Rational or Irrational, The Universe created itself

[Linusthe2nd]

Msgr. Charles Pope asks an excellent question in today’s commentary in a New Advent article this morning. Just why is it more rational to say that the universe created itsel?. Follow the link below and be sure to view the Colbert video at the end.

blog.adw.org/2014/06/just-a-simple-question-for-every-atheist-why-is-it-more-rationale-to-believe-the-universe-created-itself-than-to-believe-god-created-the-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-304468

Well, of course, to say that the universe created itself, or sustains itself, or accounts for its obvious order, for its own teleological unfolding is nothing but an act of faith. For it cannot be demonstrated that any of the above is true.

Linus2nd

 

[grannymh]

Msgr. Charles Pope asks an excellent question in today’s commentary in a New Advent article this morning. Just why is it more rational to say that the universe created itsel?. Follow the link below and be sure to view the Colbert video at the end.

blog.adw.org/2014/06/just-a-simple-question-for-every-atheist-why-is-it-more-rationale-to-believe-the-universe-created-itself-than-to-believe-god-created-the-universe/comment-page-1/#comment-304468

Well, of course, to say that the universe created itself, or sustains itself, or accounts for its obvious order, for its own teleological unfolding is nothing but an act of faith. For it cannot be demonstrated that any of the above is true.

Linus2nd

Maybe there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself. ???

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Maybe there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself. ???

But that would contradict Divine Revelation and Defined Dogma. So it is not possible.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There might not be a huge difference between saying that the universe created itself from nothing, and that God created the universe from nothing. In either case, there was nothing before the universe. In both cases the creation is beyond reason to fathom.

 

[balto]

Maybe there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself. ???

I don’t think that such a rational demonstration is even possible, given that to argue that the universe created itself would require a defense of the dreaded causa sui which is inherently unintelligible. Instead the secularist would have to argue that the universe is uncaused and therefore necessary in the same way that Aquinas argues that God is uncaused and necessary, but then it could easily be argued that the universe would also have to be purely actual and therefore unchanging and absolutely simple, neither of which properties the universe exhibits.

 

[balto]

There might not be a huge difference between saying that the universe created itself from nothing, and that God created the universe from nothing. In either case, there was nothing before the universe. In both cases the creation is beyond reason to fathom.

There is quite a huge difference between saying that the universe created itself from nothing and God created it from nothing. In the first case, it seems to me that you somehow have to just accept as a brute fact that the universe, understood as the collection of everything that exists, somehow arose from nothingness for no reason even though it is a contingent reality. In the second case, you are arguing that the ultimate source of reality is uncaused, unchanging, and absolutely simple (in addition to other things if you accept classical theism) and that the way this ultimate reality creates does not involve molding a pre-existing substance into something new, and that the process of creation does not introduce any change in the Creator Himself.

 

[Aeden]

The belief in god and the belief in the self sustaining universe both are predicated on a thought that can’t be demonstraetd: the idea that something existed throughout all time and has always existed. In the one case, the belief is that God always existed, in teh other, the belief is that the universe always existed. Either belief is equally rational and equally irrational as both are predicated on an impossible to demonstrate belief.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t think that such a rational demonstration is even possible, given that to argue that the universe created itself would require a defense of the dreaded causa sui which is inherently unintelligible. Instead the secularist would have to argue that the universe is uncaused and therefore necessary in the same way that Aquinas argues that God is uncaused and necessary, but then it could easily be argued that the universe would also have to be purely actual and therefore unchanging and absolutely simple, neither of which properties the universe exhibits.

Very good answer. Nothing in our experience causes itself because this involves a contradiction of the principle of non-contradiction - a thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same way. So, neither can the world cause itself. And it is nonsensical to say that it is just a " bold fact " that requires no explanation.

Linus2nd .

 

[Partinobodycula]

Rationality is not an objective concept. It’s based upon subjectively weighted information, interpretations, and conclusions. The ONLY objectively rational truth is solipsism, specifically “soft” solipsism, which holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. In other words, the only objective truth is, I am that I am. Beyond this, all truth is subjective.

You choose to believe what you want to believe, any claims to the rationality of those beliefs are purely illusory.

 

[boomerang]

Funny, I was just engaged in this very subject last night. To believe that the universe created itself, by itself, is far more irrational than believing that God created it. But then we get into the argument of “where did God come from?” and that’s when heads really start spinning! My thought processes end there.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Rationality is not an objective concept. It’s based upon subjectively weighted information, interpretations, and conclusions. The ONLY objectively rational truth is solipsism, specifically “soft” solipsism, which holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. In other words, the only objective truth is, I am that I am. Beyond this, all truth is subjective.

You choose to believe what you want to believe, any claims to the rationality of those beliefs are purely illusory.

Well, there is rationality and there is irationality. If all beliefs are purely illusory, how do we judge some people as sane and others as insane? Are sanity and insanity equally illusory?

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by grannymh
Maybe there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself. ???

I don’t think that such a rational demonstration is even possible, given that to argue that the universe created itself would require a defense of the dreaded causa sui which is inherently unintelligible. Instead the secularist would have to argue that the universe is uncaused and therefore necessary in the same way that Aquinas argues that God is uncaused and necessary, but then it could easily be argued that the universe would also have to be purely actual and therefore unchanging and absolutely simple, neither of which properties the universe exhibits.

hello balto, this is an excellent reply. I will just add a few of my own comments in reply to the subject of this thread and whether there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself.
Firstly, the universe cannot have created itself or be the cause of itself otherwise it would have to be prior to itself which is impossible. Also, that which does not exist cannot be the cause of what exists. Only that which exists can be the cause of something else to exist. Non-being cannot cause being. Thus as balto says, the materialist must assert the eternity of the world and that it is uncaused and necessary which as balto says, it could then be easily argued that the physical universe would have to be purely actual and therefore unchanging and absolutely simple, neither of which properties the universe exhibits.
Accordingly, even if one were to hold that the physical universe existed from all eternity, which St Thomas Aquinas says that this proposition cannot be philosophically demonstrated nor can it be demonstrated philosophically that the universe had a beginning, still it can be demonstrated with metaphysical certainty that the physical universe must have a First Efficient Cause and a First Unmoved Mover. Further, it can be demonstrated that the First Efficient Cause and the First Unmoved Mover which we call God is immaterial in nature and thus is not composed of matter and thus is not a body; that God is pure act and absolutley immutable; that God is eternal, infinite and all the rest.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

hello balto, this is an excellent reply. I will just add a few of my own comments in reply to the subject of this thread and whether there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself.
Firstly, the universe cannot have created itself or be the cause of itself otherwise it would have to be prior to itself which is impossible. Also, that which does not exist cannot be the cause of what exists. Only that which exists can be the cause of something else to exist. Non-being cannot cause being. Thus as balto says, the materialist must assert the eternity of the world and that it is uncaused and necessary which as balto says, it could then be easily argued that the physical universe would have to be purely actual and therefore unchanging and absolutely simple, neither of which properties the universe exhibits.
Accordingly, even if one were to hold that the physical universe existed from all eternity, which St Thomas Aquinas says that this proposition cannot be philosophically demonstrated nor can it be demonstrated philosophically that the universe had a beginning, still it can be demonstrated with metaphysical certainty that the physical universe must have a First Efficient Cause and a First Unmoved Mover. Further, it can be demonstrated that the First Efficient Cause and the First Unmoved Mover which we call God is immaterial in nature and thus is not composed of matter and thus is not a body; that God is pure act and absolutley immutable; that God is eternal, infinite and all the rest.

You and Blato have done well, I will have to pay more attention to the thinking of you both.
One thing I have never been able to understand is how the Unmoved Mover moves the lower substances ( Aristotle’s view ) of this world without causing their existence? If you or any one else has an explanation I would like to see it. Some how I think the answer must be somewhere in Thomas’ Commentary on A’s Physics and though I have gone over this several times I can’t find the answer. But of course, the Physics has to be one of A’s more obtuse works.

Linus2nd

 

[balto]

hello balto, this is an excellent reply. I will just add a few of my own comments in reply to the subject of this thread and whether there is a possibility for a rational demonstration that the universe created itself.

Thank you! I agree with your comments as well. It seems to me that the dispute isn’t really over whether God exists or not, but over what His attributes are and what to call Him.

Linusthe2nd:

You and Blato have done well, I will have to pay more attention to the thinking of you both.
One thing I have never been able to understand is how the Unmoved Mover moves the lower substances ( Aristotle’s view ) of this world without causing their existence? If you or any one else has an explanation I would like to see it. Some how I think the answer must be somewhere in Thomas’ Commentary on A’s Physics and though I have gone over this several times I can’t find the answer. But of course, the Physics has to be one of A’s more obtuse works.

Thank you also for your compliments. I’m not sure specifically where the difficulty lies so you may have to elaborate more. I thought that the main thing that God does is cause essences to be united with an act of existence, and since God is eternally present to all moments in time He causes this union in every substance, even in ones that lie in the future from our perspective. Maybe Aristotle doesn’t discuss it well enough because the essence-esse distinction was one of Aquinas’ novelties?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Funny, I was just engaged in this very subject last night. To believe that the universe created itself, by itself, is far more irrational than believing that God created it. But then we get into the argument of “where did God come from?” and that’s when heads really start spinning! My thought processes end there.

Since God is eternal by definition, God did not come from anywhere.

It is because God is eternal that our heads ought to spin when we think about Him.

 

[Richca]

You and Blato have done well, I will have to pay more attention to the thinking of you both.
One thing I have never been able to understand is how the Unmoved Mover moves the lower substances ( Aristotle’s view ) of this world without causing their existence? If you or any one else has an explanation I would like to see it. Some how I think the answer must be somewhere in Thomas’ Commentary on A’s Physics and though I have gone over this several times I can’t find the answer. But of course, the Physics has to be one of A’s more obtuse works.

Linus2nd

hello Linus and thank you for your comments. I’m not exactly sure what you mean by your question but I will just answer with a few comments. The genious of St Thomas Aquinas was that he was able to systematize into a coherent whole the philosophical writings from many different sources such as Plato, Aristotle, Christian philosophers such as St Augustine and Dionysius and St Albert the Great his teacher, the Arabian and Jewish philosphers all in which there were fragments of truth we might say but also in which there may have been some errors or truths or ideas that needed further explanation. Aquinas was guided by God’s revelation and the Catholic faith without which philosophical reasoning can fall into many errors as the history of philosophy shows.
In regard to your question, God is both the first cause of the change and movement of creatures as well as of their very existence.

 

[polytropos]

The ONLY objectively rational truth is solipsism, specifically “soft” solipsism, which holds that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. In other words, the only objective truth is, I am that I am. Beyond this, all truth is subjective.

“Statements in the English language can be used to express objectively truths.” That is a truth about the external world outside of one’s own mind; if the English language does not exist outside of one’s own mind (ie. among an English language community), then “I am that I am” doesn’t mean anything.

Is it an “objectively rational truth”? If not, then it is possibly the case that “I am that I am” is not an objective truth. If so, then “I am that I am” is not the only objective truth.

Regarding the position that “nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind,” I believe it is not just not the only objective truth, but that it is false. Lots of people know, for instance, that they have hands. That isn’t to say that they know that they know–but second-order knowledge is not necessary for knowledge in general.