Here I criticize non-Catholic explanations of the miraculous evidence and respond to objections to Catholicism. Like the show? Help it grow! Consider becoming a patron (thanks!): https://www.patreon.com/majestyofreason If you wanna make a one-time donation or tip (thanks!): https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/josephcschmid Check out my FULL COMPREHENSIVE CASE playlist! Link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOCzKNqINMWs FULL RESOURCE DOCUMENT: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qrECmtjhrnqJYtiOxOihJlCrNCPN_YDJ7hLIp-0U4Kg/edit?usp=sharing OUTLINE 00:00 Intro 01:53 Barrier Removal 02:50 Barrier #1: Non-Catholic explanations of miracles 03:07 Selection effect 27:08 Generic theist accommodationism 37:06 Spirits or aliens running amok 50:01 Protestantism 50:28 Protestant Accommodationist Denial 1:04:40 Protestant Accommodationist Acceptance 1:07:00 Protestant Demonism 1:46:48 Meta-Narrative Problem for Protestantism 2:12:58 Orthodoxy 2:19:57 Other religions 2:29:55 Barrier #2: Theistic problems 2:31:34 Evolutionary animal suffering 2:46:50 Puzzles about God 2:47:06 Stone paradox 2:48:10 Omnipotence vs. moral perfection 2:49:03 Divine foreknowledge vs. human freedom 2:52:02 Barrier #3: Moral problems 3:34:25 Barrier #4: Hell 4:25:40 Barrier #5: Biblical problems 4:45:09 Barrier #6: Magisterial problems 4:46:05 No salvation outside the Church 5:17:19 Religious liberty 5:30:47 Exsurge domine 5:34:55 Marian dogmas 5:38:11 Barrier #7: Theological problems 5:38:35 Trinitarianism 5:41:24 Incarnation 5:43:28 Model of God 5:53:08 Purgatory 6:02:05 Barrier #8: Catholicism is so complex 6:19:35 Barrier #9: Psychological and social barriers 6:24:33 Part 7: Key Realizations 7:00:27 Part 8: Existential Resonance 7:08:10 Part 9: Metanoia 7:14:33 Part 10: My Challenge to You 7:23:44 Part 11: Conclusion CORRECTIONS AND ADDENDA: (1) I asserted that “neither geocentrism nor young-earth creationism ever constituted Catholic doctrine”, but apparently there’s some dispute about whether the theological content of the March 5, 1616 Index decree is altogether non-magisterial, or whether it counts as an act of the ordinary, non-universal, fallible magisterium. Regardless, it was certainly never definitive teaching, which suffices for my analogy. (2) I described nettles as tingling, but it would be more accurate to say it’s a mildly uncomfortable stinging. For more on this, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSKjl0gAjM4 (3) In describing Pawl's view on the incarnation starting around 5:42:15, I should not have said that he cashes out the *meanings* of the relevant putatively contradictory predicates. I should have said that he provides *truth conditions* for the *application* of those predicates. (I should also have clarified that this isn't universally quantifying over *all* Christological predicates.) Here's the corrected version: In short, we can offer truth conditions for the applications of these putatively contradictory predicates that are *nature relative* – for instance, ‘is timeless’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists outside time, and ‘is temporal’ is true of Christ just in case Christ has a nature which exists in time. So, being timeless and temporal (where these predicates have the aforementioned truth conditions) is, indeed, contradictory for any being with only one nature, but if a being has two natures (which doesn’t seem logically inconsistent in itself), then that being can be both timeless and temporal in the senses relevant to Christological predication. (4) I’m somewhat uncertain as to the compatibility of Maritain’s model with the authoritative teaching of the Church. Recall Maritain’s view: after a finite period of pains of sense, the damned experience complete natural happiness while retaining the pain of loss (a sorrowful, grieving awareness of the supernatural beatitude permanently lost through their sin). I’ve been made aware that this view is at least similar to views expressed in Mivart’s works that were condemned by the Church. BUT they're not identical. So, I just want to emphasize that Maritain’s model is theologically speculative and not *clearly* ruled out by the Magisterium, but it’s also not something for which we presently have sufficient grounds to claim assured compatibility with the authoritative judgment behind the Mivart condemnation. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. ❤️‍🔥AMDG❤️‍🔥 THE USUAL... Follow the Majesty of Reason podcast! https://open.spotify.com/show/4Nda5uNcGselvKphtKSKvH My website: https://josephschmid.com My PhilPeople profile: https://philpeople.org/profiles/joseph-schmid