CVS Live Guest - 2020-01-11 - Canadian Catholic

Author Streamed Saturday January 11th, 2020

There are 74 episodes in the Guest:Solo series.

Streamed May 14th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-14 - Joe

Streamed May 1st, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-05-01 - Ben

Streamed April 12th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-04-12 - Joe

Streamed February 10th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-02-10 - Aidan Lisney

Streamed January 30th, 2022

CVS Live Guest - 2022-01-30 - TJ

Streamed December 31st, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-12-31 - Zackery

Streamed September 26th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-26 - Nikola Krcic

Streamed September 18th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-18 - Bill Whatcott

Streamed September 17th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-17 - Nathan

Streamed September 3rd, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-09-03 - Chad Ellis

Streamed March 21st, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-03-21 - Ben

Streamed February 28th, 2021

CVS Live Guest - 2021-02-28 - Nikola Krcic

Streamed February 23rd, 2020

CVS Live Guest - 2020-02-23 - Pykris

Streamed February 22nd, 2020

CVS Live Guest - 2020-02-22 - Aidan Lisney

Streamed January 25th, 2020

CVS Live Guest - 2020-01-25 - Kalen R.

I reached out to Canadian Catholic after my favourite Atheist Troll, Robert White, send me a link to Aron Ra's live-stream chat with him. This is my first CVS Live Guest. We talked about Canadian Catholics journey from Protestantism to Atheist and then Catholicism. We also talked about YEC vs Theistic Evolution, Sedevacantism, the Papacy, Infallibility, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was a fun chat and I hope to have him back again in future.


CVS Live Guest - 2020-01-11 - Canadian Catholic

Author Streamed January 11th, 2020

audio


video

transcript
These YouTube transcripts are generated automatically and are therefore unformatted and replete with errors.
so we are live this is my first-ever CBS live guest and I have today the honor of interviewing and chatting with Canadian Catholic welcome to the show Canadian Catholic yes thanks for having me David this pleasure to be here I'm sorry for the technical issues we had with the first tribe but this seems to be a lot better and just tell the listeners a little bit about yourself and acquaint the audience with your with your Catholicism and with your online presence yes I I am currently a Roman Catholic I was raised a non-denominational Christian and through a journey I D converted and became an atheist I was an atheist on and off for about one year and then through study through research through thinking I abandoned the position of atheism and started a jerking that eventually led me to theism and Christianity more specifically and from then on it was a journey it took some time but I found myself more involved and more interested in the Catholic faith and eventually I have been to doing can you maybe just tell the listeners a little bit about your childhood how you were raised I believe you were raised in some sort of Protestant young Earth Creationism can you talk a little bit about that place yes I was a non-denominational Christian and I was raised a young the cartoonist and I want to bake bread this any sort of colorful story you can tell about your faith at first memories you have of your faith and when you first as a thinking rational being we decided that the reason God and I want to worship this guy just talk a little bit about your first Inklings that God and religion are real and worthy of your adherence yes in the beginning it obviously came more naturally to me was something I was raised in and something I was something that was like kind of second nature to me if that makes sense now obviously right but over time you know I started more thinking about it and I thought went for it wasn't defensible you know I had the same doubts but my I really started thinking about it and wanted listen I just thought about it and not something that was pleased with was probably around 18 and that's the time when I started doing more deeper into the research understanding historical context listening events and stuff like that so the point would be around when I was 18 so that would be age just to give you and I spend a lot of time also debating and there discussed it particularly the separated atheism and the subreddit debate and atheist I eventually actually created my own separate at once and yeah I had these discussions so the discussions helped me grow the more antagonistic the discussion more development I experienced and would you say philosophy is a major part of your conversion away from God and then back to God I can you talk a little bit about the philosophical ideas that shaped your turn a little bit yes philosophy had a huge part I would say crucial and hitting cure philosophy right is the most important thing right and that's basically what happened to the philosophical argumentation the framework is important to understand basically everything related to the slide especially theology the vent that is really the most important part now of course there was a piece for science there is a place for history there's a place for biology for mathematics all of it but the primary for framework philosophy is the most important mmm some bit what when having these this yes yet the Catholic faith really when we're talking about Christianity I hope you means a more orthodox reversion to you right now in Christianity you're including fee Christians who are atheists but simply like the message of Jesus right then that's a different conversation yes I think I had my mute on there so that listeners couldn't hear the question is basically about what are the deal-breakers to like Christianity Catholicism so you can continue with your answer but there there are different the different deal-breakers for me and just sort of run through the gamut what would it take for you to leave Catholicism and Christianity when we're talking about Christianity as I said issue obviously depends what do you mean because if I'm there Christianity you simply need the most generic form or someone can let believe in God but simply like the message of Jesus then you could always be that if agenda meant something much more specific then that would have to be be the Orthodox for me to believe in one and historically invariably the Roman Catholic Church is II the church that developed from that Orthodox sect so one would have to show me that that's wrong for me to leave Roman Catholicism is the most authentic expression of that white believing sect of Christianity that developed how would you characterize the authority of non-catholics whether they're atheist Hindus Jews or Protestants how would you characterize their understanding of authority how do they speak with authority when they interpret the Bible or the Hindu religious texts or the atheistic secular scientific journals and all those sorts of things what is it with authority in non-catholic world use actually you would be surprised but with a lot of more historical Protestants and I'm not talking about the Protestants who are simply you know you don't even have knowledge of their own but faith in a hospital with historically oriented reformed Christians a half for authority there that they do understand a lot of what I say very intelligently and the issue is ultimately I would say more these people are interested in actually learning about the against leg phase Seymour the X and history the more they actually adjust some of their language to better reflect the problems we have so I've had discussions with one Christians you know they are not all the fundamentalist types who simply sit down and are not willing to listen anything from history they'll actually quote the church fathers interesting that still present the more historical use so yes I think it's a good thing that they also have some sense of this because ultimately it will be all religions have their origin from the fact that we have a neatly imbued desire to communicate with the divine and now of course humans have a way to anthropomorphize that divine and that's where you get the differences in religions time goes by a lot of anthropomorphisms get added you know the features of God that are supposed to be non troppo morphic become more and more anthropomorphised than there is syncretism where religions mix with each other and that's why of course you get so many different views but uh you know it's important to distinguish I think anti-catholic rhetoric tations from various sects from the people from different religions who are willing to engage more honestly and actually study what historical Catholicism teaches do you believe in an eternal hell because some Christians today don't and some Christians in history didn't what's your stance on an eternal unending punishment and suffering in hell I mean I accept the Eternity of hell unless shown otherwise but if you mind open to being shown otherwise I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to people showing me but my default position will be staying on the side of it in a very okay what would you say separates am honest from a monotheistic and I'm honest I mean those of the Eastern religions Hinduism certain forms of Buddhism where there's only God where there's only God and only heaven and all separation is illusion there is no eternal hell what separates the monotheists eternal hell from the monasteries yes so now when we're talking about something like this the most important thing to take is to understand it that the Eastern tradition is fundamentally different from core traditions that we are used to in those Eastern religions the religions understood completely different I've had talks with Hindus and they were not thinking in a completely different framework for them a lot of the religion is an expression of culture of tradition of ritual rather than just rigid truth that they want to you know explain to you that's why you see that a lot of Eastern religions are non Chris hella tizen ones for us and for Muslims this is a foreign concept I mean if you have the truth you want to spread the truth right and for a lot of the Eastern traditions with religions like Hinduism you see the almost complete absence of that mentality what you see isn't you know an emphasis on tradition on nationalism and you know on keeping national religion that is something that has to be taken from me basically it's the tradition in which so the difference between a bonused who looks belief in being eternal punishment and a monotheistic course it's been in which those beliefs to go I listened to your talk with our and raw and I did enjoy it I'd like you to talk a little bit about to atheists that I that I have some experience with Erin Roz one and the other is Matt Dillahunty I understand your interview with him was exciting but I didn't have a chance to listen to it can you just talk a little bit about those two characters because they're very visible in the aggressively atheistic community can you just talk a little bit about them yeah so I'm will acquainted with both of them both of them were people I is somewhat admired back in the day when I was converting when I was an atheist and when I left a Thea's right and Aaron raw was always someone I probably had more experience and knowledge with before my interview we had spoken before about various topics I've had before over text and Aaron rise definitely a person I respect very much he was and is one of my favorite atheist youtubers he definitely has a very entertaining when to in eighth and he is actually one of the biggest reasons why I now accept theistic evolution even a big Catholic she really led me there now when it comes to mental or hunty I think that he is also someone who is ultimately always willing to listen to you but one quality slurring that is sometimes displayed and sometimes ability link of opponents but otherwise I think both of them are people I people that are more open-minded and you might think right so yes I definitely have huge respect for them but I disagree on some key issues yet one of the main issues that I like to discuss with atheists is freewill and most self-respecting atheists today who have thought about it deny having free will can you talk a little bit about freewill and monotheism versus atheism just that sort of debate yes I mean again from an atheistic perspective as much as people do not like using that terminology freewill really is something that is being abandoned dr. Daniel Dennett was really a pioneer in this thing and yes ultimately Furman from the perspective metaphysical naturalism freewill is something that's an illusion definitely because we forebrain is simply a product of mechanical workings of the universe no different in a river flowing down the stream really it's an illusion yes take perspective and that is harder to address because when a theist is a very rich and diverse tradition they didn't it would have to be most from Atheist perspective it is totally logical for someone to ended the whole notion of free will living bucketing old and really pioneered this and I think it's feeling more and more since now you know there are still people who address this issue I must give credit to mr. Dan Barker Oh religion foundation who actually did write a book about this and did talk about the day first rejection of philosophers we have taken you know given us their positions on it he talked about blink - but really it is going down rohde yes it's finding more acceptance among the atheist community that free will is entirely an illusion and I think it is totally the framework under which the atheists operate were you a hard not really I wouldn't put put it myself that way when I was an atheist I spent most of my time he's using an Occam's razor as my argument so I wouldn't argue for my physical would attack another person's position when I started applying skepticism to my position that's when the thing started to change so yeah I'd like to because we're talking about freewill and atheism another approach I like to take with atheists is the beginning of everything that is and I guess you could label this has sort of a contingency argument for the existence of the first cause the uncaused first cause and it's one of my favorite proofs of the existence of God who is infinite in every perfection but that idea sort of segues nicely into istic evolution versus creationism can you just sort of give your reasoning of why you reject young Earth Creationism especially since you were raised with it ostensibly and one of the best arguments for the Big Bang and the singularity how do you explain the singularity and stuff like that answer are you is having God create that singularity so the first British that I like to make is that evolution is not every field of science that conflict a schism when we're talking about the theory of evolution most specifically what we're describing this deep my first city of species so the Big Bang is not a theory of evolution it's filled with this knowledge but fields with the theory of evolution is biology so change my mind is basically that as Christians we believe that God reveals himself also for me and evidence and so we can't merely disregard ever think the evidence is important in determining and changing our minds and I think evidence is sufficient this is not 6,000 years old and where the evidence is sufficient to save the Genesis the first folks were not written as ornithology textbooks they were not written to be seen from our perspective and just he analyzes normal history textbooks they're written there's a narrative to give a seola like so in Psalm 1 138 when a that says you wonderfully need to me in my womb all of us understand that this is was not the embryology this is just a poetic beautiful description of how thankful it is so Genesis incorporates a narrative that was very common around a time and around that is to illustrate points more easily and of course that's symbolic on the Sabbath they got wrist so Israelites has to do it's really a beautiful allegory sort of thing was intended for theological reasons and of course it's infallible and people assume when I take such an approach that I'm saying there are mistakes in the Bible of course not I believe Genesis infallible available is what I believe that the book of Job is a global not infallible is a book for repairing cars but I believe it's infallible for the purposes was written which is fee ology and equipping Christians to better understand their faith do you have difficulty reconciling some of the dogmas of the Catholic Church with your theistic evolution for example it is a dogma defined dogma and explicit dogma that the soul the human soul is the form of the human body so that's that seems like an insurmountable stumbling block for anyone that wants to engage in theistic evolution and there are other there are other dogmas normally divine dogma such as not really I don't I I accept that the human soul was not something that evolved was specially created so you know I I accept that date human humans in their physical form did undergo a process of development a mother soul but I don't really claim to know all that much about it I simply but historically the evidence that we have yeah so can you paint a little picture I'd like to understand how you see the timeline of God having created a good world that's the dogma of the church that he created a good world and that there was no evil in that world until sin so can you paint a little timeline for me of the perfect world that God created and that means a perfect universe all of space-time it was perfect until saying can you paint a little timeline of when the first human came on the scene with respect to you know the thorns and thistles and disease and death and that sort of thing and the six days of creation place yeah well you know this is again something that I do not take a rigid doctrine on you could obviously RQ mmm about the pre-adamite s-- so there for example but when we're talking about the perfect world or something what we mean is there was a specific time in evolutionary history when for example Eve human beings the perfect condition we live in and this is what was being talked about there obviously other explanations for it which I mean had I do not take a rigid stance on that specific one I accept this dogma that the Genesis thing that has historical behind it so I do accept that there was a little figure of course I don't accept the ones that become that because the church itself laughs famous encyclical Divino uh flaunt a Spiritu where he discusses a theory of evolution that's pretty much I think that was a very grown pretty encyclical that is worth looking at and seeing what the church permits us he would say yeah there there certainly a permission to examine both sides of the question of material development of of the body of Adam first the first man but I really want to get back to the timeline do you deny that God created a perfect universe do you think that there was death and disease before Adam fell and if not then just paint a little picture of that timeline how did how did the perfect creation look before Adam fell and then after Adam fell and about what time in history in geological time according to you did that take place I know I did not take a rigid stance on that at all no I I don't personally you know what we have to accept is of course the dominica teaching of the church and cancel it with the scientific evidence but as far as the knowledge goes if I can paint a picture um something that is not available then no I I liked him up because I just for the record would be being complete for me to do that in Tuesday's argue for what the perfect world would move like a world yeah I definitely believe that there was a time in history where God humans disobeyed God and for that pain punishment and you know the doctrine of the original sin but I cannot go beyond what the Scripture teaches us more allegorically and accepting evidence for origins of the human race okay I want you to talk a little bit about Adams birth was he conceived in the womb of some sort of primate or humanoid or whatever they call it no no I do not take that stance at all I think it was a fully human homo sapiens lived and his description in the Bible is a game based on actual historical event now again as I said so books of the Bible is up as actually Bishop Baron would say the Bible itself is a library so you can't go into a library and say is this library called allegorical or is the slight very literal right there are different genres and the genre of Genesis is mostly narrative genre so narrative is not just a liquori it may contain cores of historicity but mostly it incorporates the sisters it for to give a larger picture of see theologically right and this is exactly what I would say that there is a historical event about you know humans disobeying on a more deal event but I I don't take that Genesis was written as I don't believe that that even was the intent of the authors of Genesis yeah I'd like to avoid if you would just indulge me avoid talking about genesis in the bible if you would please just talk about what your Catholic faith consists of in terms of Adam okay and then we can get to evader but just with Adam like um you're saying that he was fully he was an adult fully formed adult when he was created by God did I understand you correctly well yes I personally accept that Adam existed as a historical figure it was our species Homo sapiens sapiens I am open to the idea that Adam did not have parents but I do not accept that a creature to live or so something like that I think he not means to describe actual history right or perhaps if you don't want to talk about it yeah I just want to avoid talking about the Bible it's it's it's it's completely it really is to me completely beside that point I just want to get an idea of this story in the timeline but you've made it sound like you're reluctant to put Adam in the womb of some sort of ape and have him be born and then be transformed by the infusion of the human form which is what would necessarily have to happen according to the Catholic dogma that the human soul is the form of the body so as soon as he has his human soul he has to have a human body not an ape body not any sort of lower primate body but a human body so at some point it's it's so it would seem that you reject the idea that he was formed in the womb of some sort of a is that true yeah so the key to understanding is that were all apes including me and you right I mean they're really from an accent understand if there was no difference of course she Kings are not simply descendants of Apes humans Clarence right so that is beside the point I do not believe that I'm open to trying different arguments I did not take a dogmatic stance my way or the air the magnetic things are important with an exception the things that are not undefined I leave undefined I'm open I'm open minded to the idea that president I'm open minded that's for example except what is the kinetically different and okay you should like to talk about Eve beings formed from the side of Adam there's a long tradition and it was almost enshrined as infallible doctrine in the first Vatican Council but it was it was it was in the first draft or the second draft of a document that was going to be published and propagated to it the franco-prussian war or whatever it was broke out so I didn't it didn't come to fruition so I don't have an actual don't my defined that Eve wasn't created from the side of Adam but I do firmly believe it because that's the overwhelming consensus of the fathers and of tradition what's your comment on that yeah so when we're talking about the church fathers the important part to decide is not just what they believed but the reasons for rightly accepted and this again was is a huge part of the guess like why someone accept something if you go to more earlier fathers right but we forgive that quote for a gift that what we tolerate from them we would not tolerate from today's fathers for example origin was basically a declared her etiquette still we use him as an authoritative very mature simply because of how early he was in history and how undeveloped the doctrine was language right and this is actually has been a part of respecting which is why they accepted something this is the important part a lot of people for example in the early church would have accepted geocentrism too did not go back to you essentially we evaluate why they acceptance and that's how we judge them so the issue that the church fathers believe a literal Genesis is interesting but it's also worth noting that there were a lot of shirt feathers that more generally tried to you know drive a separation between the realm of science and the realm of theology and theology of course is interlinked with science but there is a difference between them and this is the difference that has to be emphasized also as I said have to talk through the natural revelation which we accept that God reveals himself in nature and when this revelation paints a humana misleading picture from would be accepted historically and we have three we read what we accept historically because now I'm telling you I have a book commissioned fess my love the miracles the geocentric model of the universe and that was accepted the water treatment right not go back to that as we evaluate the historical context not only once they believed but why they believed it and when we look at it from that way theistic evolution is something that is totally in line with Catholic tradition which which I think again when we're talking with usage evolution we have perfectly accept the universe was created ex nihilo I accepted atom historic exists these are things that have been except maybe church and again you have to you'd have to convolute it a bit not to accept it now again I'm reluctant to call someone who does not accept several existence and not actually if it came but you know it would be harder to argue because it certainly has been defined as historical figure but as far as what the church permits that is what I take right Dietrich has admitted the acceptance of theistic evolution is totally in line well here we are warned not to treat theistic evolution as if it's an established fact that it's a truth we're warned that we have to submit to the church and the church has a final decision and it was merely a a lot of these documents from the different popes were merely encouraging us to examine different sides of the question just think with contraception right and then when the church finally spoke on contraception a lot of people were disappointed and angered by the decision of the church but I for one celebrate I think it was was a humanity asur what was the name of that that in cyclicals that pope st. all the six came out with you criminalistics so yeah i want to terminally ties which were humanity to excuse me yeah thanks the other one Humana generous i think has to do with the evolution the question of theistic evolution there's another interesting series of questions to do with theistic evolution and it stems back to this notion that there was a period of problem where you're now in the era of Providence but there was a of creation for six days whether those are six 24-hour days or whatever it doesn't really matter the point is that there was this sort of distinct realm of time whereby a special creation dominated and then of course God's providence takes over on day seven and we see you know we can breed and interbreed with different types of dogs get different explore different avenues like that but it would seem that the theistic evolution is forced to say that natural processes took took lower creatures and developed them into higher creatures for example the first life-form whatever it was it was probably small and relatively simple compared to a human being the the by all the secular biologists have different opinions about what that first life-form might have been and I don't want to get into a biogenesis because it's ridiculous it's another rabbit hole but the notion that I'm focusing in on here is natural processes developing a lower life form into a higher life form and there's the principle of proportionate causality which says you can't give what you don't have and so God alone and create and can create a new higher species and so it would seem that the theistic evolution the theistic evolutionist is abandoning the principle of proportionate causality with it which we can't do science and is abandoning this notion as Dogma that only God can create because you have the natural world creating higher from lower which is against the amount of time I think that's a totally inconsistent way to approach it because I mean under that framework we have to also abet and be whole idea human birth and development I mean any or womb you developed from being a single-celled zygote to being a multi-cell human beings right now obviously no one would ridiculously argue that that somehow violates any dogma of the church or any scientific principle it's the same issue we have here I mean God used natural processes to develop state the universe and the workings of the universe and be when we're talking about God as prepared as women you have to avoid takings of very primitive anthropomorphic principle bodies a cosmic painter and literally sits down with an invisible sponge you have to see it more from a more broader perspective we see that as the cause and the causing our times because we do not have a sufficient term to read what God did we only use our analogies so the best analogy would be a baker right this is the framework I cake okay so is it safe to say that you believe that thirteen point whatever a billion years ago everything was there everything that was in its whatever configuration it had all of matter energy had a certain configuration in thirteen point whatever billion years ago and the potential was there for everything that we have today are you saying that that potential has been actualizing is that what you're saying is that what theistic evolution is necessarily saying no not really because as I said these take evolution is mostly about to biology what you're talking about is about tis knowledge and because Molly G ken has led and the Big Bang Theory L just reminding people was discovered by father Josh limit and it was criticized for lending credibility to the biblical worldview that the university has seen you were beginning right so now we have come to a place where Big Bang has actually seen as an equation based on tables but there was a big bang is actually a very potent evidence right the universe does have a beginning at least or local one so no I'm not saying that there was a potency I'm saying there was a singular beginning and this is the most important showing that the biblical framework in the worldview of a beginning is justified okay do you believe in the first law of thermodynamics do you think it's universally valid that there is a fixed amount of energy of a fixed amount of matter energy in the universe oh sure I accept the first and the second law that it's constantly the the total amount of useful energy on average is always diminishing do you agree with the second is even the closed system in a closed system do you consider the physical universe a closed system or an open system I do not know okay well physicists can I studied physics at University physicists consider the universe the material universe in a closed system this is why the first law of thermodynamics says that everything in the universe is all we've got and matter can only be transformed it can neither be created nor destroyed this is for the entire universe okay so we agree with that you know I don't really see a lot of problem that I think that standard waitresses so this creates a problem for the theistic evolutionist because you have to say that in the beginning in that singularity if you want to subscribe to the Big Bang model and you don't have to but it seems like you're leaning toward it if you do subscribe to that or whatever model uses it doesn't just declare fake when I say that I accept theistic evolution I mostly talk about biological evolution that does not necessitate but I accept cosmological theories do as long as I accept the diversity of species that's what biological evolution is about so while I do accept the Big Bang model which many people are abandoning me atheists are and I mean it is for whatever reason but I personally don't that is not necessary to accept to us to get volution you could accept whatever you want about the cosmology as far as you know you can still be a theistic evolutionist if you accept diversity diversification of species right so that's the big separator because I've seen a lot of this where people say oh you accept evolution so that tell me this about for small inky tell me this about chemistry and I try to explain to them none of these are integral to the theory of evolution the theory of evolution by natural selection is about the diversity of species about how they diversified this is what I said this is my portion history I could accept that it not to believe in Big Bang or believed in Big Bang yeah that's what I said yeah it doesn't really matter what model you adhere to don't get hung up on the biological stuff I'm talking in very broad terms about the development of where we are today and everything we have today the life we have today and the different flora and fauna we have on earth and whatever basically the configuration of matter energy that's distributed throughout all of space-time today came from the past and the evolutionists whether it's coincidental or whether it's part of their evolutionary theory doesn't really matter but they all emphasize the fact that things developed from non-life to life and so on and so forth and to nitpick and say well that's not technically part of that field of evolution evolution is specifically about biology I don't care let's let's ignore those distinctions and let's just talk big picture and if you can forgive me for using the word evolution in that broad way like it otherwise I'll just switch to the word change because if you want it as long as it's clear that when I describe evolution what I mean is biological evolution sure so we're going to talk about change in general development of matter energy configurations in space time so whatever your model is doesn't matter but you believe that everything back then way back then had the potential to develop by natural processes into everything that we have today but there may be some divine intervention in there right where does divine intervention come in and how often are there miracles no I don't I don't see it like that I don't think that God has it's left it in often my framework is different my friend which is the very fact that natural laws exist and can logically be studied is inexplicable without something ultimately that will start resembling the divine so what I think is that the very fact that these laws are there rather than not being is the reason you are related to something divine I'm not saying that these laws existed but once in a while God's pops in and does the miracle but for everything I'm saying that the very fact that there are these patterns and there are these laws and there are these configurations is something that will ultimately invariably logically lead you to the man yeah there's something I want to go back to something you said about the fetus developing into a fully grown a fully grown human there is that potential within the human because of the nature of the human being there is built into that nature a potential to develop which is like in the Acorn there's a develop for you there's a potential for the oak tree okay it may not reach that fruition but there's the potential there and it actual eise's overtime and it takes in water and sunlight and all kinds of things from the environment just like the fetus does okay so there's a categorical difference between that development of nature which is built into your nature to have that potential for growth and for change there's a categorical difference between that development and not potential and the difference the completely different kind of animal for example a human coming from a bacteria there's a completely different category of thinking that's taking place there are no yes so can I ask a question do you think that the evidence matters when we're discussing theistic evolution evidence always matters everything matters everything matters do you believe but is it your assertion that evidence does not point to biological evolution is that what you assert yeah we've never witnessed what they call history can I ask you a question you mentioned that you have a science background or maybe yeah yeah I studied physics so then this will be much much more easier do you accept that an animal can produce offspring and whose descendants can interbreed over time they start to differ so much that they can no longer interbreed yeah it's because of the devolution that's like the genetic entropy right we're not getting better word hey as time goes on we're actually degrading so you accept that there could be a species let's run down that produces two lines whose descendants can no longer interbreed with each other yes of course what stops you from saying that these have evolved into two different kinds because you never get new functionality and new positive net gains in terms of functionality in terms of something something that doesn't well something that doesn't have an eyeball doesn't give birth of something than eyeball but we who accept the theory of evolution do not believe that that happens either that's a caricature what we accept is that through diversity species can no longer interbreed and once they reach a point where they can't agree they're starting to be considered new subspecies or a species and thus we get a diversification work from having one species you get several different species right yeah yeah I don't have any problem with species is actually a very it's a very nitty-gritty classification you know we need to go higher up on that classification scale to get to what I'm talking about I mean I don't I don't like these sorts of classification categories that are all very ambiguous and man-made and flexible too because we can we can even the experts differ among themselves so how many species of finches there are for example so your assertion is basically that animals and I'll try to understand correctly first is I used to accept the creationist model your assertion that various categories of animals were created independent of each other and this is where we get kinds basically we had a time or different categories of animals like lions and koalas were created separately from each other in fully developed forms and this is how we define different clients cetera certian yeah I'm not going to dedicate myself to that category of kind because I don't even know how broad or how narrow the kind is in secular biological circles and I'm not attached to any of these classification systems but let's just say let's just say that God created a bunch of different kinds in the in the in a non-technical sense of that word just different kinds of animals whether they're kinds in the technical sense is another question right I'm not I'm not married to that but God created different kinds of animals so am i I am NOT a cat and I'm not gonna ape I know you think that I'm an ape but I do believe that a lot I don't think that you're an ape I mean I simply go by what the word means in biology it's not that I think you are I think I just used that term as biologists use it I did not even yeah I mean I I've seen enough of aaron ross videos here's a phylogeny stuff to know that he thinks I'm a eukaryote and by you know I think that I'm a human being and I think that I have something in common with a rock and I have something in common with a drop of water and I have something in common with an ape and have something in common with a banana and I'm not ashamed to have something in common with a pile of excrement right I have something in common with a pile of excrement right doesn't mean I'm a pile of excrement doesn't mean I evolve from a pile of excrement so we need to be careful when we're when we're pattern matching and if you look at the phylogeny project it's really embarrassing when you see the way that one branch way over here is reconnected way over here because of some genetic discovery and they're like oops okay fits over here and it is it's very flexible it's very adaptable it's very changeable because they're they're starting presumption is it look we can classify things together like with like and the more they have in common in in in terms of physiology or in terms of genetics we can classify it that's the underlying assumption of this this is a secular evolution and I think a few evolutions also into that to know the problem again as as I said is was evaluating the evidence because ultimately look what you concede and this is the most important you obviously concede that through natural selection species or whatever category you want to use can adapt to their environments in different ways you accept that species mmm develop more positive traits right like having fur to withstand cold and the species that developed in South might have shorter fur so as not to get too hot you accept that all these sleeping I I accept you had long hair short hair and a dog's long way that point of view my point is what stops you from saying evolution has taken place once that happens and those species can't breed with each other anymore right can't interbreed they cannot have children they have adapted to different environments what stops you from saying evolution has taken place because I don't see any new functionality being introduced into the gene pool I see a degradation of the gene pool always we never see a higher form of life coming from a lower form of life we've never seen it no one's ever seen that in the laboratory or in nature we don't define evolution that way the way we defined evolution is the change of allel functions what we defined as evolution is its macro evolution basically would be simply speciation which is the inability to interpret anymore and the species have become so diverse that they can't interbreed they're separate you have to interbreed with others and as far as the development goes their appearance starts to change right because they have fur for example at different functions so yeah they always had the potential for fur that's the thing anything anything that develops any attribute or any any characteristic whether physical or whatever it always had the for that and that's what separates the young earth creationist from any sort of evolutionist whether you're theistic evolutionist or any other kind of evolutionist is that we don't believe that an amoeba or a bacterium has the potential to become a human given enough so you could always well you don't need to go that far I mean if you accept the basics of evolution then you could simply say I accept evolution but I don't accept their example a specific for me I don't see why you would separate between I think that there could basically be a single species and then diversify into multiple species that can interbreed yes a always could never become this big probably even define complexity because if you look at some animals they're much more complex and they have you know a common ancestor and you probably accept that wolves and certain small dogs had the common ancestor and if you look at intelligent wolves who are impacts or have a huge hierarchy and then look at a small dog that is it can't even bark properly you know that they come from the Somoza function again loss of function it's always a loss of functionality over time this is the thing we're not getting improvements when we get these purebred dogs that are always sick they're always degraded in every way shape and form and your example with going from one kind of dog to another kind of dog it just reinforces the idea that we've never seen a dog turned into a non dog or an aunt or a dog come from a non dog it's always accepted dollars and wolves had the common in sister right yeah they both look like dogs to me I'm no expert there may be so it's about look so it's what looks to you like they're like is that it no it's it's a theological question right I accept young Earth Creationism because that's what my church excuse me I don't accept theistic evolution I accept young Earth Creationism because that's what my church is always taught and so when I look at the different life forms and the diversity of life I don't try to imagine as you do and as Aaron radha's that we all have a common ancestor which was a single-celled creature or some sort of bacterium or something I don't do that you said that a dog did not come from a non dog but then you accepted that wolves and dogs had a common ancestor so was it a wolf or a dog that was a common ancestor well I mean I'm using the word dog very loosely as the as that common ancestor right but I mean if it turns out it has some long fancy Latin name it's going to look like a dog I guarantee you that it's not going to look like as it looks is it about looks no it's about Catholic dogma and we have been taught that tradition teaches us from day dot that that special creation is the case and that theistic evolution is not the case we have dogmas which forbid I think implicitly if not explicitly they that forbid us from entertaining theistic evolution so it has nothing to do with my appreciation of four-limbed creature and how much it looks alike with the dog and wolf and a source of thanks no it has nothing to do with my amateur approach to biology has nothing to do with I mean like I said it could be a long name of the common ancestor of the wolf and the dog I don't care but it's gonna call it a dog until I learn the fancy Latin name for the common ancestor but I guarantee you I guarantee you it will look like a dog it won't look like an amoeba or something like that are you sa David contest no so then do you believe that the Catholic Church can be led by a heretic who does not proof profess the true faith sure you believe that the church can relate I believe that the truth I believe the Pope can be a heretic the church is not dogmatically defined whether or not the Pope can be a material heretic I think it can be so when Pope Pius the 12th and I will find the quote now to just share it probably image after Leo 13th to find that a Catholic is someone who is baptized and accepts the true faith do you follow that yeah so do you think the Catholic can be someone who is baptized well I mean I've never met a Catholic who accepts the true faith completely so I hope that that what do they call it what's that sort of ignorance that we have it allows us to not fall into sin invincible ignorance I hope the invincible ignorance is behind the little old lady that I met at church who believes in reincarnation and the other one that believes in this new age teaching and the other new age teaching and the priest I met that doesn't believe in the real presence of the Eucharist I'm hoping and praying that they have invincible ignorance because they've strayed from the Catholic faith but technically I mean their material there they've strayed from the teachings of Jesus Christ they strayed from that faith I think it's going a little bit far to say that they're a heretic because to be a heretic you need to be corrected by the church and to obstinately refuse to come in line and that very rarely happens to any individual down at street level so then you believe their Pope Francis probably Pope Benedict the sixteenth a pope john paul ii where pretty much heretics denying what was taught as you said probably dogmatically about young earth creationist no I mean there's been no explicit dogma saying that a special creation of the body and young Earth Creationism at the age of the earth many sorts of things there is no explicit dogma I am I'm inferring I'm using inference based on existing explicit dogmas that talk about related issues right so this is a theological speculation that I'm engaged in and I'm free to do that because there is no there is no dogmatic pronouncement on young Earth Creationism I know that I don't have the weight of dogma behind me to say look here's the dogma a young Earth Creationism in this case but I'm speculating based on overwhelming consensus of the fathers and on the on the connected dogmas which are infallible and the connected teachings of the Living Magisterium which are infallible for example the ecumenical councils you look at the Council of Trent for example it strongly supports young Earth Creationism and it's not explicitly defined by the church so you are free I'm not calling you a heretic I'm not saying that you've strayed from the true faith I'm not saying that Pope Francis has strayed from the true faith on that point but he may have strayed from defined dogma on other points I don't know but I'm not policing him or anyone else right it's up to the individuals conscience to learn the faith and to know the faith in it to adhere to the faith I I give the benefit of the doubt to Pope Francis into you into everyone else I think Pope Francis is a good Catholic man with a good saintly man I wouldn't be surprised if he is canonized as a saint in the future I don't agree with him on evolution obviously but that's something that the church allows us for now to investigate is he is he investigating or is they just shrugging his shoulders like most people and saying go along to get along that I now I definitely think Pope Francis has been very supportive of science and has encouraged other Roman Catholics do not you know be more fundamentalist about this honestly I did not think that an earth creationist Catholics themselves are perfectly wrong I just think that scientifically it's important you accept the natural revelation - and I think that a natural revolution has pointed to the idea that species can bear supplying species are interconnected and interrelated and as far if you are not willing to say that the Catholic Church has been medically taught young Earth Creationism and you're willing to say that you can safely be a Roman Catholic and accept overwhelming scientific evidence my question is why not at least for Microsoft maybe you don't agree that if it's the case but help see the whole point otherwise you'd have to pronounce the fact that was right every takes or at the last bbc's at least that's of course I cannot comment on Pope John Pope first all the sixth III don't do not have knowledge whether they accept it but I know that Pope John Paul the second and Benedict the 16th and Pope Francis more pronounced the more pronounced emphases have made it clear that they accept did you not accept integration addictive 16 showed some sympathy towards clearly design but it would still be hard for me to expect accept that perspective that occurred this is the church's tradition as this is hue you have said because you said that was the reason why you didn't say there was just evidence which I tried pointing to you to words you said that no the reason I believe this is because this is what is thought if that's how it's been taught then I don't know how you can argue that Pope Francis is not someone who is mistaking feel perfectly not just historically living electrically because what you're saying that the church has taught this dogmatically and it has it no no no I never said it would caught it taught it dogmatically I see they're connected dogmas which would necessarily imply I think what I'm speculating here that I think necessarily imply that theistic evolution is off the table that's my speculation I could be wrong but I'm firmly convinced that the the dogma that God created a good world and a dogma that this soul is the form of the body those exclude the possibility of theistic evolution that's my personal opinion I could be wrong I'm not saying that it's a dogmatic teaching and you're a heretic if you don't believe in young earth creationist oh I'm not I'm not saying that and I want to emphasize since you brought up Pope Francis and the recent Pope's I do want to emphasize to you you ask me if I'm I said if accantus far from it I am my number one principle is love and respect and docile and submissive obedience to the Living Magisterium and that includes and that includes Pope Francis and it is centered on Pope Francis and that is the that's where most of my emphasis lies in terms of my Catholicism it's on the authority of the successor of st. Peter he holds the keys we need to love him we need to respect him and not only that we need to follow his lead in terms of emphasis he is not emphasizing young Earth Creationism and how that's the next new point that we that we're going to that all Catholics need to get in line with what he's emphasizing are what the right wing sees as progressive notions and the right wing sees him as some sort of socialist and some sort of you know yeah they see him as a heretic I don't see him that way I see him as emphasizing Christian Catholic social teachings a real emphasis on the dignity of the purpose is not Almighty is that what you said for me because I need to get into the ark to be saved so if I listen to The Vicar of Christ then I will put God first I will have the Ten Commandments a proper interpretation of the Ten Commandments a proper interpretation of the Holy Scripture of Holy Tradition I will have a proper place for Mary and the Saints I will have a proper proper ecclesiology I will have a proper theology I will have a proper social teaching so this for me it's more important to have Pope Francis than it is to have God Almighty because there are many sedima Cantus for example that have many many of the wholesome things that I have as a faithful Catholic but they don't have Pope Francis and so they are technically they're outside of the church and they're and in deep deep trouble they need to they need to get into the ark that's number one they cannot go to heaven if they don't get into the art I mean maybe I didn't understand the term whether it be you believe that the hope is above God Almighty is that what you said yeah because there plenty of people burning in hell who believed in God who worshiped God right but they refused to bow to not know I totally disagree with both the wording and the idea that implies I think that is totally outside of anything the Roman Catholic Church is taught it's a dogma it's an explicit dogma that there's absolutely no possibility of salvation outside of the Holy Roman Catholic Church you have to get in eventually I'm not saying that no Jews get in no Muslims getting in no Hindus or Buddhists get in lots of them get in but they submit through the Pope later to marry and going off without late of the catholic church there is no salvation that doesn't imply of course formal membership if you hear that the Pope is above God Almighty is heresy and absolutely unacceptable as well because I submit to the Pope I am I'm not a heretic because I submit to the precisely because I submit to the Pope right there are many people who didn't that's why you submit to his church and of the other way around no but you don't seem to understand the Pope is not God but he is God's vicar on earth and if I do not submit to him then it matters little if I say my rosary 10 times a day and I have a great devotion to Mary in the Saints because the son of a Cantus do that and those at magic Gloria do that's right so it doesn't matter if I have God and if I have Mary and if I have the Saints if I don't have the Pope right you have to you have to submit to the Living Magisterium that's my point that's why I place the Pope of Oh God Almighty in that sense in the same sense that if I live during the time of Noah I would put Noah above God Almighty in terms of I need to I need to submit to Noah in order to have life because that's what God has ordained could God ordained that those who refused order there prior to get on the ark Irish and so it is of the utmost importance many people outside of the ark that perished in the flood believed in God and worshipped God but they were too proud to humble themselves to a mere man that God had appointed that man being Noah and we all know the character and I know as I said I completely disagree with that idea the papacy in the Bishop of Rome the history behind it this does not support that view of it at all being part of because that's exactly why I submit to the Pope because he tells me how he tells me how to sort my priorities right because I submit to Pope Francis I know that the only commandment is love love of God and love of neighbor for God's sake so I have everything in its proper proportion in its proper higher hierarchy because precisely because I submit to the man who was appointed by God to be the Vicar of Christ the Son of the Cantus don't have it right so there they are in grave danger I don't know if you realize this but the Civic auntie's are in grave danger unless until such time as they humble themselves and they submit to the one true church and to that man who holds the keys do you not see that I agree that the city of occultism is not true and for the reasons but historical views and if I if I may speak I'll highlight that historically the church has placed even the council's above hopes if you look at polka nuria's the first and the mistake with Manos elitism will thing ended the sixth Council the whole idea that Pope is above what has been historically taught or that the Pope is above what God has loved is of course contrary to it the Pope Francis cannot introduce an Englishman he cannot even make it no Dogma to something that has not already been within means from Catholicism the Bishop of Rome holds and historically has held much less authority than you're willing you well you're completely missing the point uh first of all I want to correct you historically the those who were pushing that a council was superior to a Pope they they were explicitly condemn by subsequent councils and by Pope's that ratified those councils the Pope is supreme and he doesn't need the he doesn't need the church in order to speak with the full authority he has the full jurisdiction and at the full authority so that's a historical fact of the Catholic faith you need to look into that because the council is not superior to the Pope this is well established in in the history of the church and history of the council's you need to listen to that we believe that the Pope can overturn the rulings of the Council of Nicaea IIIi have never said that the Pope is omnipotent or that the Pope replaces God I said that it's important it's more important to me it's more it's higher on my list of priorities you submit to Pope Francis right now and it is to submit to God because those who submit to god are there many who are outside of the Catholic Church like you said they may they may find their way into the church and make it to heaven god only knows right my point my point is not that he's my point is not that he is God Almighty that he is in every way superior to superior to God my point is that it is most of the utmost importance to me that I'm in union with the Living Magisterium and that I'm in docile submission to the Living Magisterium because with that comes everything else the church is a perfect society all of the means of salvation are in the Catholic Church now there are means like you said there are means of salvation outside of her visible boundaries and that will help bring people in to the church this is the teaching of Vatican 2 if you read Vatican do the documents of attica - you'll understand my perspective it it's all about bringing people into the arc if you're not in the arc your dooms you have to get into the AIRC so God allows the means of salvation to be propagated outside of the earth just like just like with Noah in his day he went around advertising and there were little Noah hid it cut cults that cropped up and there are many saving truths outside of Noah's family and of Noah's domain geographically but only eight people made it onto the ark and that's the historical reality from my perspective yeah so it may be that our frameworks differ but personally for me I accept any authority that the Bishop of Rome has her head I accept specifically because first item for Jesus I accept the church established I do not first submit to go and then find that I first find God in the end I find his church so the submission to God inhale submitting to what history should not the other way around it means heretical treatments consistent yeah because you're you're misunderstanding mischaracterizing my model my model is it think in terms of Noah with his ark okay the most important human being at that time the most important person even above God Almighty was Noah because that's how God ordained that salvation history would unfold so God is humble he's not like us he's not proud so he knows that he's top dog but he but when he when he obliges us to submit to a mere human being whether it's Noah whether it's st. Peter or whether it's Pope Francis or whether it's his Blessed Mother the Virgin Mary he knows that the demons are incapable of humbling themselves but God is not incapable of humbling himself and we as Catholics cannot be proud we need to humble ourselves as well and that's why but it's a narrow path that's why only eight made it onto the ark and Noah's day and that's why many today are complaining about Pope Francis and many said that said if accantus don't even believe there has been a Pope for many many years right so we need to be humble as God is humble and I'm not saying what you think I'm saying I'm not saying anything heretical god forbid right I'm submitting to put to Pope Francis precisely because he is the representative of Jesus Christ and he is the the visible head of the church and of that living Magisterium ask a Christian if tomorrow it was discovered I know this won't happen and I don't believe this but this aid was discovered Jesus never existed but the Pope says that he did and others are mistaken what would you submit to we do submit to evidence that Jesus did not exist or reducible it's biblical Pilate says well there's a hierarchy in the sciences I put god almighty at the top of the hierarchy he is sites itself with a capital s beneath that we have divine revelation and beneath that we have theology and various sciences of theology and philosophy beneath that and then the Natural Sciences and so on and so forth right so um there's a hierarchy in the sciences I there the physical Natural Sciences will never will never no matter how they seem to contradict Catholic dogma they will never sway me they may make me nervous I may start sweating and losing sleep at night because of the overwhelming amount of natural evidence that seems to contradict the dogmas of the church but I will always as a principal put God first divine revelation and then you know that includes a tradition and Scripture and then theology philosophy and then natural science so natural science is really low on the totem pole that's why I'm very comfortable being you know being a young earth creationist even though everyone is so convinced by the so-called evidence the evidence is real but how do you interpret that evidence that's the key question and it's the same thing if they found the bones of Jesus I just wouldn't believe that they were the bones of Jesus I just wouldn't believe it because natural science doesn't hold as much sway with me doesn't have as much authority with me as philosophy or theology or divine revelation and certainly not of God and God Almighty my point is that I I do not understand how it is possible to distinguish submission human submission we owe to the Pope from the submission we owe to Christ I mean we ice a personal personal knowledge of the Pope as an authority only and solely for the fact that God and Jesus recognized the papacy and his church established it's not the other way around for me I do not see how it you know heretical and the perhaps again you might be under any to say something else of course and whatever the free that language is completely unacceptable the office of the Bishop of Rome is not supposed to be one of an orator stupid a in a role of the servant of the servants who has been entrusted with leading the church and he was not more important that God Almighty completely disappeared well if you had if you had a set of a can test friend and he said is it is it important that I submit to the Living Magisterium of the holy roman catholic church it's currently in rome in the vatican would you say it's not important because you have God you have Mary of the Saints you have all your liturgy and you have your your versions of the original that what do you say it's not important or would you say that it is the most important thing it is the most important thing even though you have God even though you have Jesus Christ even though you have the Trinity you know I disagree that you have Jesus Christ if you do not submit to Jesus so you don't think that the set of accantus believe in God a triune God though they don't believe that the second person incarnated they don't believe that the second person built the church on st. Peter they don't believe in the in Salvation history and the Saints and all that you think that the set of a can test don't have all of that they don't have all of that because they davidís believe that which ended when Jesus said that the church would never and wouldn't never be prevailed against so we do not have all that okay do they believe in God the Father yes they do believe in love the pub so if they came to you and said is it important to me that I submit to Pope Francis would you say no no you have got the father and got the father's about Pope Francis therefore it's not important I trust God the Father completely if you have him on his side that's whatever I would say that if you are submitting to Christ Church then you are in grave danger that's what I would say that's the difference between us yes but the reason I want them to submit to Christ Church is because it's the one who bears it's not first one time to accept the church and find the priest was be first start with God and we submit to the church because it's God who established it if the church was not established by God it's worthless completely but this is the most important thing - of course of course this is what the Church teaches right that's why but it's only those who submit it's only those who submit to the Living Magisterium that belong to the church and that that

transcript2
These ReWatch transcripts are also generated automatically and are therefore sometimes improperly unformatted and replete with errors.