rotting bones]

So any converts? The power of Reason compels you!

[Ares Land]

Sorry... I rarely watch Youtube videos. What is he saying?

[WeepingElf]

So any converts? The power of Reason compels you!

I was curious, but then I saw that it plays over seven hours. That's simply too much for me!

[rotting bones]

Sorry... I rarely watch Youtube videos. What is he saying?

The problem with reading is that ignoring the oral tradition makes it impossible to understand what people actually mean.

[rotting bones]

So any converts? The power of Reason compels you!

I was curious, but then I saw that it plays over seven hours. That's simply too much for me!

It's graduate-level ReasoningTM.

[WeepingElf]

So any converts? The power of Reason compels you!

I was curious, but then I saw that it plays over seven hours. That's simply too much for me!

It's graduate-level ReasoningTM.

Maybe. But I simply don't have the time to watch such a long thing.

[Travis B.]

I avoid random YouTube videos that aren't music videos like the plague. So no, I'm not going to watch it.

[rotting bones]

I was curious, but then I saw that it plays over seven hours. That's simply too much for me!

It's graduate-level ReasoningTM.

Maybe. But I simply don't have the time to watch such a long thing.

Ok, in that case we can't make fun of how he thinks testimony AKA anecdotal evidence is serious stuff. Even if we can't discuss at a deep level how human reasoning goes astray, I can link some books he mentioned over the course of the video: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d-HQS1 ... p=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ah2NsW ... p=drivesdk

[rotting bones]

Maybe. But I simply don't have the time to watch such a long thing.

Wait, I didn't realize the video outline is available for non-patrons: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrE ... p=drivesdk

Needless to say, take these claims with a grain of salt.

I avoid random YouTube videos that aren't music videos like the plague. So no, I'm not going to watch it.

This guy was a famous agnostic in philosophy academia known for hosting debates between philosophers: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxRh ... BLnKcbQKkY

However, he has been impressed by Rasmussen's objectively terrible arguments for a long time.

[rotting bones]

This is huge in the online apologetics world. MythVision Podcast is making a series about this too:

https://youtu.be/sP5WW9ffN9s
https://youtu.be/nD73Stpfn-Y
https://youtu.be/uTsaKe8tIDE
...

BTW, if you're interested in how religious institutions function, you can follow along by Googling things like: <miracle name> fraud

For example, Joe Schmid (the guy this thread is about) says Padre Pio is the most impressive miracle for him: https://youtu.be/bzzRUB6AiKg

Apparently one pope believed the dude was a fraud: https://www.thetimes.com/travel/destina ... nfqmmbcjcz

Joe Schmid is a PhD candidate. If he doesn't know something, he comes out and says it. For example, he says he studied biology, but he doesn't understand enough biology to decide on the Intelligent Design argument and says it's unpersuasive to him. Maybe he has done more research on these so-called miracles than Googling one article.

I'm disappointed that his conversion is based so much on superstition and an assumption of human intelligence. I was hoping for positive arguments for specific Catholic positions. The positive positions he does have seem to have, aside from "miracles", are arguments from fine-tuning, harmony and things like intuitions of divinity and beauty.

Regarding the intuition of divinity, ignore contemporary psychology and just read Freud. You are projecting parental injunctions onto metaphysical reality.

I don't understand how anyone can be convinced by beauty. I have grown up surrounded by ugliness my whole life. I'm almost middle aged, and I'm still surrounded by ugliness on every side. I have to take pictures of any transient beauty I can find.

That leaves things like fine-tuning and harmony. The whole approach of philosophers thinking of this universe as being one out of many possible universes is an anthropomorphic projection. Human reason thinks of every possible combination of objects when trying to decide how to assemble them, but that doesn't mean combinatorialism has anything to do with how the universe originated. The way I see it, there is just this one world and nothing else. There is no multiverse and no other possibilities. On the purely conceptual counterfactual that this world didn't have life, we wouldn't be here to wonder at that outcome.

The instant you attribute any anthropic qualities onto metaphysics, you will inevitably conclude there must be some sort or God or gods out there, even if the quality is as innocent as what a child does when playing with Legos.

This same anthropomorphism argument applies to harmony, power, perfection, and all the other qualities humans attribute to nature, and from there, project onto the supernatural.

[rotting bones]

Also, there's no lack of miracles in folk Islam. Western scholarship simply doesn't take them as seriously as Christian miracles because Western scholarship is racist.

[Raphael]

As I said before, one thing I find weird about this kind of thing is the unwillingness/inability to distinguish between trying to argue for the idea that there is a God, or, more generally, a supernatural being, and trying to argue that a specific religion, which almost always makes a lot of specific claims beyond "There is a God", is completely true.

Even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that those arguments from fine-tuning, harmony and intuitions of divinity and beauty really do prove the existence of God, how would they prove that whatever the Church put into Paragraph 1729 of the Catechism (I didn't check) is true, too?

EDIT: the general idea seems to be, "It has to be either atheism or Religion X, therefore, proving atheism wrong would prove Religion X".

[rotting bones]

As I said before, one thing I find weird about this kind of thing is the unwillingness/inability to distinguish between trying to argue for the idea that there is a God, or, more generally, a supernatural being, and trying to argue that a specific religion, which almost always makes a lot of specific claims beyond "There is a God", is completely true.

Even if we assume, just for the sake of argument, that those arguments from fine-tuning, harmony and intuitions of divinity and beauty really do prove the existence of God, how would they prove that whatever the Church put into Paragraph 1729 of the Catechism (I didn't check) is true, too?

My understanding is that, in brief, it comes down to: 1. A belief in miracles, and 2. A lot of arguments existing for the Catholic position.

For more information, watch the video I linked in segments: https://youtu.be/7X_HmSQ6A1A If it's too long for you, I also linked some books making a positive case for Catholic positions like: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ah2NsW ... p=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d-HQS1 ... p=drivesdk

I also think Joe Schmid is tempted to become a saint. This is why he doesn't sound like a sincere Christian such as Randal Rauser. He has the sin of pride.

[Travis B.]

The reason to believe in a multiverse is precisely that there is no reason to believe that a God deliberately fine-tuned the universe, yet the universe seems fine-tuned nonetheless, and the multiverse solves this problem (through invoking the anthropic principle).

Of course the idea that the idea that there is an either-or between atheism and Religion X is nonsensical. Even if atheism is somehow disproven does not mean that a given religionist's favored religion is somehow proven. For all we know, God could just be a cosmic programmer running a simulation of the universe on a cosmic computer.

[rotting bones]

The reason to believe in a multiverse is precisely that there is no reason to believe that a God deliberately fine-tuned the universe, yet the universe seems fine-tuned nonetheless, and the multiverse solves this problem (through invoking the anthropic principle).

The multiverse was discussed in tremendous detail in a previous 7 hour video: https://youtu.be/erpKBoPQxN0

Here's a brief response from the interview about why he doesn't think it's plausible: https://youtu.be/bzzRUB6AiKg?t=2796

Basically, if billions of monkeys are typing on keyboards, more often than getting a full work of Shakespeare, you're more likely to get a paragraph of Shakespeare. Similarly, rather than coherent life-supporting universes, the multiverse is more likely to produce Philip K Dick-style partial worlds that fray at the edges*. Given that under the combinatorial model, you are more likely to find the correct atom in a lottery among all the atoms in the universe than a coherent life-supporting universe, the multiverse hypothesis is still implausible.

The question of why life is possible only makes sense if there has been a fork in the road somewhere. I don't think the origin of the universe is combinatorial to begin with. My intuition tells me that the laws of physics are not mutually independent combinations. They are interconnected at a deep level we don't understand. There was a simple proportion in the formation of the universe. Everything else followed.

Of course the idea that the idea that there is an either-or between atheism and Religion X is nonsensical. Even if atheism is somehow disproven does not mean that a given religionist's favored religion is somehow proven. For all we know, God could just be a cosmic programmer running a simulation of the universe on a cosmic computer.

I have been saying this for decades. No one paid any attention when I said it. Sal even screamed at me for saying it. I was so devastated, I don't remember the blog where I was writing my arguments at that time.

Joe Schmid is dragging down the level of apologetics discourse by forcing us to focus on individual miracle claims.

* I don't remember whether Schmid has addressed the argument that miracles are evidence that we live in such a frayed world. Probably something like Catholicism being uniquely blessed with salutary miracles AKA racism.

[Raphael]

Of course the idea that the idea that there is an either-or between atheism and Religion X is nonsensical. Even if atheism is somehow disproven does not mean that a given religionist's favored religion is somehow proven. For all we know, God could just be a cosmic programmer running a simulation of the universe on a cosmic computer.

I have been saying this for decades. No one paid any attention when I said it. Sal even screamed at me for saying it. I was so devastated, I don't remember the blog where I was writing my arguments at that time.

I'm sorry if I didn't notice you in those arguments back then. Perhaps that was during my ZBB hiatus? In any case, it's pretty close to my own position.

[Ares Land]

I likewise feel that there is huge step between deism/theism and specific religions, and that proof of the existence of a creator (or creators? let's be accepting of all possibilities here), if such a thing was possible, wouldn't be proof of the truth of a specific religion.

This is my own parochial sentiment, but monotheistic religion also feels very parochial. Most of them are very specific to a tiny region of a planet that's negligible at the scale of the universe.

I could accept the idea that religions originate in accidental glimpse of higher powers (whatever these may be.) There's no reason to think, though, that Catholicism would have a more accurate picture than, say, Vodoun does.

I don't think the origin of the universe is combinatorial to begin with. My intuition tells me that the laws of physics are not mutually independent combinations. They are interconnected at a deep level we don't understand.

I suspect as much. There's most likely a very restricted number of parameters, or maybe one parameter.

Basically, if billions of monkeys are typing on keyboards, more often than getting a full work of Shakespeare, you're more likely to get a paragraph of Shakespeare. Similarly, rather than coherent life-supporting universes, the multiverse is more likely to produce Philip K Dick-style partial worlds that fray at the edges*. Given that under the combinatorial model, you are more likely to find the correct atom in a lottery among all the atoms in the universe than a coherent life-supporting universe, the multiverse hypothesis is still implausible.

Although there is the anthropic principle to consider. If there is an infinity of possible universe, of course we can't anywhere else than in one of those that support life.

Joe Schmid is dragging down the level of apologetics discourse by forcing us to focus on individual miracle claims.

The question of miracles is interesting, I think. (Though Joe Schmid isn't.) If we define miracles, or the supernatural (to use a less loaded term) as acausal, unpredictal and unreproducible events outside usual natural laws -- there's really no reason to believe no such events ever occur. But we can't do anything about these, we can't reason about these or draw conclusions. Also, how are we sure they're Catholic miracles, as opposed to a preta from one of the lower bardos playing a prank on us?

[Travis B.]

The reason to believe in a multiverse is precisely that there is no reason to believe that a God deliberately fine-tuned the universe, yet the universe seems fine-tuned nonetheless, and the multiverse solves this problem (through invoking the anthropic principle).

The multiverse was discussed in tremendous detail in a previous 7 hour video: https://youtu.be/erpKBoPQxN0

Here's a brief response from the interview about why he doesn't think it's plausible: https://youtu.be/bzzRUB6AiKg?t=2796

Sorry, I'm not watching YouTube videos, specially seven hour ones.

Basically, if billions of monkeys are typing on keyboards, more often than getting a full work of Shakespeare, you're more likely to get a paragraph of Shakespeare. Similarly, rather than coherent life-supporting universes, the multiverse is more likely to produce Philip K Dick-style partial worlds that fray at the edges*. Given that under the combinatorial model, you are more likely to find the correct atom in a lottery among all the atoms in the universe than a coherent life-supporting universe, the multiverse hypothesis is still implausible.

Umm that is precisely the point -- that the multiverse accounts for fine-tuning by producing countless different universes, the vast, vast, vast majority of which are not life-supporting along with a small number of life-supporting ones, and that the universe that we see is specifically life-supporting for the very reason that if it weren't life-supporting we wouldn't be here to observe it.

If one rejects the multiverse then one is left with explaining how the universe we are in just happens to be precisely one of the very few possible universes that could be life-supporting in the first place, e.g. a God created it that way on purpose.

The question of why life is possible only makes sense if there has been a fork in the road somewhere. I don't think the origin of the universe is combinatorial to begin with. My intuition tells me that the laws of physics are not mutually independent combinations. They are interconnected at a deep level we don't understand. There was a simple proportion in the formation of the universe. Everything else followed.

The main thing is why do we just happen to be a universe that, out of the very many possible universes, is one of the very, very few that are life-supporting?

Of course the idea that the idea that there is an either-or between atheism and Religion X is nonsensical. Even if atheism is somehow disproven does not mean that a given religionist's favored religion is somehow proven. For all we know, God could just be a cosmic programmer running a simulation of the universe on a cosmic computer.

I have been saying this for decades. No one paid any attention when I said it. Sal even screamed at me for saying it. I was so devastated, I don't remember the blog where I was writing my arguments at that time.

Most of us here don't keep track of every single thing you have said over the whole history of the ZBB. I don't.

Joe Schmid is dragging down the level of apologetics discourse by forcing us to focus on individual miracle claims.

* I don't remember whether Schmid has addressed the argument that miracles are evidence that we live in such a frayed world. Probably something like Catholicism being uniquely blessed with salutary miracles AKA racism.

You seem a bit fixated on one particular guy's focus on miracles. I've never heard of the guy, and I don't give a crap as to what he thinks.

[rotting bones]

Of course the idea that the idea that there is an either-or between atheism and Religion X is nonsensical. Even if atheism is somehow disproven does not mean that a given religionist's favored religion is somehow proven. For all we know, God could just be a cosmic programmer running a simulation of the universe on a cosmic computer.

I have been saying this for decades. No one paid any attention when I said it. Sal even screamed at me for saying it. I was so devastated, I don't remember the blog where I was writing my arguments at that time.

I'm sorry if I didn't notice you in those arguments back then. Perhaps that was during my ZBB hiatus? In any case, it's pretty close to my own position.

This would be around 2006, give or take a few years.