Dr. Rodrigo Silva - Deus Existe? - Comunidade Novo Tempo Fortaleza [LINK DO VÍDEO NA DESCRIÇÃO]

Dear Father, we want to thank you for being here once again to learn, learn, acquire more knowledge about you. How good it is to grow, Father. We ask you to be with each one of us here in a very special way with Pastor Rodrigo.

May we understand what He is coming to present to us. We thank you. We ask you to be with us, in the name of Jesus. Amen. I thank you for the presentation and revelation of age here. Very well, guys. Last week I was at the church in Tucuruvi and the pastor of the church was also my teacher. And the pastor is not starting the ministry, no.

But I'm happy to be here with you, I'm happy for all who came back, brought visits. It's a pleasure that we are here now to study the Word of God. Today we are going to talk about a topic. I made some announcements about this subject in the morning and now we want to study this here. I don't know how many here are religious, how many are atheists, skeptics, curious, undefined, agnostic.

I don't know about your ideological, philosophical, religious, spiritual segment, but one thing is a fact: the question "Does God exist?" is of interest to everyone, right? It is of interest, it is a question of general domain. And I will surprise you, perhaps, by stating that I am a skeptical believer. Someone may say: "Wait a minute, he doesn't know the Portuguese language, skeptical believer? That doesn't exist." It's the same thing as talking about "dry wet".

or from the top or bottom, or from the outside, a skeptical believer? Yes, why? It is a slow mistake to think that those who are believers never doubt anything and those who are disbelievers never believe anything. I would like to start with a phrase by Descartes. Descartes said that man must distrust everything to believe in anything.

And I agree with this Cartesian maxim: Man has to distrust everything to be able to... And I, as a Minoan, you know that the Minoan is distrustful, right? Ok, oops, back here. Let's imagine, for example, let's do the challenge for the religious. If we lived in a country or on a planet where the history of Pinocchio was passed on for generations and generations and generations as being a sacred history of our salvation.

and that Pinocchio would be a special boy sent from heaven to free us. Imagine then if there were churches in homage to Pinocchio, if there were prayers for Pinocchio, if the history of Pinocchio was taught in the children's school as being "Pinocchio, great Redeemer" and hymns to Pinocchio and to his father Geppetto.

and there would be statues like this one of Pinocchio all over the square and people would make reverence in front of the statue of Pinocchio and someone would question: listen, but Pinocchio is just a myth, a boy made of wood who became a boy of bone and meat, this does not exist and we would defend: no, Pinocchio existed, he was our savior. Is belief in God a myth like the one of Pinocchio, but it became popularized and everyone believes in it and that's it? Some may even take it as a joke, right?

The two... eh... eh... bats... Batman doesn't exist. Atheist. Now, this morning I made a quick mention about this here when I mentioned Sigmund Freud.

I told you that Freud said that belief in God subsists due to the desire of a protective father and immortality, or as opium against misery and suffering of human existence. And who was there this morning, I argued, it is strange this declaration of Freud, because he is assuming that our body, be it our psyche or our physical organism, has a lack of something that does not exist.

It exists, it doesn't make sense. An organism that needs a vitamin that doesn't exist in nature, it would collapse in itself. Imagine if your organism needed vitamin B12 to survive, but vitamin B12 doesn't exist anywhere. So is God just a belief? But now, as I said this argument this morning, I want to give another argument to review what Freud is talking about.

Freud insisted that God is only a subproduct of human lack for immortality. In other words, it is interesting for humanity to create God. And that's why they create God. But, I'm going to ask for permission, Dr. Sandra, to enter your area, although I'm not a psychologist. But in the philosophical area, we end up putting Bedel in everything. I'm going to do another reading. I can, as a layman, say that disbelief in God is also something

Advantageous. If Freud wants to say that I create God because it is advantageous for the human being that God exists, then I invent God, I can say the opposite. Disbelief has its advantages, although this does not apply to all atheists. For example, there are reasons why many do not want God to exist, or at least that he does not pass from a blind and impersonal force. And what are these reasons? Well, without God I do not need to take care of anything for anyone, I do not even need to be moral.

If God doesn't exist, no one can condemn me because I'm being smarter and selling a car with a engine beating, lying that the engine is new. If God, by the way, even by the law of the evolution of species, the survival of the most apt,

If God doesn't exist, even this morality is questionable. If I can step on you and take your money, you can't say I'm immoral, I was just smarter, it's in the law of nature. Isn't that how animals survive? The smartest can hide and deceive the other and end up surviving? The strongest doesn't end up taking the other and devouring? So, if it's like that in nature, why can't it be like that with human beings? I'm stronger than you, I have more money than you, so I buy the judge to...

to do what I want and no lawyer can be saying that I'm being wrong I'm using the elements I have if the lion can use his teeth to attack the prey why can't I use my money? my prestige and if God doesn't exist it's a beauty because I don't need to pay anyone's bills there won't be a final judgment

Nobody can say that. There is a very big fight among homosexual groups now, saying that we have the right to be homosexual and you use the Bible to say that it is wrong to be homosexual. So, okay. But if I take God and the Bible, I want to ask you: what argument do you use to be homosexual that I cannot apply, for example, to incest? Why is it morally correct for two men or two women to get married and it is not morally correct for a father to marry a daughter?

Or an uncle with a niece. Or a son-in-law with a mother-in-law. The only difference is that those who practice incest are not as politically organized as those who defend homosexuality. If they were, we would be with a law project in Brazil now to free marriage between brothers, between uncle and nephew, between father and daughter, between son-in-law and mother-in-law, and so on. Why can't a man have four wives? He would have four good wives!

I said: "Why is that?" That was good, you see? Spontaneous answers are the best. I said: "For example, why can't a man have four wives?" He answered: "Because he will have four mothers-in-law, it's true." So I make it easier, right? The woman would have four men. It would be easier, yes. And if when homosexuals... No, but in nature, there are animals that practice the homoaffective relationship. All right. In nature, too, the dog has a child with his mother, with his cousin, with...

So if it's to follow nature, in nature many females kill the baby and eat it, and no one condemns that, so I'm not going to condemn a woman who takes a child, leaves it and leaves it in the trash can, because there are many paddles that do that too. If nature is the parameter, if there is no God, you can defend a lot of things that even the most liberal would not defend. You can even defend cannibalism, because between animals, there are animals that eat animals, there are snakes that eat snakes. So what's the problem of a man wanting to eat human flesh?

It's his taste. Some like açaí, others don't. Some like meat from the sun, others don't. Some like human meat, others don't. If God doesn't exist, you can't condemn anything. Dostoyevsky, right? If God doesn't exist, nothing is forbidden. Another question: If God doesn't exist, if he leaves the scene, this is the main one: a vacancy opens up. When God leaves the scene, a vacancy opens up. And who occupies the place of God? Myself.

So my friend Sigmund Freud said that belief in God is the result of a human lack for a protective father. I could say the disbelief in God is a human lack to live at home as a teenager with the father and mother traveling.

Do you know those teenage movies where the father and mother travel, he hires all his colleagues and has a party? It's paradise, a house just for us, without the father and mother regulating the time to enter, who will come here, who will use the room, if we can drink, we can't. In other words, disbelief can also be the result of a psychological need. So, for us not to be so prejudiced, neither to one side nor to the other, let's work with 50% of the chance of God existing,

and 50% of God's chances of not existing. 50% for each side. I think we started well. Look what the Bible says, Hebrews 11:6. If you want to open your Bible, while I drink my water here, while you look for it, Hebrews 11:6. Did you find it in the Bible? "Now, without faith it is impossible to please God."

If you want to reach God, you have to reach with faith. "Wait, wait, wait, raise your hand here and I protest." "This is the problem of you believers," a skeptic will say. "I have to get to God."

in God, believing that he exists? Does that make sense? Of course! I have a scientific mind, I have an irrational mind, I understand that I have to start from the doubt. Didn't you say here at the beginning, quoting Descartes, that we have to start doubting? How does the Bible say that I have to start believing? Does that make sense? I remember once I was studying with the Mormons,

And the Mormons have a book that they equip the Bible, in fact, they even put it as superior to the Bible, which is the Book of Mormon. And when I asked the girl, "But what are the archaeological, historical and spiritual evidence that this book is from God?" She said, "It's simple, we just need one evidence." I said, "Which one?" "You will pray to God asking him to reveal the Book of Mormon, and you will feel a burning in the chest." This expression is technical. I said, "Okay, but what if I don't feel the burning in the chest?" She said, "Pray again."

until you feel it. I said: "I never felt it." "It's because you're not praying with faith enough." "But wait a minute, this is a circular argument. You have to come here believing that I will heal you. And if I don't heal you, it's because you're in trouble. Isn't that right?"

And apparently, that's what the Bible is saying. I have to go to God believing that He exists? It means that I don't open a hypothesis for Him not to exist? Calm down, let me explain this text to you. This text is badly interpreted by some. What did the Bible mean when it announced that I must go to God already believing that He exists? It's simple. The word faith, in Greek, "pistis",

If you look at a Greek dictionary, the word "pistes", faith, means: guarantee that comes from a possibility of trust. It is not blind faith, as many think.

The word faith, as it appears in the Bible, you know that the Italian says "tradutore" and "traditore". The translator is a traitor, because sometimes translating is not easy. Some words do not have the same equivalence from one language to another. We say faith, it may be a blind faith, a delusion, but in the Bible, in the original Greek, the word "fe" means guarantee that comes from a possibility of trust. Wasn't that clear? I'll give you an example. When you go to the bank to ask for a loan,

You need a loan. You go to the bank, right? And why do you go to the bank? Because you believe that he will give you the loan? Do you believe that the manager will give you the loan? Do you believe that there is a possibility for the manager to give you the loan? Now, why when you... So, if you don't leave the house with the belief that there is a possibility for the manager to give you the loan, you won't. It's better not to go.

For you to go to the bank, you look, I'm going to take the papers and there is the possibility of him lending me what I need to rent my house, my car, my debt, whatever. Now, I ask, why when you are indebted you go to the bank and not to the butcher? It's a question. Why do you go to the bank and not to the butcher? And how do you know that the money is in the bank? If you never went in there, this is the first time you are going, and why do you go ... You never went in, this will be the first time you ask for a loan. Why do you go to the bank and not to the butcher?

But why do you believe that money is there? I want to know where this belief comes from. But is it a faith based on what? And is this possibility based on what? How do you know that the bank can grant loans? People say that. I've never seen someone in full consciousness say: "Go to the butcher, he will give you a financing." But I know a multitude of people who say they went to the bank and got a loan.

So look how interesting, you go to the bank believing that the manager can give you the loan because you have a multitude of witnesses who said: I went to the bank and that's where you get the money. It's a matter of common sense, right? The Bible says the same thing. Hebrews chapter 12 verse 1. Hebrews chapter 12 verse 1. Look what the author of Hebrews says, which for me is Paul: "We are surrounded by a great cloud of

witnesses that's why I go to God believing that he exists is the same scheme of the bank you have a lot of people saying that if you go to God he will and before you think but this is people who don't have academic ability people who are not cult people who don't have a doctorate people who are not intelligent no sir I'm not even going to quote from the bible no here an example of the crowd that we have between us you have to be light one of the great

writers from Oxford, who were atheists and became Christians, converted. You have Sir Isaac Newton, who discovers the law of gravity, one of the greatest masters of modern physics. You have Dostoyevsky, who I mentioned here, who wrote the Kramazov brothers, Crime and Punishment. You have Leibniz. Leibniz, this comrade was so intelligent that at 21 he did his first doctorate. At 8 years old he learned Latin and Greek by himself.

He created the differential calculation, some believe that he is the father of the calculator machine, and Leibniz created the concept of having an Odyssey. How can I believe in God in a world of so much social injustice, of so much suffering? Leibniz creates in God a German genius. You have Blaise Pascal. Blaise Pascal, who studies mathematics, knows the great mathematician Blaise Pascal. You have Lois Pasteur.

Louis Pasteur, if you can drink a glass of milk today and not die, because the milk is pasteurized, thanks to this man, all of them believe in God. And finally, Anthony Flew. When I did philosophy school, Anthony Flew was one of the greatest names of modern atheism.

In his youth, Anthony Flew debated with C.S. Lewis and was not convinced, and he wrote technical books. I'm not talking about popular books like Richard Dawkins, no. Technical book of philosophy denying the existence of God. At the end of his life, Anthony Flew said: "Look, I was wrong, God exists."

It was such a big change that the atheists at the beginning said: "Lies! It's impossible that Anthony Flew, Richard Dawkins himself said: "It's impossible, this is urban legend, Anthony Flew never changed his mind." When he went to the public and said: "I changed", they said: "Oh yeah? He's crazy." And Anthony Flew said: "Interesting how I'm crazy. Last week an indexed magazine published an article of mine. While I talked a lot about it, I changed ideas several times during my phase, they never called me crazy. The day I changed my mind about disbelief for belief in God, I became crazy.

Just to give you an idea of who Anthony Flew was, he died. Anthony Flew becoming a believer would be like the Pope becoming a Jehovah's Witness. Did you understand the comparison? We are surrounded by such a big cloud of...

witnesses so if believing in God is a very stupid delirium this whole person is an idiot and delirious because they believe in God pity that your college teacher doesn't always say that to you, right? it seems that who only the atheist who is intelligent who is the best who is the beast who is the person who arrives there in the classroom with the pants undressed shirt out a big hair like this but speak a little bit of a word smoke a cigarette and say this thing of God is stupid and you fall in love with the brilliance of his head he may be an intelligent person but he is not the only one

He is the only one. There are many brilliant people who disagree with him. Speaking of this, let me give you two examples about this issue of existence in God. This one, Yuri Gagarin.

When there was the war, the space race between the United States and the Soviet Union, who would be the first to put man in space? Although the Americans were... because after the Second World War, some scientists flee from Germany and go to the United States. Others flee and go to the former Soviet Union. Werdel von Braun, for example, went to America and started building rockets. But who put man first in orbit were the Russians.

and Russia, due to communism, was a declared atheist country. It was Yuri Gagarin, an atheist, radically atheist, communist, Russian cosmonaut, who said the famous phrase "the earth is blue". Remember that phrase? "The earth is blue". How beautiful it is, it's blue. And he said: "Look, I was in the outer space, higher than any man could be, and God wasn't there." That was a...

a blow against the belief in God, see? You talk about heaven, sky, clouds, we put a man far above the clouds, he didn't see any God up there? God is a myth, only those who don't have scientific thinking believe in it. Only years later, this other knight here, Frank Warman, was sent to the orbit of the Earth, in a space twice as high as Yuri Gagarin. Yuri Gagarin was at a height, this one was twice as high.

And when Bormann was up there, he saw the image of the Earth, and it was Christmas time, and they asked: "Frank Bormann, what can you tell us about the Sideral Space?" He said: "Look, first he greets the relatives and everyone, then he says: "Here from the Sideral Space to Earth, I can only send a message." Which I believe was a response to Yuri Gagarin. Do you know what the message was? He read Genesis 1.

And as I like to prove what I say, let's listen to the original audio of Frank Borman recorded from the space of the Earth. Put it for me, please. Just click on this... That's it. No, no, come back, come back. This is... Click here, look. That's it. The recording is very bad because it's original. It's about the poor who are on Earth. It's about people who are in San Diego. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth. And the Earth had no form. And it was empty.

and the Spirit of God was standing on the depths of the abyss. And the Spirit of God was standing on the depths of the abyss. And God said: "Let there be light." And there was light. And God saw the light. And God said: "The light is good." He started quoting the Holy Bible. Can I take it, please? Then some people ironized the following: The difference between Frank Borman and Yuri Gagarin is that Frank Borman was taller, that's why Yuri Gagarin didn't see God and the other one did. There are people who say to you: "No, this thing of religion, you have to have an open mind."

You know, these days I was watching... I'm not saying I'm a saint here, that I don't watch TV, but I'm being honest with you that soap opera is a thing that for me is not even temptation. Because there are two types, there are things that are temptations, there are things that are not temptations. Each one has a different temptation, you know that, right? If I have a bottle of whiskey in my house and I live in that house for ten years, that bottle of whiskey will stay there for ten years and I won't have it.

I'm not saying I'm a saint for everything, but I say that there is not my Achilles tendon. Do you understand what I mean? And soap opera for me is not even temptation, it's punishment. I think it's boring. But sometimes you end up watching a piece of a soap opera, whether when the newspaper ends, the television is on, or a little before the newspaper starts, you catch a scene, or you're watching the commercial and you go. You get more or less, you're not so ignorant of what's going on. And I remember a scene from the soap opera,

I don't know if it was last year that she passed, or this year, last year I was away from Brazil, that there were two women, the context, the two women were homosexuals. And they created a boy, and the boy trying to convince the girl, the girl who was the daughter of an evangelical, something like that, to

to accept her mother's marriage. And she said: "But in my church that is wrong, in the Bible it is wrong." And he said: "You have to have an open mind, just because your parents said so, you have to accept it." And then I stopped, I started to watch that dialogue, because sometimes we like to do a sociological analysis about the dialogues of the pamphlets, you know? Even Big Brother, sometimes, despite being a trash, you can do a psychological analysis, why is it successful being a trash? The critical look about entertainment.

And I started to say: "Look how interesting the dialogue is between this boy and the girl." And he starts talking to her and she says: "But my parents, your parents, just because your parents said it's okay, you have to start to overcome what your parents said." But the author of the novel, the author, I don't know, didn't stop to read it the other way around. He was also defending an ideology because his two mothers said it.

Why does she have to question what her parents said, but he doesn't have to question what her mothers said? If she is the result of a creation, he is too. She was the result of a creation that that type of relationship was not correct, and he was the result of a creation that that relationship was correct. He can accept the creation of his two mothers, and that's fine, but she has to overcome

what her parents taught her, did you notice the argumentative contradiction? That's why I like this phrase by James Auburn: "You have to have an open mind, but not to the point that the brain falls out." Some people have an open mind to the point that the brain falls out. And today I've noticed, brothers, you have to be a little more... What word am I going to use here? A little more critical in that sense. Because when I say critical, people just think like that, nobody wants to hear the old happy story anymore. If I write a book, "The Biography of Pope Francis",

1 million people will read it. If I write a book, the unauthorized biography of Pope Francis, everything the Vatican wanted to hide, I will have 5 million people read it.

Why? People want today what questions, what answers, what goes against what you've always learned. And then atheism, as it is called neo-atheism, it seems that it is going against. Then it comes to the young people on television and says: "Forget this nonsense that your parents taught you, I will teach you the truth." And the young people are attracted to this feeling and think they are becoming intellectuals reading super interesting magazines and these things that challenge. I think you have to work a little bit with both sides of the coin.

Mainly because, as I said, faith also admits doubt. And doubt also admits faith. The atheist and the believer do not have such a different mind from each other. I like this book by Umberto Eco and Carlo Maria Martini. Carlo Maria Martini is a priest

He is one of the greatest specialists in Greek in the New Testament that exists in Rome. He is one of the translators of the Greek New Testament. He is a theologian. And Humberto Eco, historian, wrote The Name of the Rose. And look how interesting the title of this book is: "In which those who do not believe believe." Because sometimes the atheist does not admit that he has faith, but he has. The atheist's cognitive system to form his thoughts is the same as that of the religious. If you do a lobotomy,

and check the synapse of the atheist's brain, it is the same synapse of the religious brain. Why do atheists think that God is a delirium? There is nothing proven biologically, Richard Dawkins, who is a biologist, never saw biology proving that that synapse that causes belief in God is a delirium, and the synapse that causes disbelief in God is a virtue. It is an evolutionary leap, it doesn't exist, it's superstition. And speaking of superstition, superstitions are dangerous.

very dangerous. Look here, for example, they say that this is the Ganges River and many Hindus dive into the waters of the Ganges River because they consider the waters of the Ganges River sacred, but it is one of the most polluted rivers in the world. I don't know if you knew, in India they have the custom of "cremating" the dead. They cremate and throw ashes in the Ganges so that the Ganges deposits in their bed and they can be with their ancestors or reincarnate, a series of things of the Hindu belief.

But in winter, not everyone has wood. The wood is very expensive. And when some people die in winter, they throw the body in Ganges. So imagine ashes of dead and bodies in decay. That river will be polluted, more and more polluted. And people dive there. A Hindu was diving in the waters of the Ganges River. A friend took some drops from the river and said to him, look, this river is contaminated. He said, it's not because it's sacred. The friend put the drops in the microscope and showed it.

When the religious man saw the rivers completely polluted, he was disgusted with reality, took a stone and broke the microscope and kept diving. One thing is to want to discover the truth, another thing is to want the truth to be by my side, at what cost? Cost? So, does my belief admit a doubt that leads me to believe in God? And before you say:

Come here, the Bible does not admit this belief in God, so read the Bible better. Look how many passages the Bible speaks for us to train the capacity for questioning. Look at Malachi 3:10 "Test me, says the Lord; test me, says another translation."

"Come," Isaiah 1:18 says, "Come, let us reflect together." Or as the oldest translation says, "Come, let us reason together." What is "to reason"? "To use reason." Let's talk, argue, let's counter-argument. Look, God doesn't go down and do it and that's it. There are many moments when God gives orders, it's true. But God gives this order after he shows the authority he has. At the first moment he says, "Let's argue."

Another issue in the New Testament pages, we have a range of texts that advise me to test or critically examine all things before believing them in advance. There you have several passages. And if I understand the biblical warning well, I must be alert not to agree with one thing, just because it is part of the tradition of the ancients. Jesus said: "Hear what was said to the ancients, but I tell you: By your tradition transgress the commandment of God."

1 Peter 2:1-3 warns against believing in false leaders who would exploit people with emotional stories that they themselves would invent.

Do you want an incentive to reflection and autonomous rationality more clear than this one in the Bible? The Bible teaches you to question. This word of the Psalm, Psalm 38:4: "Test and see how the Lord is good." Well, this word "test" comes from the Hebrew "ta'am". "Ta'am" means "experiment, taste, take something sensually, like the flavor of something, examine." Funny, long before the scientific method, the Bible already taught to "experiment" the Lord, to see if he is good.

I remember the book by Kinkas Borba, by Machado de Assis, where he said about Rubião, a character that Machado de Assis described as more faithful than believer. That's the question. There is a difference between being a believer and being faithful.

This is the difference between faith and faithfulness. There are people who are believers. Believing is believing in something based on evidence, like when you go to the bank to ask the manager for money. A believer is one who believes in anything, is one who accepts any event without any questioning. But again, the atheist insists, the belief is a thing of believers, of religious people. On the one hand, it even seems like it, because unfortunately what some are doing today is killing, right?

I respect all churches as I would like mine to be respected. But respecting is not synonymous with giving up on speaking some truths. Unfortunately, today religion has become a business for many people. And I see every day some people on television, he is the owner of the church. You can see that even everyone who speaks there receives the same treatment from the leader.

And the churches become franchises, you get there and there's a picture of the leader of all sizes and no one questions him and all that, I think that's very dangerous. But my pastor said, one day I said to my sister, "Ma'am, stop saying what your pastor said, go to the Bible, you're repeating too much, your pastor said, look at the Bible." I even tell you the opposite, don't believe what I'm saying, examine it.

Take my theory, my thesis here and examine it. And even those who are in the Adventist church, I don't think you're free of that, because many are members of the church, others want to be customers of it. He gives the tithes and offerings, not as a return of a covenant to God, but as a quota of a club. He pays the club, the day a preacher comes here that he doesn't like, or has a system, he stops attending. He is not a servant, he is not a member, he is a customer. Customer pays. If he is dissatisfied with the bank, he changes the bank.

And there are many people who think that way: big churches, small businesses. But nothing is as contagious as the example, right? Nothing is as contagious as the example. And before you think that creed is just about religious things, let me tell you this story here, by René Prosper Blondeau. This comrade was the... who studies physics, you must have heard about him. He was the discoverer of the N-ray. Have you ever heard of the N-ray?

because scientific articles and theses were written at the end of the 18th century and early 20th century about the N-ray when people were discovering the X-ray, they also discovered the N-ray and several physicists saw the spectrum of the N-ray until Robert Wood distrust that the N-ray was just a mistake of the scientists' heads that there was no N-ray at all do you know what Jung talks about the collective unconscious?

that thing that one starts to see, everyone starts to see too, like the Varginha ET, one saw, in a little while there are a lot of people saying they saw, it's collective hysteria. Wood said: "Look, even scientists can also have a collective optical illusion." And he did a test to prove that he was right. He took some renowned physicists to a room, but without them knowing, in front of some witnesses, he took the slide, took the lens,

and sent everyone to look through the spectrum to see if they saw a spectrum. They all saw it. There was no way to see it because without the lens, even if the ray didn't exist, you could only see it with the lens. He took the lens off and they kept seeing it.

This was a blow because they showed that even academic physicists can also fall into the illusion of something that does not exist. So this thing of thinking that who is in the church is a believer, is with the mind designed to see illusions and who has a scientific mind does not see illusions, lie! Both are also subject to superstition. I prefer the maxim of Emmanuel Kant: "Sapere aud", dare to know, in Latin.

Be brave, have the courage to know. Can we prove then that God exists? To be honest with you, the answer is no. Thank you, so now I'm going to close, let's go here. You see there, the speaker himself admitted that he cannot prove that God exists. But calm down, I didn't finish my lecture. I can't prove that God exists? Okay. Why can't I prove that God exists? Simple. Let's first imagine what would be really necessary to lead a disbeliever to believe.

Who knows? If there is a God, please show me a sign. There is a God. Now I'm satisfied. Would it be that simple? Look at this statement by Richard Dawkins. I know that not all atheists like to be represented by him, but as he is in the media today, look what Richard Dawkins said. He gags a lot when he is speaking in public. I don't know, he has some nervous tics. When he is alone in a bank of atheists, he talks with a...

a fury and writing too but when he goes to debate with he gags he he this is a very difficult question interesting because I mean I used to think that maybe if somehow you know a giant Jesus 300 meters high with a voice like Paul Robinson suddenly appeared and said I exist I'm here

But still, in fact, I sometimes wonder if this would lead me to believe in him. So he doesn't want to believe. Remember what I said before? One thing is to believe, to be on the side of the truth. Another thing is to believe that the truth is on my side, no matter what. But let's go again here, why do I say that... Oops, sorry, back to 1.

Why do I say that God cannot be proven if God exists or not? Simple, a principle of a philosopher of science, Karl Popper. Karl Popper put the principle of verifiability versus falsifiability. What is that? Popper said that science has limitations in what it can prove. Science is limited, science cannot prove everything. Science can only prove, you can only say that a scientific thing, if it can be falsifiable. I'll explain, you'll understand.

What does Popper say? In this example here it will be clear to you. Go back. Suetonius declared that Nero, when he died, made a Latin phrase that he says: "Qualis artifics perium?" "What great artist dies today?" "What great artist the world loses?" Suetonius said that. But with the scientific-laboratory method, I can never prove that Suetonius was right and that Nero actually said that. Because I can't repeat

The scene, the story, you can't prove it in the lab. Psychology can't prove it in the lab. You can't take people with the same pathology and take them to the lab. On the contrary, the human being is not made in series like a car. One has a trauma from his father and responds in one way, or has the same trauma and responds in another. Neither psychology can you prove in the lab. There are many areas of human knowledge that escape the scientific experiment. That's what Karl Popper wanted to say. What is falsiability? Here's an airplane.

If I declare like this: "Car gasoline does not work for airplanes. Car fuel does not work for airplanes." It's easy for you to check. You just need to take car gasoline, put it in the engine of an airplane and see if it flies. You will fake the statement. You have to check if the statement is true or not. Therefore, the phrase: "A great artist the world loses today", I have no way of proving it by science.

But the phrase "car gasoline doesn't work for airplanes" I have to prove it by the scientific method. That's what falsability is. Is that clear? Another thing you have to learn here: What is the axiom postulate and what is the theorem? Who studies mathematics knows the fifth postulate of Euclides about the parallels, etc.

According to geometry and mathematics, a theorem you can prove, that bunch of equations we used to do since high school, Pythagorean Theorem, remember? That trauma in the vestibular? But the postulate, the axiom, you can't prove. They are things you enunciate because they make sense, but you can never prove through an equation.

For example, the parallels. There is a controversy among the geometers, if the parallels one day meet or not. I'll talk about the more traditional phase. Two straight lines are infinite parallels and never cross. It makes sense. You can't deny that. To deny that, you would have to have a ruler the size of...

infinite to know that the lines are infinite and you have to have the ability to look from infinite to infinite to know that in fact they do not cross each other so this postulate of Euclides is a self-evident thing but I can't prove it why can't I prove it? because it's above my mental capacity it's above my verification capacity is it clear or not for you? it's above I can't prove it

I can't prove the infinite or bring the infinite to the laboratory. Now it's simple. If God is infinite, then God is more for postulating. God is not a theorem. If God were a theorem, God could be proved by science. If God could be proved by science, he was within my mental limit. If God were within my mental limit, he wouldn't be big enough to be God. So that's why I can't prove, but I can announce.

So I'm going to ask some questions here. I delayed a little today, I want to ask: Can you hold on for another 10 or 15 minutes of lecture? I know it's a lot of information, otherwise the mind will be a little bit, right? 10 or 15 minutes. It's good for you to start with the auditorium and finish, not with the dormitory, right? And depending on the time, it ends up with the cemetery, because in the end it delays someone to bury the bodies.

Let's think about it a little bit. As I said, I can't prove God, but I can say it. Does it make sense to say that God exists? Let me start with a phrase by Parmenides. It is necessary to think about it. What is, exists. What is, exists. Think about it. Leibniz, the one I showed you, he asked, why does something exist instead of nothing? Why do we exist? I'll explain where I want to get with this.

We know, the old latins used to say: "ex nihilo nihil fit", from nothing, nothing is done. This is obvious. If I have zero plus zero is equal to? Zero. Zero raised to zero? Zero. Zero minus zero, zero. Any math with two zeros will give nothing. If I have a lot of nothing,

With a lot of nothing, I will continue to have a lot of? Nothing. From nothing, nothing is produced. But that's the question, because the physicists who defend the Big Bang, I don't have a physical competence to preach about the Big Bang, but I can say that, as far as it is understood, physicists say that one day there was nothing. But the universe exploded and generated everything that exists today. This is the so-called Big Bang.

The question I ask is this: If there was nothing here, why is there something today? If nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Did you understand the question? If there was no God, if there was nothing, why is there something today?

This is the knot, and I'm going to put a statement here for you, since I'm not a physicist, of a physicist, an astronomer, Alan Sandage, professional astronomer, he calculated the speed at which the universe expands and the age of the same by observing distant stars. He is the winner of the Graff Award for Astronomy, equivalent to the Nobel Prize. Look what he says: "I was almost an atheist practitioner in my youth." Yeah, that's wrong.

Science was what led me to the conclusion that the world is much more complex than we can explain. The mystery of existence, I can only explain it through the supernatural. I'm not talking about a layman, I'm talking about a renowned physicist. I think it's quite unlikely that such an order has come from chaos.

Now, the skeptics give their version. Michael Schumer, historian and writer of the magazine Skeptic. Seticism, the skeptic, right?

He said: "In both the Jewish-Christian tradition and the scientific world, time began when the universe saw existence, either through divine creation or through the Big Bang. God, therefore, would have to exist outside of space and time. The answer of the believer is a hypothesis that cannot be tested." That God existed, you can't test. I said that, but wait a minute. The answer of the atheist can't be tested either?

Recently, you know, Stephen Hawking said: "The universe can be created from nothing and God is no longer necessary." But this can't be tested either. So at least we tie. And I'm going to be bold here, even as a layman, to question Stephen Hawking. Because Stephen Hawking said the following: "The great despair is: if there is no God, how is the universe to come to arise from nothing?"

from nothing, being that things do not arise. You are afraid, if you go to the zoo and see a lion inside a cage, you are afraid of it leaving the cage and attacking you. But here now you are not afraid of a lion coming out of the air here and attacking you. Because no one witnesses things coming out of nothing. So for the universe to arise, there has to be an eternal God who had no beginning and who generated everything that exists.

But if there is no God, how did things come to be, since the universe is not eternal? Then Hawking tries to explain: No, the universe does not need God. This is the explanation of Stephen Hawking in that book "The Great Designer", which he wrote last. He said the following: What was there? That nothing, in fact, was a quantum vacuum, which had particles, matter, everything, energy, movement, space and gravity.

These things that came into collision and exploded. But come here, this is nothing. Even if it were a dictionary that came from an explosion of a lot of letters, it's also strange. This is nothing. Did you understand? Hawking, to justify the universe existing out of nowhere, says: "No, this is what it had, this is nothing, this is something." This is nothing. Is this what the universe would have to come from to say that God does not exist? The second problem with self-creation.

If something can exist out of nowhere, why don't we witness things existing out of nowhere today? Like I said, aren't you afraid of a tiger that comes out of nowhere and attacks you? Or a lion?

Now, do you know what quantum physics is? You say: "No, but quantum physics has already proven that things arise from nothing." You have the difference between nothing, emptiness and vacuum. Sorry, I won't go into quantum physics here, but if you read it carefully, quantum physics doesn't prove that things arise from nothing. It proves that a molecule or an atom can disappear from one place and appear in another. The laws of gravity in the world of quantum physics work differently.

The physical laws are different, but one thing does not come out of nowhere, it disappears here and comes out there. It's not that it comes out of nowhere, okay? And usually, here I have the Big Bang model, for example Friedman and Lemaître, who said that the universe was not eternal, it started to emerge a finite time ago. Stephen Hawking still says the following, look what he admits that ends up going against his thesis:

If the measure of the expansion of the universe had been one second after the Big Bang, less than at least one part of hundreds of thousands of millions of millions, the universe would have collapsed before reaching its current size. Then what does William Lane Craig argue? Look what he's talking about here. Improbabilities are added to probabilities until our minds are full of incomprehensible numbers.

They are trying to invent things. And they argue that we believers worship the God of gaps. When you can't explain something, you say: "But God did it." They are the same thing. When they can't explain something, they say: "No, but the coincidence added to eternity with the molecules can." How so?

Do you know what atheism is, after all? Atheism is this: the belief that there was nothing, absolutely nothing, and nothing happened to nothing, until nothing in a magical way exploded, for no reason, creating everything that exists everywhere. So after a BOOM, everything in a magical way organized itself, again for no reason, self-replicated, forming complex beings that evolved and became dinosaurs. Guys, this is what is vestibular matter for many people.

It's comical! It's comical! I didn't get it! Look at John Lennox, who is a math professor at Oxford University. John Lennox said: "Hawking's argument becomes, in my understanding, something even more illogical when he affirms that the existence of gravity would make the creation of the universe an inevitability.

But how does gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Similarly, when Halkin argues in favor of his theory of spontaneous creation, saying that if it would be enough to light a spark so that the universe would start to work, the question to be asked is: Where did this spark come from? And who lit it, if not God? Because he tells you: there was no God.

When I say I don't know how to explain, the most coherent would be at least the agnosticism. Yes, that's the question. To say: "No, there was no God, but I don't know how to explain, but somehow it happened." It doesn't make sense. Do you understand?

Well, now I need to say, no, but you're reading a very religious Hawking and you're not even a physicist. Really, I'm going to limit myself to my insignificance. I'm not a physicist. Who are you to criticize Stephen Hawking? A believer, theologian, archaeologist. Well, then I'm going to use another physicist to criticize Stephen Hawking. And I don't need to say that I'm using a Christian physicist, I'm going to use an atheist, okay? Marcelo Gleisler. Atheist? Wow, how do you teach in England? Respectable. He's an atheist!

Atheist and physicist. Look what he said: "The theories that Hawking uses to base his argument, theories M, from the super strings, have as much empirical evidence as God. It is unfortunate that physicists like Hawking are promoting speculative theories as almost concluded. The media euphoria is understandable. Man wants to be God.

He is atheist, see?

Hawkins and his co-author, Medlov, who was Russian, of Russian origin, they use quantum physics to explain that God is not necessary, but by contrasting the creationism of the young earth with the Big Bang theory, they claim that despite the Big Bang theory being more useful, it cannot be said that one of the two models is more real than the other.

And Hawking himself says: "In this vision, the universe appeared spontaneously out of nowhere, with "spontaneously" seems to say "without any cause". Now, what did Hawkins himself say in his old book, A Brief History of Time? Many people do not like the idea that time has had a beginning, probably because it demands divine intervention.

and he himself now tried to change that Robert J. Stroll is another famous astronomer, he said that when scientists talk about God and astronomers reach a mountain they only discover that theologists have been sitting up there for a long time now two options for an eternal being is necessary or I have an eternal universe that never had a beginning and that doesn't make sense because the cosmos is everything that will ever exist, says Carl Sagan

Or I have an eternal creator, in principle God created. A God who had no beginning. Okay? I prefer to believe in an eternal creator, because I know that the cosmos has a beginning. Can I pass? Now the question is: who created God? Maybe an atheist asked this question at UNICAMP. Okay, so you want to say that God was before the universe and that God created the universe. So who created God? I said: nobody. But what if there was someone who created God? I said: then God is not God, God is a creature, this other who created him is God.

Or I go into an infinite retrocess and I have to accept a being that created everything. And the Bible says: God is without father, without mother, without genealogy. In principle, God created the heavens and the earth. It says that everything that God created is eternal and He Himself is eternal. God did not create for nothing. So why consider that something needs a simple cause? I can't keep going back to the past, I've already talked about it, and things don't appear out of nowhere. It can happen. It's the old question: who came first? The chicken.

Now, what did Bertrand Russell say? That I can say that when I was young, I debated these issues very seriously in my mind. For some time I accepted the argument of the initial cause until the day I was 18 and read the autobiography of John Stuart Mill.

And then I found the following statement: "My father taught me to ask who did it to me." It cannot be answered because it suggests immediately to follow the question "Who did it to God?" That very simple phrase showed me, and I still agree with this idea, to speak if existing in the argument of the initial cause. If everything has a cause, then God has to have a cause. Was Bertrand Russell right? I think this is a mistake. It's like asking: "To know the blue color, where is the bridegroom's wife?"

Admit an initial cause self-existent is philosophically healthy. We can not do what is not done. What the Bible says is this: Everything that exists, everything that has existed, had a cause. God did not exist. So God does not need a cause. Understood the question? God has always been. Then comes Matthew and says: Wait a minute! Objection! Calm down, excuse me.

If there was an atheist, can I participate? Yes. An eternal and self-existent God? Please! This is impossible! Really? But what do you atheists say? An eternal and self-existent universe, is that possible? I, by faith, say that there is an eternal and self-existent God? No. But Richard Dawkins says that there is an self-existent universe? This is scientific. This is another belief. How is it? It is. There are two beliefs. Actually, two beliefs fighting each other.

Now, another question I ask: why is there music instead of noise? Things don't just exist, but they exist in harmony. Let me show you a song in a sidereal space, the next slide. The Voyager ship traveled through the solar system and it started recording plasma waves of solar wind wherever it passed. And when it got close to the rings of Saturn, it captured some plasma waves of solar wind here in the rings.

Look at these beautiful sounds that these waves were ... you can put ... by the way, all the noise you will hear from the bottom here ... you can put ... that, that ... all the noise you are hearing from the bottom here is from the Voyager ship. A non-tripled robot ship, Voyager 1 and 2, they have already lost contact with NASA. And NASA's speaker starts talking, right? In space.

And these sounds you will hear here, they come from 1 billion and 400 million kilometers of Earth. 1 billion kilometers. Silent space. Cold. Cold and beyond our comprehension. It challenges the limits of our imagination.

It's space. Now space is full of vibrations, sounds. The solar wind, the plasma waves of solar wind, were measured by the waves of the antennas, by the antennas of the space ship,

Voyager that goes to the universe. These sounds that you are seeing here, you will hear here, were captured directly by the space shuttle's antennas. And many thousands of miles away from Earth, it verifies these disturbances and synthesizes them into music. And in a little while, I'll stop translating for you to hear, you will see Voyager getting close to the rings,

and the antenna shows that it captured something. And through mechanical movements and sophisticated instruments, it began to send the signals to Earth. It went through violent meteorite shocks.

and planet magnetism. Look how interesting these sounds in the universe are. They are evidence of electromagnetic waves of the solar system. Look at the sound of space.

Soon you will see that it sounds like music, like an orchestra. Approaching even more from the planet, Voyager detected a mysterious phenomenon. Through very low frequencies of plasma waves, he speaks as if they were bells, as if they were "sinos". They even gave a name for this sound, "floresta".

Now, skimming just 70,000 miles of the seven clouds, Voyager flips between the planet and its rings. Crossing the ring plane, Voyager weathers a hailstorm as several hundred dust-like ice particles pound the craft each second.

Are you listening to a song in the background? Let's start. Dr. Frederick Scarf is giving the name of the scientists who did this experiment. Are you listening?

This is coming to minutes, how space has sound. It's there. Look how beautiful. This is in space. It's like a CD, it's there. You pass the reader, you will read and hear it. They are saying that this proves it.

Actually, this is just a way to illustrate that things don't just exist, but they exist in order. Can you take it off, please?

What would happen if the planet was without oxygen for 5 seconds? Look how everything is organized. 5 seconds without oxygen on the planet. Well, the day sky would be dark. Any metal object without treatment could be soldered instantly. The ground would literally disappear under your feet. Everyone at the beach would suffer from burns immediately. If we just stayed 5 seconds without oxygen, everyone's inner ear would explode.

Well, paper planes would fly farther.

We would spend less fuel, this time of crisis would be good, right? Extra oxygen would improve our cognition, attention and performance in physical activities. We would be happier and alert. But there would be gigantic insects. The size of the insects' bodies is determined by the proportion of oxygen in the atmosphere. So a spider would be the size of a bus. So, thanks to oxygen for being the way it is.

This is what we call fine adjustment. That is, in Newton's time, it was discovered that the universe had laws. In Einstein's time, the universe had energy. Now, in Watson's time, we also have DNA, which is information. So if the universe has energy, there has to be someone to detonate that energy. If it has a law, there is someone who established these laws. If it has DNA, it has information, so there has to be someone who put that information. And language? The evolutionists say that we came from an evolution, but how did the human being learn to speak?

Language can't be explained by evolution, language only comes through learning. If there is no God, how did the human being start to speak? And who spread the religious notion through all the cultures of the world? Everywhere you go in the world, they have a kind of belief in God.

It seems that it is in our DNA the idea that God exists. What kind of initial cause are we talking about? That cause that created the universe has to be supernatural nature, because it created the natural. It has to be powerful, it has to be eternal, it has to be omnipresent, because it created space, therefore it cannot be limited by space.

It has to be timeless and immutable. There is no timeless, but timeless in our time here, because it created time. It has to be immaterial because it transcends space. It has to be personal because it has intention, it is intelligent. It has to be necessary because everything else depends on it.

It has to be infinite and singular, because we don't have two infinites. It has to be diverse and, however, have unity. It has to have supreme intelligence. It has to have purpose. It has to be moral, because no moral law would exist without a moral being. And it has to demonstrate care, otherwise no moral law would have been given.

And when I go to the Bible, it is precisely this type of God that the Bible describes. God is supernatural, is powerful, is eternal, omnipresent, timeless, immutable, immaterial, is personal, necessary, infinite, diverse, but one in unity, intelligent, with moral purpose and caring. Exactly this is the God that the Bible presents and that, by philosophy, I know that it must exist. I finish my lecture here with just one parable for you to reflect. There was a group of rats that lived in the back of a piano.

And they would always hear the pianist "ta ta ta". And the rats liked to hear the sound and praise the pianist because they loved the song so much. But some rats became smarter than the others and began to invent theories that the pianist was not necessary to justify that song. And began to give explanations of how the song could be played without the existence of a pianist. And a rat said: "Look, here's the string question."

the theory of strings, to play with the physicists, right? There is a little mat that hits the string and it vibrates. Then the other rat perfected the theory of strings and said: "Look, each string has a different thickness, it produces different sounds." So the sounds are explained by the little mat that hits the string. We already proved it, we don't need a pianist to justify the music. The music happens because the strings are vibrated by hitting the strings. End of story. We ended up with the idea of ​​the existence of the pianist.

And so they would say their theories, becoming experts. And while that was happening, the pianist would keep playing his beautiful song. She asked if my work had not become a book. I'm trying to finish writing, but our schedule is such a complicated thing.

Just so you know, from here I'm going to Germany to do evangelism in Germany, from Germany I'm going to Israel, Israel-Egypt, then I come back and it's class and there's so much I have to do, but I've been working on a book for some time, the title will be "The Ceticism of Faith", because sometimes you have to doubt to believe. Thank you, see? We have to sit and put everything in the format there, but it's on the plans, see? Guys, but thank you very much, I hope you have understood the lecture and know that the greatest proof that God exists

and the transformation that He can cause in the life of a person. Amen? This is the biggest argument that no atheist can refuse. People were transformed by the power of this God, who is not a delusion, He is a real God. May God bless you. Let's sit down and pray, brother? Thank you. But it's recording there, go to the internet. Let's make a prayer then to this God who is real. Thank you, dear Father, for everything that you give us. Thank you for the study that we can do, this journey through philosophy, analysis, history, the Bible.

through psychology, finally, even through physics, and we come to the most rational conclusion that believing is still the best way. Believing in your existence is still the most sensible way to live this life. And how good it is to believe in the Lord, how good it is to believe in the Lord, how good it is to have the Lord as a guide, as a friend. Thank you very much, dear Father. Forgive our sins, Lord.

I don't ask in my name, but in the name of Jesus. Amen, sir.