Why I am Catholic – Evidence for God in Nature

Uncategorized, Why I'm Catholic

Below is the second video in a series I am putting up on YouTube explaining why I am Catholic. You can watch the first video here.

In this video, I give the evidence for God in nature specifically – human nature and the nature of the universe – that is most compelling to me personally.

I hope you enjoy it. If you are interested in this series, you can read all the posts these videos are based off of at this link, or just wait for me to put out the rest of the videos.

Also, if you are interested, there’s a cool feature on this video where if you scroll over the upper left corner of it, you can subscribe to my channel. 😉

Here’s #2:

Why I am Catholic – Evidence in Nature

©2021 Catholic Anonymous

Music of Catholic Anonymous

Stories of Catholic Anonymous

Commentary of Catholic Anonymous


26 thoughts on “Why I am Catholic – Evidence for God in Nature

  1. “In this video, I give the evidence for God in nature specifically – human nature and the nature of the universe – that is most compelling to me personally.”

    Almost all religions make the exact same claims. Alas, none of you can show that your particular god is the the one responsible.

      1. That’s not really true. There is an entire field of study called “apologetics” that covers reasons for people to believe christianity in particular. I’d point you to for tons of articles addressing this. I’ve heard that N. T. Wrights book “the resurrection of the son of God” is a pretty authoritative text on the historicity of the resurrection. In the next video in this series, I explain why I am specifically Christian and not something else.

      2. it is quite true that theists have no problem making such claims as you have but disbelieving the exact same claims from another theist. You all try to claim the universe is “evidence” for your particular god. You all try the same ontological, cosmological etc arguments which, at *best* argue for a vague force.

        You are correct that there are entire fields of apologetics. Amazing how this god just can’t make itself clear. they disagree with each other in their claims of the “correct” interpretation of the bible. N.T. Wright’s book is nothing new and he like all of the others, is quite sure that his version is the only right one. Problem is, he has no more evidence than they do.

        Wright tries to claim that the resurrection has to be a historical event. He has no evidence for this, His only argument is that ancient people knew that dead people stayed dead and they couldn’t have made up a resurrection. This does not say that there was a resurrection or a Jesus Christ, son of God at all. It also ignores the fact that gods come back to life often in other bronze/iron age religions.

        you might like to read this before going too deep into Wright’s unsupported claims:

        Wright also intentionally lies about secularism, trying to falsely claim that secularists want to get rid of “surplus old people”. He was challenged on it to show an example and couldn’t.

      3. this verse here shows that N.T. Wright’s claim that there was no prior idea of resurrection in Judaism to be wrong “14 King Herod heard of it, for Jesus’[c] name had become known. Some were[d] saying, “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead; and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” 15 But others said, “It is Elijah.” And others said, “It is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.”” Mark 6

      4. Thank you for engaging with me here. I read the article you linked. I see where the author is coming from, but there are reasons for why many feel the “cognitive dissonance” theory is not very convincing, and I address why in a later video in this series.

        The disciples and those who followed them had to go against their own Jewish culture and the Greco-Roman culture for years to their deaths. That’s a lot to take for the sake of promoting a lie they knew was a lie.

        The author seems to think legends could pop up within just a few years of Jesus dying. Legends don’t sprout that quickly. Too many people would have known Jesus had died. I just don’t see the Jesus movement going anywhere if cognitive dissonance is what actually happened. This is why, I think, Wright feels that argument is so weak.

        On a different point, you said this:

        “Amazing how this god just can’t make itself clear. they disagree with each other in their claims of the “correct” interpretation of the bible.”

        I address in a later video why I think that line of argument is not compelling to me.

        On another point, I understand where you are coming from with the quote about King Herod and John the Baptist. I wonder if you are misreading N.T. Wright’s point? If I personally said there was “no prior idea of resurrection in Judaism”, what I would mean by that (and what I think Wright means) is that there was no conception of real bodily existence after death. There is the idea of a final judgment and some shadowy spiritual existence in the Old Testament that seems to be what people felt was the final fate of every human being. But the idea that we could all exist in our bodies – not just as disembodied spirits – forever would seem like a new development in the New Testament with Christianity.

        This is part of the reason why Jesus’ resurrection and staying alive in the body – and being eaten in the Eucharist, which was a real controversy then! – might have been so novel.

      5. There is no evidence for your god. We know that cognitive dissonance is a thing. Therefore, there is no reason to discount it.

        The disciples etc did not go against their Jewish culture since they supposedly thought that Jesus was the fulfillment of the messiah myth. We already know that there were multiple claimants in that period to be the messiah. All you are arguming for is the common “why would they have gone to the death if something wasn’t true “ excuse. People do that all of the time, e.g. Muslim suicide bombers, Jonestown cult, Heaven’s Gate cult, Cathars (that catholics exterminated) etc.
        Legends do sprout quickly. We had claims of Elvis sightings right after his death. So again, you make claims that cannot be shown true and can be shown false, having other known reasons for them to occur. It doesn’t matter if Wright thinks an argument is “so weak” if it is not. That’s just gainsaying it, not demonstrating why he think it is so weak.

        I know you will offer the same excuses that Christians offer on why their god can’t make itself clear and that there are thousands of sects of Christianity. It usually goes something like “free will”. What I enjoy is that every Christian claims that the Holy Spirit has told them that they are right and everyone else is wrong, showing contradiction after contradiction.
        I am not misreading Wright’s point about his claims that no one could have come up with the idea of resurrection except for the singular instance of Christ, when that is obviously not true. It’s grand to see you try to play word games and insist that words don’t “really” mean what they do in order to invent an excuse. You now try to claim that it was only a physical bodily existence being mentioned, when there is not one indication of that at all. You again find yourself needing to add nonsense to make the prior nonsense make more sense.

        In the OT, we see that there is no problem with bodies taken up to heaven directly, so why do you falsely claim that there is only a “shadowy spiritual existence” in the OT? It’s always fun to see Christians being unable to agree exactly what happens to bodies and the end times nonsense. Some believe in a new spiritual body being given made out of magical stuff, some want to claim a physical body just like we have now, some insist that it is just spiritual, etc. And none of you can show your version is the right one. Each claims that the bible and whatever other nonsense supports them.

        The bible has people being in their graves until the supposed second coming. Then they are gotten out of them, judged and the “saved” get to go to a tacky city where this god shows its bizarre need for gold and jewels. Some virgins get to endlessly praise this needy god in the real “heaven”.

        The eucharist is quite the strange nonsense. That Roman Catholics think they are eating real flesh and blood is quite a blood sacrifice cult (I was a Presbyterian so we had that it wasn’t the actual flesh/blood). Partaking of someone’s flesh isn’t so strange to get their powers in other cultures. Weird that this arose in the middle east at that time, but it is nothing new elsewhere. Again, a unique bit of belief doesn’t mean it is true at all.

      6. You cover a lot of ground here, and I see this conversation splintering into a thousand different directions. At some point (I don’t know when), not because I’m not enjoying this, but just because we could go on like this forever, I will stop the dialogue.

        Many of these points you are making are issues we will have to agree to disagree on. I know cognitive dissonance is a thing. I don’t think it works to explain the Christian movement.

        No, I am not simply saying that the disciples went to their deaths so it was true (though that is part of it). And yes, it did go against their Jewish culture. Any would-be Messiah who died, especially so humiliatingly publicly, would have been considered by any Jew at the time to NOT be the Messiah. Not to mention the way Jesus seemed, at least, to jettison so many Jewish customs, also the view that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ and that Christians ate this body was terribly repugnant to Jewish culture. I could go on. That is partly why the “cognitive dissonance” argument is weak, in my opinion. Sure, they would have missed Jesus, but enough to trash their entire upbringing? And the Roman Empire as well? To their deaths?

        Conspiracy theories sprout quickly. I’ll grant you that. But Elvis theories that nearly everyone knows are false and won’t last pass a generation do not equate to a movement where people went to their deaths for Jesus that has lasted for centuries. Apples and oranges.

        It would be helpful to read Wright’s quote for myself since we are going back and forth on this. Maybe you can provide a page or chapter? Honestly, though, despite that being a clinching point for you, I really don’t care whether bodily resurrection was novel in Judaism or not.

        If it matters to you, though, let’s go there. I stand by my statement about a shadowy spiritual existence. We see in the OT a development of this idea of the afterlife, but read the Psalms. You get the idea that there is a finality to death. “Who praises you from the dead?” Ps. 6:5. Ecclesiastes gives the idea that after death, there ain’t much, though God will judge us all one day. Yes, there were two who got taken up bodily to Heaven in the OT: Enoch and Elijah. That’s the exception to the rule.

        The OT canon was not necessarily agreed on during the time of Jesus. The Sadducees accepted the Torah, but not much else. The Pharisees took a broader view of Scripture. The Council of Jamnia at around 100AD seems to be around when the Hebrew Scriptures were finalized. So it could very well be that the idea of a universal bodily resurrection of the dead was not in the mainstream.

        That multiple Christians or denominations believe different things about the Bible is really neither here nor there to me. In fact, that is a big reason for why I converted to Catholicism. I know that followers of Jesus have different interpretations. That’s why Jesus put the Apostles, the leaders of the church, in charge to settle these issues (Acts 15), gave them the authority to bind and loose (Matt. 16, 18), and then left others in charge to do the same thing (Apostolic succession) which the church pretty much all agreed was how things should be done for, like, 1500 years. I think God left us with a mechanism to sort out disagreements. We used it until the Protestant Reformation came and blew everything up.

        You talk about how there is no evidence for Christianity. I made this series of videos to make the point that there is, but I understand that that evidence is not enough for you or is not the kind you are looking for. It’s enough for many of us, though.

    1. As a side note, Ms. Schadenfreude, what cath.anon is trying to say here is that there is evidence in nature for a Supreme Act of Being whom theists call “God”. One cannot prove from nature that God is Triune or God is incarnated or God is present specially on the altars around the world, but I think people’s minds are generally more open to miracles and Divine Revelation if they already believe a God exists. The veracity of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and other Christian miracles is another topic

      1. What cath.anon is trying to claim is something that is not true and has no evidence for it.

        It’s always fun to watch Christians try to claim that since other people believe in some god or gods that contradict their myths, then somehow they have to be the same god. It’s the usual greed of a theist to insist that everyone “really” agrees with them. That is of course, not true.

        It is no surprise you never consider that you, and the other theists, should be believing in those gods other than yours rather than the one you grew up with and believed by default. Even Catholics and other Christians don’t agree and try to very hard to convert each other to what is supposedly the same nonsense.

        The false claim of the veracity of the resurrection and other miracles is indeed another topic, but you don’t believe in the miracles of other religions, so why would you ever thing I would believe yours that have the same lack of evidence?

      2. First of all, Ms Schadenfreude, I get frustrated with some atheists at times, so I understand yours with theists, but try to remain respectful as also will I.

        Even Aristotle believed in a “Prime Mover”, I think, who put everything else in motion. I think it is important to remember that when arguing from philosophy, even apart from revelation, we are not just arguing for the existence of any god, but for the Monotheistic God. If you have heard the First Cause Argument, for instance, which is frequently used against atheists, I was actually able to repurpose it to use against Mormons

        So from philosophy and reason, we are not arguing for “God”. We are arguing for the monotheistic God, which basically limits us to three major religions (perhaps there are others, but no other large ones I know of), these being Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. For various reasons which do not concern this discussion, I’ve found Christianity the most reasonable of the three. Do various Christian denominations disagree with each other? Of course, but for further reasons (which really don’t concern this discussion), I’ve found Catholicism the most reasonable of them. Also all Protestant sects have the burden of proof because Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the only ones which can claim to be the first Christian denomination. From these two, I’ve found Catholicism more reasonable.

        Concerning “miracles” of other religions, by the way, I am actually very hesitant to believe any alleged miracle no matter what the religion is. I have reason to believe in the resurrection, as I argued here if you’re interested, although it is possible that you’ve heard these arguments before. I also believe in demons, of course, so I imagine they are behind some of these allusions which have been alleged to be miracles, although I do not believe they could go so far as to raise someone from the dead, as Jesus rose.

      3. I do not respect nonsense. You may act as you will.

        Appealing to Aristotle is no more than an appeal to authority fallacy. He was smart but he was not always right nor did he believe in the nonsense of the Christian god. And I do enjoy that blog name. “Catholic of honor”? Oh please. I do enjoy that you attack Mormons that are just as Christian as you. None of you can show your nonsense to be true. Their silliness about planets, etc are no more silly than Catholics making believe that saints can intercede with this god.

        Yep, “of course” Christians denominations disagree with each other and claim that each other are going to hell. I grew up watching Protestants and Catholics hating each other and insisting that only their Christianity was the “right” one. Neither Catholicism nor any of the orthodox sects can claim to be the “first” Christians. But you all sure want to pretend you are. That’s such a lovely appeal to tradition fallacy. No sect can show it is the “real” one.

        You see, I looked into all of the sects of Christianity before I gave up on it. And found that all of them fail exactly in the same way: no evidence for their arrogance and claims.

        I know you would be “very hesitant” to believe in the miracles of other religions. You have to lie and claim that they are “demons” or fake. And they disbelieve in your baseless claims for the same reasons. Yep, I’ve heard all of those baseless claims before about the supposed historicity of the resurrection. Let’s go over a few of them:

        “First we must remember that every historian agrees that Jesus of Nazareth was actually a historical person.”

        Nope, they don’t. At best, we have some that think that there is a possibility that a real person is at the core of the myth. There is no evidence of Jesus Christ, son of God, and that’s the one Christians worship, not some delusional rabbi who thought he was the messiah.

        “Within thirty years, Christians were openly persecuted for that very claim by Roman Emperor Nero. Even ten of the twelve apostles (excluding St. John who was exiled and Judas Iscariot who committed suicide) all died for that claim—the apostles who were supposed to be eyewitnesses of that resurrection. “

        No evidence for the apostles or that they were eyewitnesses (so who was taking dictation at the garden of gethsemane?) and people die for lies all of the time. That there were Christiasn doesn’t mean that what they believed is true. If this were the case, then all of the gods ever worshiped by humans are as real as yours. Are you okay with that?

        The stories about this character are not “all the same”. They show a very different character in each gospel. We also have contradictions on who saw him after he was supposed resurrected, what was needed to be done after that, where the apostles were (where they celebrating in the temple or hiding out for their lives?) and there is no evidence that 500 people or any people at all saw this character.

        There was no empty tomb so no need for someone to empty it. William Lane Craig bases his entire nonsense on the empty tomb and he can’t even find it.

      4. Thanks, Ms. Schadenfreude. I sometimes get frustrated with atheists so I understand your frustration with theists, but please try to be respectful.

        It is important to remember that from philosophy we are not arguing for simply “God” but for the monotheistic God (a sort of which even Aristotle believed). This limits us, to the best of my knowledge, to three major religions, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. For instance, the First Cause Argument which theists frequently use against atheists, works just as well against Mormons. For reasons which are irrelevant to this discussion, I have decided that Christianity is the most reasonable than the other two and of all Christian sects Catholicism.

        Concerning the Resurrection, I’ve found it to be (believe it or not) pretty historically reliable. As for miracles from other religions, I’m sure demons can make allusions of this sort of thing to mislead people, but nothing to the degree of this particular event.

        “Christians try to claim that since other people believe in some god or gods that contradict their myths, then somehow they have to be the same god.” I’m not sure what you mean by this. I do not think that Zeus or Odin are the same God as the Great I AM. I don’t think everyone agrees with me (although, of course, every religion has at least some truth in it or else no one would fall for its falsity).

      5. Club Schadenfreude is the name of my blog. You can call me Vel, which you would have known if you had looked at my blog.

        You have yet to do anything worthy of respect. I don’t give respect to someone who demands it.

        You, and Christians, are arguing for the Christian god. Amusingly, you all make up your god in your image so you end up arguing for many different versions of this god. Aristotle believed in a god but not like yours with its nonsense of making a human of itself and making up nonsense to be “saved”. And he was smart but not always right. All you have is an attempt at an appeal to authority fallacy. Monotheistic gods are nothing new. Aten was invented just like your god, in the bronze/iron ages.

        The “best of your knowledge” is little more than willful ignorance. The first cause argument is used by Deists too, and again, no nonsense about eating god flesh or a god that gets upset with the creatures it created, and finally realizes that it needs a blood sacrifice of itself to itself. Mormons are Christians too. I do enjoy Christians trying to claim that only their nonsense is the “right” version when all of you have no evidence at all. I know you are embarrassed to admit why you chose Catholicism. One has to wonder why. Many people make the same claims as you, that for some “reason” they decided that their religion was the “most reasonable”. Alas, you can’t show that this is the case.

        You’ve yet to show how the first cause argument supports your particular god, CK. And the usual first cause tries to make believe it can only be one entity, when there is no logical reason for that. It could be a bunch of entities always being around.

        No demons either, CK. That’s just nonsense that again Christians have made up to make people afraid and run to their lies about a god.

        No one cares if you found lies “pretty historically reliable”. They aren’t. Wishful thinking doesn’t work. We have no evidence for an empty tomb, a body that was in it and then wasn’t, nor of a day where it got dark early, there was a major earthquake and the dead were wandering around Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. You’d think that Caiaphas would have noticed, and the Jews would have gone berserk.
        I think you know exactly what I mean by ““Christians try to claim that since other people believe in some god or gods that contradict their myths, then somehow they have to be the same god.” But perhaps you don’t. Many Christians like to claim that people are really worshipping their version of this monotheistic god, and just don’t “know better”. Here’s an example: Words of faith: Why does God have so many names? (

        You are right, not everyone agrees with you and again, Christians don’t agree on much of anything. And nope, no religion has to have some truth in it at all. People fall for false claims all of the time, including the false claims of religion.

      6. “I do not respect nonsense. You may act as you will.”

        “Appealing to Aristotle is no more than an appeal to authority fallacy. He was smart but he was not always right nor did he believe in the nonsense of the Christian god. ”

        “Oh please. I do enjoy that you attack Mormons that are just as Christian as you. None of you can show your nonsense to be true. Their silliness about planets, etc are no more silly than Catholics making believe that saints can intercede with this god.”

        “Amusingly, you all make up your god in your image so you end up arguing for many different versions of this god.”

        With all due respect, in debates, persons are not supposed to call each others’ sides nonsense and silliness. This is an appeal to the stone. Such arguments get nowhere from my experience. I repeat, rephrase your arguments politely and respectfully and I will gladly answer them—at least if you are so sure I am unable to answer them.

      7. Again, all you offer is excuses. Your claim that I “appeal to the stone” fails since I have not just claimed that Christianity is silly and nonsense; I have shown it. I have repeatedly addressed exactly why they are silly and nonsense. Do read the about this fallacy if you want to accuse me of it:

        For instance, you want to claim that I should believe your version of Christianity and then decry Mormon beliefs. No sect has any better evidence than the others; they have none other than their baseless claims of having the holy spirit affirm that their particular argument is what this god “really” meant, or claim that their version is more biblical, or that they are the oldest, or most like early Christians.
        With these claims contradicting each other, I find that “silly”: exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment.” I also find it to be nonsense: language, conduct, or an idea that is absurd or contrary to good sense (both from merriam-webster). I find the same differences between religions the same since they often find themselves using the same arguments for their particular gods and we have no evidence from any of you beyond opinion.

        When you use logical fallacies yourself, you should beware of accusing others of doing the same.

        If you think you can, then refute my points about appealing to Aristotle being an appeal to authority fallacy, that Christians all make the same baseless claims about their sects, without being able to show theirs the true one.

        I will not rephrase my arguments for you will just invent more excuses. Either you can answer them or not. As it stands now, not seems the way to bet.

      8. I was not appealing to authority with Aristotle. I was simply showing that a person does not need to be aware of monotheistic religions to come to that conclusion. As for an appeal to the stone, I never claimed this was your only argument, but you were needlessly being impolite. I know quite well what “nonsense” is. I took two years of Traditional Logic. But you didn’t phrase it in that matter, although “your two statements appear to contradict each other” would have been perfectly appropriate.

        Seriously however, a proper argument does not begin with someone calling the other religion “nonsense”. This is an affective psychological technique, since it puts your opponent in a less stable state of mind, thus being less able to make effective arguments. Furthermore and much more importantly, for an argument to work, each opponent must actually listen to each other’s sides. If you start out with saying mine are “nonsense” (I could say the same about various atheist ideas, but out of kindness I try to keep an open mind and listen to what you have to say), I do not get the impression that you are actually going to answer any of my arguments or listen to them. Are these seriously your drawing room manners? If you would be polite in a setting, for example, of a dinner party, you have absolutely no reason to be impolite online, nor have you come up with any good reason to be so. Nor have you ever claimed you were being perfectly polite, so it seems you agree with me. Would you be proud of your mother seeing you conduct yourself in this way? Would you seriously not reprove your children for conducting an argument like this? I certainly would. Don’t answer me. Close your eyes and think about this.

        You are rather quick to assume the worst of others as well. You think I’d come up with new “excuses” as you call them for not answering your questions. Try me. Catholics can’t lie. I’m sorry for not answering your questions. I’m perfectly able to answer them from a logical perspective, but not a psychological one. I’m waiting for you to rephrase them in a charitable manner. I am really not being picky to ask for you to behave with common human decency. I was really hoping when I commented that we could have a profitable and respectful conversation.

      9. When you appeal ot authority, you assume that someone is right because of who they are, and that is the only reason you mentioned Aristotle. There have been monotheistic religions long before the Isralites, etc. Notably you did not mention Akhenaten in your appeal since it wouldn’t be the authority you sought.

        That you took two years of logic classes is also an appeal to authority, to pretend you know more than I do. Happily, you do not. Unsurprisingly, you cannot show that I was using the fallacy you claims and now you retreat, and here we go again with your attempts to hide behind politeness to avoid answering my questions.

        Now, you try again with claims of “proper” arguments, which is no more than your baseless opinion, CK. I’m sorry you find someone showing that your religion is false puts you in an less stable frame of mind, but nice excuse for your failure so far. This is not true, your arguments are simply not effective.

        You also try to claim that I haven’t listened to your side. Now, CK, how does that work when I’ve responded to your side and have carefully considered your idea when I point out how they do not work? All we have is again, you making false claims about me, insisting that if I only correctly “listened” do you, I surely would agree.

        “Drawing room manners”? LOL. Oh my, do clutch your pearls, CK. I am polite and I am direct but you don’t’ like me showing you wrong so you’ve decided you acting “shocked’ is a great way around not answering questions. It’s no harm to admit you’ve got nothing when it comes to defending your religion, CK. However, making false claims and showing you ignore your god when convenient doesn’t help your case.

        My mom thinks it’s great that I am the way I am, so your attempt to instill fear in me doesn’t work. I know you would be sure to tell your children to never question and never be direct since that is the only thing keeping your faith intact. I teach children to question and to not be afraid if someone tries to guilt them into being quiet.

        As it stands, you’ve proven me right in every case where I made an assumption about you, a Christian apologist. And ROFL, “Catholics can’t lie”. Oh how droll. I know that is not the case. It’s a shame that now you’ll try the “real catholics can’t lie” nonsense when I can point out how they do. Here in PA, our attorney general did a great job underlining just how Catholics lie in the cases about child rape.

        You are not able to answer my questions at all, that is obvious. That’s no problem but lying about me is.

        Now, considering your claims, I am definitely curious. Do rewrite all of my questions in what you consider a “charitable” manner. I will sign off on them if I find them still accurate and you can answer them.

Leave a Reply