Everything that started to Exist, must have an External Cause for its Existence

[Spock]

It’s not what the Catechism is for.

Oh, brother. So now you are the authority about the cathecism, too? Last time I heard the cathecism was there to help to understand the catholic faith. It is there to explain what catholicism is all about. But it fails to help those who have serious questions. It is cheap to declare that there is a “proof”, and neglect to show what that “proof” is.

Spock is just engaging in rhetoric.

Nonsense. I am pointing out some of the holes in the cathecism. And here a few more “holes”. Since the Bible plays an instrumental role in catholicism, at the very least there should be a definitive list of which verses are to understood literally and which ones should be taken allegorically - and if allegorical, what do those verses mean? Where is that list? It should be part of the cathecism, too. Where is a list of the “unquestionable” dogmas? Where is the list of the “infallible utterances” of the popes?

 

[wanstronian]

Ah, so I was correct.

Actually, you weren’t. I don’t use Godless Geeks or Youtube. I’m just making the point that good information is available on the internet, as well as bad. Just like the newspapers - they’re a valuable source of information, as long as you don’t swallow everything unquestioningly.

My man, it is time to get off the internet. It is, with rare exceptions, an intellectual wasteland. Do you really think YouTube or, lol, Godless Geeks or what have you are worthwhile resources for such pursuits? It is time to get professional, published content from both sides. When you do, I promise that you will be just as dismissive as the garbage of net atheists as I am. You don’t raise atomist objections (i.e., “but nothing has even been observed to begin to exist because the organizations of matter that we consist of have always existed”) to Craig’s version of the Kalam without having read his books, which cover them.

To state that the internet is an “intellectual wasteland” is a bit strong, but maybe you’re qualified to comment. Have you read every available resource on the internet, compared it to an appropriate number of published works to ascertain its credibility, then built up a respectable data set and performed a meta-analysis, all alongside a team of others who hold different (or no) belief systems, to eliminate bias? If not, what qualifies you to pass judgement on the intellectual merit of its content?

There are, of course, bad atheist sites, just as there are bad theist sites. The existence of a few bad sites isn’t a reason to discard the whole gamut of available information. Many published works are also available on the internet. Do they somehow become intellectually bereft during the translation into electronic form?

I can sympathize, though, if cash is short. If you really want to put your arguments (and ours) to the test w/o having to spend the cash, you can start by visiting professional blogs like Feser’s. Strike up a conversation with the commenters, most of whom are PhD’s. CAF is good for general questions to get us started, but to really get down to the nitty gritty, it’s these kind of people you want to get to know better.

It’s ironic that you call the internet an “intellectual wasteland,” then in the same post recommend that I visit Ed Feser’s blog! Or are Catholic Apologist sites immune to the “intellectual wasteland” accusation? What atheist sites would you consider to be on an intellectual par with Feser’s, which you appear to hold in high regard?

Or how about this - instead of being so patronising, why don’t you just tell me why my posted objections to the KCA are wrong? You’ve presumably read WLC’s books, so you’re in an ideal position to contribute. If you believe I get all my ideas from the “intellectual wasteland” of the internet, you should have no trouble destroying them.

W

p.s. For the record, none of my objections to the KCA come from websites.

 

[JDaniel]

plinko:

Hawking says in his book “The Grand Design” that, given the existence of gravity, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” according to an excerpt published Thursday in The Times of London.

“Spontaneous creation is the reason why there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist,” he writes in the excerpt.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper [fuse] and set the universe going,” he writes.

So, before there was anything else, there was gravity? Before STEM, there was gravity? How could that be? Does the word “god” = the word “gravity?”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

“Given the existence of gravity”

a (1) : the gravitational attraction of the mass of the earth, the moon, or a planet for bodies at or near its surface (2) : a fundamental physical force that is responsible for interactions which occur because of mass between particles, between aggregations of matter (as stars and planets), and between particles (as photons) and aggregations of matter, that is 10-39 times the strength of the strong force, and that extends over infinite distances but is dominant over macroscopic distances especially between aggregations of matter —called also gravitation, gravitational force — compare electromagnetism 2a, strong force, weak force

Regarding the part that I bolded, I wonder what sort of dialectic was used here? Did they mean, "If, in fact, we could measure the pull of gravity from an infinite distance, we would find that there would be some however small amount of pull? This is not axiomatic. An axiom, or even a reasonable conclusion, must be able to eliminate the dialectic construct. This is a conjecture based upon imaginations. Well, it’s just a definition from some glorious dictionary.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Everything that begins to exist must have a cause of its existence

This definitely seems more plausible than not. Things popping into existence out of nothing just doesn’t seem very plausible, (actually it sounds more like magic than science or serious metaphysics) and anyway the causal principle is continually affirmed in our experience. I’ll mention one consideration though, that I have not seen mentioned yet,

“If something could come into existence from nothing, it is inexplicable why anything and everything doesn’t come into existence from nothing.”

This seems a fair enough point. The universe is some sort of exception to the causal principle? Doesn’t strike me as terribly plausible.

But it is an exception, Danserr. The universe was “created.” All other causal chains were begun by some efficacious cause working on pre-existing stuff. The universe came to be where there was nothing before. And, it could be further said that God had to pull together all of His immense power to accomplish it. (The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Chap. VI - God the Creator) I really don’t think that the Act of Creation was as simple as a mere causal event. (Not to degrade causal event chains that have their impetus in God, anyway. Such as the coming to be of an embryo, including the prior cooperation of the parents.)

However, I do heartily agree with your interesting diversion, from a “causal” point of view, though.

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Regarding the part that I bolded, I wonder what sort of dialectic was used here? Did they mean, "If, in fact, we could measure the pull of gravity from an infinite distance, we would find that there would be some however small amount of pull? This is not axiomatic. An axiom, or even a reasonable conclusion, must be able to eliminate the dialectic construct. This is a conjecture based upon imaginations. Well, it’s just a definition from some glorious dictionary.

God bless,
jd

It is not possible that they mean an “actual infinite” in a philosophical context. They probably mean it in a different sense like for example saying that if a ball is in a particular situation where the hill is infinitely steep it will roll on infinitely; they mean a potential infinite. Science cannot measure a philosophical infinite and thus cannot employ the concept it in a direct scientific sense.

 

[wanstronian]

Actually, you weren’t. I don’t use Godless Geeks or Youtube. I’m just making the point that good information is available on the internet, as well as bad. Just like the newspapers - they’re a valuable source of information, as long as you don’t swallow everything unquestioningly.

To state that the internet is an “intellectual wasteland” is a bit strong, but maybe you’re qualified to comment. Have you read every available resource on the internet, compared it to an appropriate number of published works to ascertain its credibility, then built up a respectable data set and performed a meta-analysis, all alongside a team of others who hold different (or no) belief systems, to eliminate bias? If not, what qualifies you to pass judgement on the intellectual merit of its content?

There are, of course, bad atheist sites, just as there are bad theist sites. The existence of a few bad sites isn’t a reason to discard the whole gamut of available information. Many published works are also available on the internet. Do they somehow become intellectually bereft during the translation into electronic form?

It’s ironic that you call the internet an “intellectual wasteland,” then in the same post recommend that I visit Ed Feser’s blog! Or are Catholic Apologist sites immune to the “intellectual wasteland” accusation? What atheist sites would you consider to be on an intellectual par with Feser’s, which you appear to hold in high regard?

Or how about this - instead of being so patronising, why don’t you just tell me why my posted objections to the KCA are wrong? You’ve presumably read WLC’s books, so you’re in an ideal position to contribute. If you believe I get all my ideas from the “intellectual wasteland” of the internet, you should have no trouble destroying them.

W

p.s. For the record, none of my objections to the KCA come from websites.

Hmm, it seems that Windfish has suddenly found other things to do…