Padre Hesse #20 - Como Obter a Prova de Deus [LEGENDADO]

is the catholic church the one true church that god created yes can you prove that yes and no give me the no i will give you the yes and i will give you the no if i can prove to you that the priest can turn this glass of wine within the context of mass of course into the blood of our lord and i've given you proof if i cannot prove that to you then i will have to admit to have having failed what is proof circumstantial evidence factual evidence the only solution left according to probability

is proof max planck without whom there would have been no albert einstein max planck said in one of his greatest uh little papers of 1941 zin und 1949 and limits of the exact sciences or not as a literal but a real translation purpose and limits of the exact sciences he said even within the modern western concept of scientific proof no scientist can escape in publishing the results of his research without letting his wealth and xiaolong interfere with xiao a term known to those who have studied philosophy in the united states as being your view of

the world all the atheism going on today of course the word god has been substituted with the word evolution whatever that means darwin didn't know and we don't and some others substitute the word of god with nature some others say mother nature or earth whatever they call it they might hate it but many of them are talking about god without knowing god without knowing what god is who he is and so on they cannot help it but let their own vent and trunk their scientific results so what is proof however let's take one of the

most exacting understandings of the word proof to be found in what is called the exact wisdom shaft in the exact sciences in the western concept of exact science as supposedly a concept without mythology supposedly a concept without superstition i can easily show to you that modern physics less chemistry but modern physics even things like astronomy are jam-packed with superstition guesswork and of course errors but they all will look like science is there a mathematical proof for the catholic church being the only true church no that's impossible god allowed us to discover mathematics but mathematics cannot

prove anything on the contrary what do mathematics prove outside numerical concepts can mathematics prove that you exist no can mathematics prove that we are sitting here talking no mathematics can prove that four and four is always eight and if you call four and four and nine then you just substituted the word eight with the substitute with the word nine mathematics are something that doesn't even exist on its own mathematics is always in something else it's in our mind basically which is the only reason why god cannot break mathematics if he works a miracle he turns

uh five bread into three thousand and something and he just did five plus five plus five plus five and you name it you formulate it the way you want it grout cannot turn four apples plus four apples into nine apples it would just simply be four plus four plus one and the one is the miracle because god is not absurd not illogical however that doesn't prove that he exists or that the church would be true or in existence i just wanted to show you that with mathematics you can only prove very few things very few

are we then to apply a chemical proof to the existence of god and the true church what does chemistry prove 35 years ago most biochemists in this country agreed with the federal drug administration on carbohydrates being the necessary basis of your life now biochemist will tell you no that's not true you better watch your carbohydrates you better concentrate on vegetables and fruit i happen to believe that however i wouldn't be surprised if in 10 years from now they tell you fish alone is your salvation biochemistry is a science that i believe to be among the

most serious the most honest and the most reliable unlike astronomy where they always try to find life on some unknown planets unlike astronomy where they always try to tell you that there is a hundred thousand planets with a civilized life going on uh where they still look for life on mars uh unlike astronomy that will always try to tell you that the universe has never started and will never end which is something we attribute only to god unlike astronomy biochemistry usually tries to stay within its own scientific borders and it's a science that i very

much appreciate and study however biochemistry is absolutely incapable of telling you what wine is oh yes biochemistry can write three big big books on wine the biochemists are divided over the issue on how many substances are to be found in wine they don't even know how many let alone what some biochemists will swear note to you that there's only 200 things in this wine some others will swear an oath to you all it got to be at least 600 because we have already separated as you say in chemistry we have already separated 180 or something

or maybe now it's 220 already but i guess because you find this and that and that in wine there must be such and such and such biochemistry cannot even explain wine to you and you know what biochemistry cannot even explain water to you in some electrochemical processes we find a type of water oh yes it's h2o and it's not heavy water and it's not ultra heavy water it's just a hydrogen hydrogen and oxygen that water however freezes one centigrade or half a centigrade lower than regular water it won't give you those opaque type of ice

crystals it will give you crystal clear almost bluish crystals it's h2o but you only find it well not only but you usually find it in some determined electrochemical processes biochemistry biochemist biochemical proof for god yes and yet there is one and we'll talk about that later then how about a historical proof of god jokingly i could give you one that the church must be a divine institution if the church has survived for two thousand years such a bunch of bad priests and bad popes it must be divine proof no then what proof theological proof no

theology by definition is based on revelation what if there was never a revelation what if some intelligent people wrote up the gospel some intelligent people wrote up the old testament they were intelligent enough to make you believe it's a divine inspiration no no proof and how about philosophy what philosophy greek filo sofia sophia wisdom filo i like it somebody is a francophile that means he likes the frog the french the french if somebody is uh likes this and this and this you always add the greek syllable film so philosophy means philosophy the love for wisdom

in ancient greece wisdom was not necessarily distinguished from the word knowledge a philosopher meaning is a man who uses who applies his reason to find out the truth let's see if we if we can prove the church being the only true church or god existing with the only and mere application of our reason well i look at myself and i say here i am i exist do you like the term exist because the term exists implies you're coming from somewhere else because there is the ex sister i'm here and i'm x somewhere from somewhere i

came to be i'm sitting here and i'm thinking about it why do i sit here the very fact that i think about it shows that i'm actually here the famous french philosopher descartes in latin called cartese cartesius cartesias as you would say said kojito ergosome i think therefore i am the man therefore attributed his existence to the very fact that he was thinking how could he think before he existed goes to show you how wrong a philosopher can be but obviously i think because i am here so uh zum ergo kojito i am therefore i'm

here therefore i think where did i come from thank you my parents i know where did my parents come from their parents who made their parents theirs and theirs let's go back all generations we pretend there is no revelation so i don't know anything about adam and eve was there ever a first human being yes there is mathematical proof that it is absurd to state that there was never a first human being that would be in mathematics that would be the famous n plus one n plus one n the unknown number plus one is it

possible that there were n plus one human beings if you expand your mind it would be ignoring revelation or any religious binding conceivable that there was an infinite amount of men yet yet n plus one is again a number a number is finite if there was an infinite number of human beings an infinite number of men who made the still first one is it conceivable would you call a human being rational who would tell you there has been an infinite amount of human beings that never was the first human being yes you could i can

also prove to you that everybody is persecuting me and you would perhaps suggest that i suffer of paranoia and then he would perhaps suggest to me that i should rather go into the matter and check if really everybody is after me really everybody is out to destroy me the whole world's behind is after me the whole world wants to destroy me and i will listen to your reason i would say yes john you got a point that makes a great deal of sense to me you would say huh yeah and after about three weeks of

you're constantly explaining to me in the most precise and concise logics why it is that it is not the whole world that's after me and that's not every single human being is after me like you for example you just spend three weeks of your precious time to explain to me that i shouldn't have sleepless nights over the whole world being after me i would say yes john but i think you are the very first who is after me why else would you go through three weeks to prove to me that you're not my enemy good

trick john but i'm not gonna fall for it medicine calls a paranoia gilbert keith chesterton calls it the maniac a maniac is a man whose logics start from what he says that rub a cell of one idea philosophy has something to do with wisdom you don't call a paranoid a paranoid person somebody who has really wisdom you call him a sick man we won't condemn him on the contrary he's sick he's maybe quite innocent in this of his state but you can't say that somebody who will tell you that every single human being is out

to kill him is a normal human being so it seems that if we want not to be normal in the sense of following majorities god forbid but in the sense of applying our reason the way we have it i'm not saying it was created we're not at that point yet saying i sit here i think about something and i hopefully don't do it the way a maniac does in that single-minded single cell rubber cell idea that it is determined that is determining and oppressing every other thought and i would have to say okay that was

the first human being so let's see in the way a proof like in court circumstantial evidence probability in this capability in your thinking we have to arrive at the conclusion that was a first human being let's for the moment for this for for the sake of argument agree with uh those people who naively think that the first human being came out of the sea uh got somehow four legs and then went up a tree and became man who created that first cell that started life where did that cell come from where did that planet come

from in which that cell was formed where did that sun come from whose light which is something measurable created that first spark of life where did the matter come from out of which that sun started to work the way it works where did that space and time come from in which the sun became what we know the sun a medium-sized star what was in the beginning let's say it was 15 billion years ago i have absolutely no problem with that let's say 15 billion years ago something started a big bang who ignited that big bang

who lit the fuse for the big bang big bang of what where did whatever did the big bang come from what came from where and went into that so-called big bang how was there something before the big bang or maybe possible yes but where did that come from let's say like some suggest this big bang is already the uh nth time of a big bang then we are back to the question uh who was the first human being so what was the first big bang or okay you don't agree with the theory of the big

bang fine with me what was the first universe what was the first spark where did that come from we have to arrive very necessarily unless we want to join with the paranoids in that crowd we have to arrive very necessarily at the point where we say something was first something was first was it something everything that's moved everything that moves is moved by somebody else i move this glass if i drop it right now what makes it fall in my lap and spill the wine modern science would tell you it's gravity in metric system 9.81

meters per second square gravity supposedly a certain newton discovered it or maybe some people say he invented it inevitably gravity is very much of influence in our life those who get older know what i'm talking about those who have already broken their legs because of a fall those who have jumped the bridge and survived will tell you that gravity is of quite important quite some importance to us what moves gravity is okay matter concentrated matter mass moves gravity whether the mass come from we'll always end up with the same question what was first what was

the first thing who was the first mover and now we already in our common sense language we didn't see what was the first mover we already in common sense you would say who was the first one to move anything now inevitably almost i know i'm manipulating you but inevitably we came to to use the word who can we prove that we ought to use the word who i guess so what have all fingerprints you can check in the fbi files what have all fingerprints of all men in common a pattern like something like a curve

around the thumb here there is no such thing as a fingerprint that looks like a chessboard all fingerprints of all people all over the earth if it's now 5 billion something or 6 billion something and if it was 40 billion there would be 40 billion fingerprints all 40 billion fingerprints having more or less the same type of pattern sure it's called a species must have something in common there's a pattern yes uh in that thing that the most illuminated scientists of our days call evolution there is quite such a thing as a fingerprint a pattern

a pattern is one of the most distinct characteristics of personality we talk common sense otherwise it's a waste of time to continue talking we talk common sense pattern means something that is common to several things behind a pattern there is always that what we call a mind a mind creates a pattern like uh you don't have to know whose painting it is if you have studied art history you'll find out you don't have to read the signature if you have studied art history or the history of music you will be able to assign a certain

piece of music that you've never heard before to a certain composer not infallibly so but you will be able to do so pattern is the word there is a pattern in that what illuminated scientists today called evolution there's a pattern i don't even go into the into the fact that evolution cannot be proven because the missing link is still missing and everywhere it's missing and anywhere it's missing we never dug up the missing link we didn't dug up we didn't dig up the first thing between a chicken and a rat or a chicken and a

bird and a chicken and a nightingale we never did however let's say we still haven't dug it up tough luck for us it's still a pattern into that whole thing some also illuminated people called evolution there's still a very distinct and clear pattern show me one galaxy where a certain amount of matter under certain more and more determined conditions to do today didn't turn out to be a sun didn't evolve into a rotating sun just take the fact of rotation the entire universe is based on rotation there's always the mass gravity center and some other

things flying around it saint thomas said the angels are holding up those planets to today's science believes that mathematics alone can do it or physics we'll find out if saint thomas was right i believe he was but we can't prove it and of course saint thomas would have been wrong if he said that was the only reason today's science knows a lot more and says the only reason why a planet is rotating around earth is because of gravity and speed who gave that planet to speed what gave the planet to speed why are even though

every single celestial body has very little in common with any other one just look at the difference between the the four giant planets you know what i mean however the pattern is the same there is the sun and there is uh is it nine or is it 10 or is it 11 maybe it's even 12 planets rotating around that sun that sun is rotating around the center of gravity of our milky way which most probably is black hole then we look at the andromeda fog two billion two million light years away and uh we'll see

again the same thing there's a center gravity see i'm talking about the andromeda fog the galaxy and the light goes up goes to show you there's a pattern the light will go out when i'm sitting here it will not go out when we don't need it there is a pattern again there's a pattern wherever you go some people call it murphy's law and we look at that galaxy the andromeda same thing center gravity everything is rotating around it that's not a pattern see our galaxy is a fingerprint andromeda is a fingerprint nc 532 g whatever

the galaxy is called the stellar system fingerprint there's a panel behind the pattern there is a mind we rightly say who was the first mover so now miraculously the light has gone on again and murphy's law has been beaten again we have come to the point of substituting the word what what the word who who made the first move who put the first thing whatever it was it is not an intelligent and it's not an unintelligent idea to say that physically speaking the universe was created by the creation of time and space that's something that

has been plausibly defended in a doctoral dissertation even if that dissertation is fully true it will still not suffice to say something started it you will need in common sense in applying common sense which is the way towards wisdom you will have to admit who did it because of the pattern the pattern a pattern is also the visible or noticeable expression of a mind who has a mind what has a mind in order to create a pattern be it a pattern in music art or the fingerprint or the universe needs a mind the very concept

of mind presumes personality otherwise we have to go on and change the dictionary and put in different terms for mind personality pattern whatever if we want to stay with common sense we will use the english language not necessarily in in the exclusive context of today's notions but we will use it in a common heritage of usage like when you one of my favorite dictionaries the american heritage dictionary of the english language the very name american heritage dictionary refers to what i uh mean it's a heritage a pattern is a word that has many other ways

of being written down in other languages but it will always mean the same so it is with the word personality at least there is some common denominator to the word person or personality and to the word mind who made the first move who put who put whatever or who made whatever was needed to get this whole thing the universe and whatever it is going who we will see something else whoever that was and we don't know who it was supposedly who ever made the first move is obviously someone before whom nobody was and nothing was

otherwise we'd be back to the original question who was the first human being what was the first uh planet what was the first sun uh where did the big bang come from what was the first big bang when was the first big bang who made it who started the one who started is really the one who started otherwise we're talking nonsense here total and other nonsense the very one who started the whole thing must be logically not just greater than what he started if he's just simply bigger larger or greater or older or more powerful

than what the whole thing is the universe the whole creation what we call it creation let's not call it creation everything that we know everything that we know must be infinitely and say infinitely not eternally infinitely smaller than whatever or whoever we have come to agree on the point whoever whoever made this thing why must it be infinitely smaller well whatever whoever made everything that we know obviously not only configurated this whole universe everything that we know according to a certain pattern but very obviously he is he was the modern physical science will prove to

you the time and space are nothing but dimensions if time is a dimension and space is a type is a dimension then whoever made this whole thing has no time and no dimension no space no time space and time that's why i said what i said before space and time are his creations too they're limited they're countable they're measurable whoever started this whole thing is therefore absolutely and totally outside of time and space a part of what we have cannot create everything we have that is obvious nonsense a cake cannot be a smaller than all

of its pieces and the traditional way of putting it is the pieces of the the slices of a cake can not be larger than the whole okay whoever made this is outside time and space outside time and space means we have come to the point to understand there is a person that person never started and will never stop if it starts we apply the concept of time if it ever stops or ceases to exist then we apply the concept of time there was a yesterday therefore and there will be a tomorrow then so whoever started

this whole thing has no extension and no duration he never started he will never cease he has no size and no limit that's what we call perfect why could we call it perfect perfect in latin means to do something thoroughly through to to make it perfect i mean to to apply everything that's needed to fulfill the whole thing nothing is needed anymore nothing is lacking is it possible that whoever made this whole universe was lacking in this universe so he made it if he was lacking the universe then how could he make it if he

made it he is bigger larger and greater than what he made if he's bigger larger and greater than what he made then he doesn't need it does he need anything if he needed something he would need something else where does that something else come from if he needs something if he's lacking something the word lack implies that there is something that you lack there's something you miss out on it is impossible to say that that very first being the very first mind that created the whole thing lacked something the definition of lack is not a

definition as such it is the declaration of something missing i cannot say something is amiss if i do not know what is amiss if i know what is a mist and i know something that is larger or bigger or greater or more complex or more simple than what is here i cannot say look this table is missing a fourth leg if i do not know that the table with four legs exists maybe this table isn't even lacking a fourth leg because it was conceived as a three leg table the word missing is a negative a

negative presumes a positive first i have to determine something positively in order to be able to say later on okay but it misses and lacks such and such whatever is the very first has no space no time but a mind cannot lack anything it's impossible a lack can only be there if it was more before can that one mind that has created this universe lose something if it lost something then it could still be greater bigger or larger than the universe he that mind created however if he lost something then there was something in a

way of dimension or moral dimension missing again we apply the impossible concept of missing missing means you have some definition prior to that as i said before first i have to determine what is a table if i determine there is no such thing as a table without for without with less than four legs then i have to find a new term for this thing here that has three for those who can't see there's a table with three legs that's quite charming the very word of negat the very concept of the negative the very concept of

something lacking needs a prior concept that will determine what might be lacking but that very first mind that is prior to everything that we know or do not yet know that very first universe if you want that very first big bang if you want that very thing that is first of all other things that very mind that has imprinted its pattern on everything that we know on everything that we call creation and beyond and more that very first thing cannot lack anything by definition it also must be absolutely totally and perfectly perfectly simple there's no

way around it it must be absolutely simple why complicated means it's composed who composed it who compose compose an english language that's a wonderful thing we have so many latin terms com po neri to put together this is a composition there is a glass with wine in it without the white in it this thing doesn't make sense with the wine in it holding the wine now it's a composition that makes sense but it's complicated it's complex it's composed not just a glass but what i hold in my hand is composed there's the glass there's the

wine in it the purpose is another thing the purpose well i'll come back to that later next week maybe composition impossible it can't be the first the first cannot be composed the first must be infinitely simple summing up what we said so far at the origin of everything there is a mind therefore a person there is a mind that's infinitely simple and perfect can what if that mind changes its mind change into what if it could change it wouldn't be perfect if it could change change yes what me what does change mean change means it

becomes different difference difference means it's not what it was if it is not what it was then it wasn't perfect in the first place or what if it just loses the perfection then it must be composed because infinite simplicity cannot lose anything infinite simplicity cannot fall apart that's impossible so it cannot lose anything can it gain no no if it gains it's not infinitely simple anymore the moment it gains it's complex it gained what it infinite simplicity cannot gain infinite simplicity what how would you go about in say what would that mind that has created

everything and that is perfect infinitely simple what would that mind say about itself can it speak now if you can create a universe it can also speak can it speak maybe in a way we don't understand let's say we presume we understand it that mind would have to say i because it's a mind and it's infinitely simple if it's infinitely simple then it is it's not complex it's perfect but basically it is so i is is bad language so you say i am we're at the point that we know realize in our applying our common

sense long before everything else everything long before everything else somebody was able to say i am you want to call that god why would you call it god the the latin word for god is deus deus is the genitive of the nominative of choice zeus you want to call it god well sometimes we human beings have to rely on compromises therefore there is somebody who can say about himself i am and cannot really add anything else anything he adds might be interesting but will not be a perfect self description that very first mind that uh

made all these uh fingerprints and to make something out of nothing is the perfect definition of creation by the way if you want to check in the dictionary to turn something into something else already is called creation but that infinitely simple being that can only say i am obviously must have created out of nothing otherwise there was again something before and then something before that and we are back to the number first number one question so there's somebody who can only say about himself i am you want to call it god i don't care we

call it god if you call it evolution or whatever you call it i've just proven to you that god exists now that i have proven to you that god exists only now i will add that by the way vatican one pronounced it a dogma that the human being applying only his reason can discover god this i am is perfect infinite eternal absolutely simple and therefore it must be absolutely totally good unless you want to change every single language existing on earth which is again a maniacs task every single language in the whole world whether it

applies it right or wrong understands the word good as something not lacking the word bad as something lacking god i am lacks nothing if he lacks nothing and he's perfectly good so there is one god he never started he never stops that's what you call eternal can nothing be added nothing been taken away that's what you call infinitely simple or absolutely simple he has a person and therefore the best way for him to describe himself would be to say i am still playing the skeptic there's a funny book in which you find that term some

people call that book the old testament some people call it the bible as the only book i know in which you find several times that somebody contradicting all rules of grammar contradicting all rules of reason says about himself i am i don't know if that book is true however there is a point in that book where some bearded old man goes up to a mountain finds a thorn bush that's glowing pretty incredible story tall story and out of that bush comes the voice and talks to him of course he scratches his head and says yeah

sounds good to me but who am i talking to and the answer is i am who am those makes sense unless we have discussed what we discussed that burning thorn bush obviously was claiming to be god then on another occasion another bearded fellow walks around he's known as a carpenter or carpenter's son who learned business too and some learned men wise priests challenge him on his talking about moses centuries before that and they say you're not yet 40 years of age and you talk as if you knew moses and he says before abraham i'm sorry

not moses abraham who cares what the name is he says before abraham was i am another guy who claims to be god the pious people around him very logically very consequently grab stones because in those days it was under capital punishment to pronounce that word because these people believe that whoever says i am makes himself god on another occasion they finally arrest that man and in order to be able to arrest him he turns around and says he's looking some people coming up obviously challenging him challenging him and says who do you look who are

you looking for oh we are looking up we're looking for someone who's called uh wait a second let me see uh let's go jesus of nazareth and he turns around and the interesting thing is he doesn't say according to that book he doesn't say you found him congratulations he says i am these people are terrified step back fall onto earth they're all terrified and again because contrary to most translators of that book even where you would suspect anything but lousy translations say oh i'm the one but in the original text of the book as far

as we can determine in the history of literature in the original text he doesn't say that he says i am it's that chapter that's called the passion of saint john in that book he says i am he doesn't say i'm the one you're looking for or you found him congrats or he doesn't say i'm here or i'm the one he says i am they're shocked again they're faced with a man who calls himself what they believe was the name of god i've just proved to you that it is the name of god the only book

where that name appears in that context is the bible does that prove that the catholic church is the only true church no not at all it's a hint very strong hint it's what you call in court admissible proof it's not just a hint it is at least a less than probable coincidence that there is only one book where what we have established must be the name of who created everything is claimed by two people one who doesn't appear because there's only a burning bush and another one who says it more than twice now we have

said we have concluded everything that can be absolutely proven by reasoning alone that i can tell you here we stop there is that i am what else can we say about him here is the i am what else where is he who is he we cannot escape the conclusion that he is infinitely good very relative term especially nowadays what is good if he's infinitely good according to common understanding worldwide and if he made us then he must be somehow interested in our welfare that doesn't sound plausible at all when you look at everything that's going

on in this world just think of what happened recently doesn't sound like somebody who cares very much about us but then we know on the other hand and that is conclusive proof we know that this i am who created us is not only infinitely good but he's also eternal we also know conclusive proof that he has equipped at least a few of us with such a thing called mind we won't go into the discussion about how many of those people that we call people are mindless people but anyway i guess you got one and i

got one mind if he created us giving us a mind then he must have given us that goes a little bit beyond what we can touch the very fact that we can that we can talk about god the i am who cannot be touched who cannot be seen who cannot be felt who cannot be but be means that we can grasp something that's infinitely greater than you and me together and we are great i hope we can grasp something that's infinitely greater than the entire universe therefore we must have in us something that's infinitely greater

than the universe that can't be matter you want to call it spirit call it spirit you want to call it the ungrabbable the untouchable call it whatever you want in papua they call it taboo the taboo that which you can't touch call it what you want the usage of the english language will call it soul that what can't be touched in a human being the soul of a human being that which is superior to the body of a human being let's stay conventional and call it soul if he has given us a soul and he

has given us that something greater than uh matter will it be something that will disappear with us possible no conclusive proof that it won't however the probability is entirely in favor of that soul surviving why did he bother to give us a body if afterwards only the soul is there i don't know i can't prove it to you i don't know probability we'll say obviously because that body will somehow still be there spiritual body apparition i don't know we can't go into that but we can definitely say that the soul in a human being is

not an invention of some fabulous it is a logical conclusion it's the only thing that has probability going for it conclusive proof like we did in finding the i am impossible pro proof by probability proof not only by probability 60 versus 40 but proved by the only probable answer the only answer that has plausibility the only answer that has since has a ring of sense to it a ring of reason to it if we have that soul and if uh the one who created that soul is infinitely good in the common understanding of all healthy

and normal people in this world then he cannot abandon us he obviously does on earth it's obvious the things that people have to go through are unspeakable unbelievable and incomprehensible that i find proof by probability again that the soul must be eternal having an origin obviously but no end if the one who supposedly is such a good being and whom we could prove by logics to be necessarily so somehow lets all these things happen then we have to come to the again to the conclusion by the highest and only possible probability and plausibility that to

him very obviously what happens here is of not that much and importance as to what will happen with this soul of ours the only thing i can conclude from this conclusion is that he must somehow let us know on what we have to do for this soul of ours whether the body will survive or not is another question but the soul will survive therefore there must be something that will have to do for this soul and that's basically where it stops because you see we can indeed conclude by plausibility and probability that there must be

such a thing as revelation we call it revelation well obviously the one we cannot touch and cannot see is telling us something so that's revealing something there must be something like revelation could we in the same not contradictable manner in which we prove the existence of the i am ever prove that there is three who can say i am most definitely not it's contradictory we can give it a proof by plausibility saying if he's infinitely good and we always associate the good with love and as we are created according to a pattern there must be

a reason why all people all times everywhere associate good with love and love good sometimes the wrong good but they don't love it because it's the wrong good but because it's the wrong good that love is impossible for somebody who cannot love on an equal basis and therefore you could say the only theory about the i am that makes any kind of sense is the one of saying there is three who can say i am who are however the same we cannot go further than that if we were capable of going further than that with

the same totally absolutely conclusive proof that there is what we call a holy trinity we wouldn't need faith there wouldn't be such a thing as the gift of faith and vatican one would have had to say we can dogma we can grasp and arrive at the recognition of the entire catholic truth just by using the light of reason malik and one didn't do that america once said god yeah the existence of god not more however when you consider what today is called proof and what is accepted commonly under the term proof then i can prove

every single issue of the entire catholic doctrine to you including why the church is the only true church in the world simple we know we do not suppose we do not go by probability we absolutely most definitely know that the one who says i am is perfect eternal infinitely simple and cannot change it is most highly improbable that he never said anything to us about himself that he keeps himself totally obscure from his own creatures why in the first place did he make those creatures why if he never says a word to them that's totally

illogical and contradicts entirely the pattern of our thinking the pattern of our thinking cannot be entirely different from the pattern of thinking of the one who perfectly well made us even though we are not perfect and perfectly well made he perfectly well made us if our pattern if we have a certain pattern of thinking and i'm talking about what most people believe everywhere and all the time then that pattern must correspond to the one who made it according to that the one who made it loves us you don't love somebody by staying silent not the

human way of doing it not the human way of conceiving the very term of love he must have spoken to us the next proof of probability that would uphold in a totally impartial court is that there's most definitely only one book that correctly represents the name of the one who made us when totally contradicting grammar therefore indicating the eternity contradicting or at least contra yookster posing time says before abraham was i am and says uh i'm i am who am i in latin and who says when uh moses asks and yeah but what i am

going to do tell those people on there whom i talk to tell him you talk to the one quee asked who is and an impartial court would have to give the benefit of doubt to that book that speaks in that way love cannot be fully expressed to something inferior that gives the benefit of doubt among all theories about god to the one about the triune god one of the same being in three persons only the creator of everything can love on its own level without having to create something would god be perfect if he was

only one person can god be perfect if he's only one person we saw that by reasoning he's not only eternal but he must also be infinitely good and therefore be infinitely loving loving what infinitely loving what did he therefore need to create something to be loved i reject that i reject that as most highly improbable i cannot prove it to you but i reject that the perfect love the perfect good in order to love what whom has to create somebody to be loved could it be infinite and perfect self love yes and it is but

again love whom himself only what do we in our pattern of mind for many thousand years call that is that what we use the term love primarily for no in all the history of this patterned mankind the term love was always used towards an object of love and very rarely was anyone satisfied with naming that object as myself you love something or somebody and again if we go according to the pattern that has been imprinted to the minds that were created by the primary superior mind then we understand the term love first of all as

a term going to something or somebody if that is true which i cannot conclusively prove to you then only the trinity makes sense if god was one person as the other religious claim then he needed to create something to be to love or he made a mistake in that creation giving us the wrong pattern imprint on our innocent thinking that's very important on our innocent thinking by making us understanding the term innocently as loving something or somebody and not just ourselves what has that got to do with the catholic church well one thing must be

absolutely sure and that's something that i can prove to you absolutely and totally conclusively if that i am talk to us then he obviously gave us something of himself that is unchangeable we call it the truth whatever we call it it is unchangeable he is unchangeable so that can't change if it's unchangeable and if it's one and the same as there is only one i am for the moment before we accept the trinity there's only one god let's call it this way there's only one girl he cannot change he cannot lack anything he cannot have

anything added to him he has never started will never stop then whatever he tells us must be perfect unchangeable if he's speaking himself like when he says before abraham was i am then that can never change if that can never change then there's only one truth somebody's gonna have it there is one group in this whole world that has the whole truth and all others are in definite era there is no way around that statement that is definite proof is it proof of church not sufficient we have the we have the the proof of plausibility

and probability on many sides like i said before there's only one book that names the name of god correctly we have at the same time only one institution that at least for a time span of 1800 years hardly ever changed anything in its pronouncements and that's called the catholic church why is it that in that catholic church if it has the truth the very same group of people who said that human being with the light of his reason can detect the existence of god which we have just proven that that very same group of people

said that miracles are necessary for salvation which in the term of the skeptic would mean something that is recording is that is against everything that we know is necessary for our minds to be somehow kept for eternity a very skeptic way of formulating the term miracles are necessary for salvation well obviously because there is no conclusive proof by reason the very same i am who revealed something of himself to us decided for whatever reason not to give us enough in order to be able to arrive at the same conclusion without him that is obvious for

those however who are not satisfied by this not because of self-determination but because of really looking for something the truth looking for the truth he has given us help can i prove that that is the case according to all modern accepted sciences yes biochemistry doesn't even know how many substances are in here biochemistry will irrefutably prove to you that this is not blood biochemistry will also irrefutably prove to you that this is wine may become vinegar may evaporate but cannot become blood let alone human blood and stay as fresh coagulated human blood for 1300 years

chemistry says no it's absolutely impossible physics say that's absolutely impossible medicine says well medicine knows very little about human being but medicine says no that's absolutely impossible all so-called exact modern sciences say no i'm sorry that is impossible in the small and insignificant town of lanchan or south of rome about uh if i remember well twelve hundred or thirteen hundred years ago and obviously uh in his heart innocent and honest priest he was the local parish priest if i remember well had grave doubts about the catholic doctrine of what is called the real presence of

the body and the blood of our lord on the altar the catholic church teaches that whenever a priest in the with the intention of saying mass and with the proper in the proper frame of saying mass has a piece of white unleavened bread in front of him and a glass of wine in front of him and pronounces certain words over the glass of wine afterwards the glass of wine still looks like a glass of wine but supposedly according to what this catholic church teaches is not wine anymore but is the blood of the one who

in that above-mentioned book says before abraham was i am of course that is hard to believe you hold a glass of wine in your hand it looks like wine it tastes like wine and somebody says it isn't wine it contradicts everything we know in modern science but what happened 1200 years ago also contradicts everything that we know in modern science there the round piece of unleavened white bread became human flesh without ceasing to look like bread in the center of it outside and it has been examined under the microscope by three uh scientists who claim

to be atheists therefore were not to be suspected of being catholic devotionalists they examined the whole thing under the microscope and they said this is the horizontal slice of a human heart they determine the exact blood group and they said it looks like it had been cut yesterday and it was cut 1200 years ago it also wasn't cut just as a horizontal slice of a human heart but looking looking on it on top you have a sort of crown of real human flesh they said horizontal slice of blood because there's both types of muscles in

it lengthwise and across that's only in the human heart but in the middle as i said before it still looks like the white host that again is completely and totally impossible according to everything we know in modern science yet it can be visited in that insignificant town of lanciano and somewhere there is a book with pictures detailed description of that scientific research the same is true for the blood in the chalice that has coagulated but it's still fresh after 1300 years we are faced with something that contradicts the entire modern science and in the most

drastic possible way it's not like uh you're sick you're having cancer i put my hand on your body and instantly you're healed there is no explanation for that either yet but biochemistry at least biochemistry and physics will tell you that there cannot be possibly anywhere ever an explanation for what i have just described that i consider conclusive irrefutable proof that the doctrine about the real presence of the body and the blood of our lord on the altar in the catholic mass or in the mass in holy mass must be most positively true otherwise that i

am we talked about is absurd and then we revert to the first question of all questions who was the first human being who was uh what was the first cell what was the first piece of matter when was the first universe who made the first universe going who made the first big bang good i guess we will come to a plausible and probable conclusion that if you think the whole thing thoroughly well through which one out of a million people might do if you think it through all the way using that common sense you have

to become a catholic or you have to lock yourself up in the rubber cell where all the paranoids and all the other maniacs go in the end you will necessarily have to conclude either the catholic church is right or nothing is right i am not sure that this will present conclusive proof if it presented conclusive and irrefutable proof and the church would be wrong about the doctrine of the gift of faith however face the logics of my initial thinking and face the miracle of lanciano out of many other miracles what conclusion can you come to

well if the faith is a gift then with the help of god you will be a catholic and a cheer for that you