Rebuttal: Karlo Broussard's False "A God-Bathed World" argument

[ethereality]

Karlo Broussard fails to defend the argument from contingency here:

But, what if the cause of the tree’s act of being—call it Cause 1—doesn’t have its existence by nature? Well, then it too would need an existential cause to remain in existence (let’s call that Cause 2).

Notice that in this series the tree’s act of being is dependent not only on the existential causal activity of Cause 1 but also on the existential causal activity of Cause 2, since Cause 1 could not cause the tree to exist without the simultaneous existential influence of Cause 2. Cause 1 would be an instrument of Cause 2, and without Cause 2, Cause 1 would not exist—and consequently the tree would not exist.[2]

Could this type of series of causes of the tree’s act of being regress infinitely? In other words, is it possible for the tree’s act of being to be caused here and now by a series of causes where every cause derives its existence from something else?

This is no more possible than a caboose receiving motion from an infinite number of interlinked train cars without an engine car. In an ordinary series of interlinked train cars, the engine car is the real cause (primary cause) of the caboose’s motion, with the interlinked cars being merely instruments of the engine car.

Asserting that reality is causally like a a train is simply and demonstrably false: The train is, as he says, “interlinked”: It is one event. Reality, in contrast, is a series of separate events. Regarding Karlo’s tree, we see that it grows from a sapling, from a seed receiving sun, rain, and soil nutrients. The seed may have been planted by a human, or it may have fallen from another tree, and we do not have to see the human planting the seed to know that the tree grew from the seed. Hence these are separate events. It is logically false to equate it to a train whereby an engine pushes everything in front of it. The tree is explained by the seed. If you want to know what explains the seed, you identify its cause, e.g. the human or the previous tree. And so on, you ask one question and it is answered by the previous moment in time. For each event you want an answer to, you look at the preceding moment in time. You do not identify “the first” moment before declaring that your question has been answered. To do so is patently ridiculous: “Why did I fail this test at school?” “Because God created the universe!” Clearly we do not think this way. Rather, for each event we want a causal explanation, we look at what caused that particular event.

[continued 1/2]

 

[ethereality]

[continued 2/2]

Hence it is possible to have an infinite series of events, as long as each thing that begins to exist is caused by something pre-existing it in spacetime. It is logically coherent to suppose a series of events extending backwards in spacetime with no “first” moment, precisely because we do not need a ‘first’ moment to explain whatever event interests us. Whether this series is actually infinite or finite is a question of cosmology that we don’t have an answer to, despite Tim Staples’ misrepresentation of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. Please stop giving Catholic Answers money to enable Karlo Broussard to continue confusing people with false philosophy.

 

[MPat]

Asserting that reality is causally like a a train is simply and demonstrably false: The train is, as he says, “interlinked”: It is one event. Reality, in contrast, is a series of separate events. Regarding Karlo’s tree, we see that it grows from a sapling, from a seed receiving sun, rain, and soil nutrients.

The “train” corresponds to what is called “per se” causal series, while the causal series you constructed for the tree would be “per accidens” causal series. See, let’s say, Edward Feser: Edwards on infinite causal series for more details.

You might note that Broussard talks about tree remaining in existence while you talk about its coming into being. You are talking about different things.

 

[ethereality]

Broussard conflates the two, or else he fails to properly distinguish them
in his article:

But obviously there was a time when the tree didn’t exist (it had to come
into being from a seed or sapling),

The reason I was talking about that is because he was talking about that,
contrary to your assertion.

I can appreciate the distinction between the questions, “How did that tree
come to be here?” and “What is needed to keep that tree in existence each
nanosecond that we observe it?” You argue that he’s focused on the second
question, but rather he conflates the two questions by insisting its
existence depends on something temporally prior to it:

Perhaps the tree gave itself its own act of being? […] The only other
option is that the tree’s act of being comes from a cause outside itself.
Such a cause is called an *existential *cause (a cause that gives
existence).

You may respond, “He doesn’t mean temporally prior to, but logically prior
to”, and in this case I must insist that you define what that means. If you
want to point to a causal agent coexisting external to the tree, you must
identify it.

You must also define what “act of being” means; this seems a fundamental
confusion in this article. It cannot be assumed that the tree’s existence,
once it is caused to exist, doesn’t endure as a brute fact. Broussard
failed to refute the idea of brute facts in an earlier superficial article
(in which he neglected a fatal objection to his central argument). If
quarks and energy fields exist as brute facts, then there is no need to
invoke thr brute fact “God”.

 

[ethereality]

Reading Feser’s blogpost there, it’s not clear to me what “per se” series
Broussard regards in this article. He seems to be begging the question to
conclude there is one that terminates with God.

There is no apparent part of the tree or its system that results in the
tree being used as an instrument. Seeking an explanation for the tree, the
“per accidens” sapling series I specified appears all that is necessary.

 

[MPat]

Broussard conflates the two, or else he fails to properly distinguish them
in his article:

In that case you can at most prove that he is either wrong or unclear.

The reason I was talking about that is because he was talking about that,
contrary to your assertion.

Not in the part you cited at first.

And in the part you cited now, he is arguing that a tree is not something that exists necessarily.

You may respond, “He doesn’t mean temporally prior to, but logically prior
to”, and in this case I must insist that you define what that means. If you
want to point to a causal agent coexisting external to the tree, you must
identify it.

Um, that is not what “define” means. And no, we do not have to identify a cause to claim that it exists. Nor even to show that it exists. Non-constructive proofs aren’t unheard of.

Also, a cause has been identified:

You must also define what “act of being” means; this seems a fundamental
confusion in this article.

Define “act of being”? Um, “existence”? That looks pretty basic to me, I’m not sure I’ll be able to do much better, unless you are going to explain what is it that you do not understand.

It cannot be assumed that the tree’s existence,
once it is caused to exist, doesn’t endure as a brute fact.

Of course it can.

Would you agree that the conclusion would follow with this assumption (that brute facts are impossible)?

Broussard
failed to refute the idea of brute facts in an earlier superficial article
(in which he neglected a fatal objection to his central argument).

It cannot be assumed that he failed to refute anything?

Seriously, would you like to give a link to the thread where you discuss that, or something like that?

There is no apparent part of the tree or its system that results in the
tree being used as an instrument.

Um, it is not the tree that is being used as an instrument, but other caused. The tree is the effect.

 

[ethereality]

My computer froze, so some of my response was lost. I’m typing up what I took a picture of…

Define “act of being”? Um, “existence”? That looks pretty basic to me

If ‘existence’ is all we’re talking about, then my “per accidens” explanation is all that is needed to account for the tree’s existence, and we’re done. Karlo’s wrong. QED

[Of course we can assume there are no natural brute facts.]

Once again I’m tempted to throw up my hands and leave you to your happy beliefs. If you want to help me to a knowledge of God, then don’t waste my time with simple contradictions with no explanation.

Would you agree that the conclusion would follow with this assumption (that brute facts are impossible)?

No, in part because God Himself is a brute fact. (“Why has God always existed?” “He just has.” “How can God be existence itself?” “He just is.”)

Moreover, logically you are begging the question, i.e. assuming your conclusion, to assume that natural brute facts are impossible. To assume that natural brute facts are impossible is equivalent to assuming the existence of a supernatural brute fact (i.e. God) or else absurdity. Clearly, that is not a logical argument or philosophical proof: Assuming your conclusion is childish make-believe.

Seriously, would you like to give a link to the thread where you discuss that, or something like that?

No. I posted a comment to that webpage once already, and Catholic Answers ignored it and later deleted all such comments migrating to their new website. I really don’t have time to waste trying to make sense of apparently bad arguments. Moreover, you have yet to address my objections to this article.

it is not the tree that is being used as an instrument, but other caused. The tree is the effect.

I don’t know what you mean to say here, but again, there is not clearly any explanation of the tree needed other than that which caused it to exist, i.e. the planted seed: At first glance, no explanation is required for ‘why’ or ‘how’ the tree continues to exist, because, like Newton’s (first?) law of motion, it appears a basic feature of this universe for objects to remain in being until acted upon by other beings. You must first show that objects’ continuing existence isn’t a brute fact (of something natural like a quark) before we need to appeal to supernatural causes for their endurance in spacetime.

 

[MPat]

If ‘existence’ is all we’re talking about, then my “per accidens” explanation is all that is needed to account for the tree’s existence, and we’re done. Karlo’s wrong. QED

You have yet to demonstrate that.

Once again I’m tempted to throw up my hands and leave you to your happy beliefs. If you want to help me to a knowledge of God, then don’t waste my time with simple contradictions with no explanation.

Do you really want to claim that “assuming” is hard work?

For yes, I really am just saying that adding an assumption is not hard. And yes, it is perfectly legitimate to see where adding an assumption leads.

Not to mention that you aren’t really in position to demand demonstrations from anyone. Just look:

No. I posted a comment to that webpage once already, and Catholic Answers ignored it and later deleted all such comments migrating to their new website. I really don’t have time to waste trying to make sense of apparently bad arguments. Moreover, you have yet to address my objections to this article.

Do you really expect that the comments that are not available for checking have to be taken seriously?

Maybe, if you do not have time to reproduce them, you should not waste time to refer to them?

And if you do, why do you expect others to invest time in giving you an answer longer than “You’re wrong.”?

No, in part because God Himself is a brute fact. (“Why has God always existed?” “He just has.” “How can God be existence itself?” “He just is.”)

If the assumption that brute facts do not exist has really been added, that is impossible.

So, you just couldn’t bring yourself to explore what would happen with that assumption here?

And, of course, “Why has God always existed?” has an answer “Because it is His nature to exist.”, not “He just has.”. God is not a brute fact.

Moreover, logically you are begging the question, i.e. assuming your conclusion, to assume that natural brute facts are impossible. To assume that natural brute facts are impossible is equivalent to assuming the existence of a supernatural brute fact (i.e. God) or else absurdity. Clearly, that is not a logical argument or philosophical proof: Assuming your conclusion is childish make-believe.

So, we have agreed that if brute facts can’t exist, God exists.

That’s it. I don’t think it is possible to achieve more here. I wasn’t sure if even that was achievable.

Now, if you would be willing to offer objections to the proposition “Brute facts can’t exist.” (here or in another thread), we’d be able to discuss them. But you are not willing - and thus there isn’t much left to discuss.

 

[Scowler]

And, of course, “Why has God always existed?” has an answer “Because it is His nature to exist.”, not “He just has.”. God is not a brute fact.

Heh! The next question is “Why is it his nature to exist?” And to that the answer would be: “It just is”… which is the acceptance of a brute fact. Any explanation is just pointing to a prior fact. Since these chains of explanations cannot lead to infinity, the “anchor” must be a brute fact. Every causal chain starts with a brute fact.

 

[ethereality]

Thank you, Scowler.

MPat, are you encouraging me to make assumptions? Assumptions generally
thwart attempts at knowledge by rendering conclusions mere belief: One must
demonstrate assumptions for the belief to become knowledge. Hence I don’t
want to make assumptions: I want to know.

I regret that you don’t see my point about per accidens series explaining
the tree’s existence, but again: You must give the critical thinker reason
to think the tree’s atoms require some supernatural cause. Broussard failed
to do this, yet you seem satisfied with what he wrote… He claimed the
quarks must be continually given an act of being, but begs the question
here because there’s no reason to think they would “lose this act” after
being put into place through natural processes.

 

[MPat]

Heh! The next question is “Why is it his nature to exist?” And to that the answer would be: “It just is”… which is the acceptance of a brute fact. Any explanation is just pointing to a prior fact. Since these chains of explanations cannot lead to infinity, the “anchor” must be a brute fact. Every causal chain starts with a brute fact.

Well, let’s look at the question “Why is it [God’s] nature to exist?”. If we expand it, it becomes “Why does someone whose nature is to exist has nature that is to exist?”. As we can see, that’s a stupid question. If necessary, we can answer “Because A is A, for any A.”, which is not a brute fact. It is not a “fact”, but a tautology.

MPat, are you encouraging me to make assumptions?

Yep.

Assumptions generally
thwart attempts at knowledge by rendering conclusions mere belief:

Of course they do nothing like that.

Unless, of course, you actually forget that they are still assumptions. But I do not encourage you to do that.

And, of course, you still did make many assumptions anyway (for example, that “Assumptions generally thwart attempts at knowledge”), and didn’t notice that. Make them explicitly, and you will notice.

I regret that you don’t see my point about per accidens series explaining
the tree’s existence, but again: You must give the critical thinker reason
to think the tree’s atoms require some supernatural cause.

And where do I find that “critical thinker”?

Also, we can see that you again simply make an assumption that a cause is not necessary, but do that implicitly, fail to notice that, and act as if that was something more than an assumption.

Don’t do that. At this point you do not know if the cause is necessary. Thus, if you want to know, you will have to investigate. Make an assumption that the cause is not necessary (explicitly), see where it leads. Then make an assumption that the cause is necessary, see where it leads.

Not to mention that you should think what might count as a cause. For you just listed a good candidate for the cause of tree’s continuing existence: “the tree’s atoms”. Remove the atoms, and the tree will cease to exist.

One of your problems here is that you keep talking about “supernatural cause”. For now, any cause will do, “natural” or “supernatural” (speaking of which, those terms haven’t been defined yet).

Broussard failed
to do this, yet you seem satisfied with what he wrote… He claimed the
quarks must be continually given an act of being, but begs the question
here because there’s no reason to think they would “lose this act” after
being put into place through natural processes.

I see no reason to discuss an essay that hasn’t even been linked.

 

[Scowler]

Well, let’s look at the question “Why is it [God’s] nature to exist?”. If we expand it, it becomes “Why does someone whose nature is to exist has nature that is to exist?”. As we can see, that’s a stupid question. If necessary, we can answer “Because A is A, for any A.”, which is not a brute fact. It is not a “fact”, but a tautology.

Slow down. “A is A” is the first law of logic, which is the basis of thinking. Everything is itself.

Actually your expansion is incorrect. It should be something like: “On what grounds can anyone assert that God exists, because its nature is that it exists?” At best it would be “let’s define God into existence”.

But you neglected the important part. Explanations cannot extend to infinity. Any chain of explanations must start somewhere, and that starting point is a brute fact, something that cannot be “explained”, and does not need explanation - precisely because it is self-evident, because it is a “brute fact”. The believers say that God is the basis of all explanations. Skeptics say that the universe is the basis of all explanations. Formally there is no difference. However, there is a huge difference - because the universe is readily accessible to our senses, while God is not.

The word: “universe” literally means “everything that exists”, so it cannot be explained. As Stephen Wright said: “you can’t have everything. where would you put it?” Now you could say that the universe is composed of two parts, the physical and the “non-physical” (sometimes called spiritual - whatever that might be). But then you would need to argue, why does the “non-physical” have precedence, and how would you substantiate that a non-physical part of reality exists? How could you substantiate the “non-physical” which is inaccessible to the senses?

 

[exnihilo]

Explanations cannot extend to infinity. Any chain of explanations must start somewhere, and that starting point is a brute fact, something that cannot be “explained”, and does not need explanation - precisely because it is self-evident, because it is a “brute fact”.

Explanation here means an explanation for existence. Everything must have an explanation for its existence. The explanation can be external or internal. That which must exist and has always existed is God. The explanation for His existence is intrinsic.

Why do you think explanations can’t be eternal? Do you believe things pop into existence uncaused? Because you either believe something always existed or something popped into existence.

The word: “universe” literally means “everything that exists”, so it cannot be explained. As Stephen Wright said: “you can’t have everything. where would you put it?” Now you could say that the universe is composed of two parts, the physical and the “non-physical” (sometimes called spiritual - whatever that might be). But then you would need to argue, why does the “non-physical” have precedence, and how would you substantiate that a non-physical part of reality exists? How could you substantiate the “non-physical” which is inaccessible to the senses?

The old atheists said the universe always existed. They did so because for the universe to come into existence would mean it had a cause. This is because things can’t pop into existence. Or at least if they do then we don’t have an ordered universe. We would have a universe far more ‘miraculous’ than any Christian ever claimed.

A steady state universe could have always existed. Science, which initially rejected the Big Bang as inserting God, has now settled on the universe coming into existence at a certain point in time. This either means the universe popped into existence out of nothing, which is magical, or something caused the universe. If something caused the universe it would itself not be physical.

 

[Scowler]

Why do you think explanations can’t be eternal? Do you believe things pop into existence uncaused? Because you either believe something always existed or something popped into existence.

Your usage of “always” is unwarranted. Time is the property of the “STEM”, the space-time-energy-matter universe. It is nonsensical to speak of “before” or “outside” the STEM, just like it would be nonsensical to speak of the “other side” of the Mobius strip, or the “inside” of the Klein bottle.

Physically, we have examples of matter-antimatter particles “popping” into existence. But more obvious is that we create new causal chains - as long as we postulate the existence of “free will”. Every new causal chain is something that is “uncaused” by the existing state of the affairs.

There was a time when the metaphysical idea of “absolute” space and time were postulated. This metaphysics was rendered incorrect by Einstein’s relativity. This kind of “always” and “came into existence” is a leftover of the old metaphysical picture of Aristotle and Newton. Even though they were geniuses of their time, their metaphysics has been proven outdated and invalid.

 

[exnihilo]

Your usage of “always” is unwarranted. Time is the property of the “STEM”, the space-time-energy-matter universe. It is nonsensical to speak of “before” or “outside” the STEM, just like it would be nonsensical to speak of the “other side” of the Mobius strip, or the “inside” of the Klein bottle.

Always doesn’t imply change. Time is change. Always can be absent change i.e. time.

Physically, we have examples of matter-antimatter particles “popping” into existence. But more obvious is that we create new causal chains - as long as we postulate the existence of “free will”. Every new causal chain is something that is “uncaused” by the existing state of the affairs.

They don’t pop into existence out of nothing. New causal chains aren’t creating something out of nothing.

 

[Scowler]

They don’t pop into existence out of nothing. New causal chains aren’t creating something out of nothing.

Nothing is just an abstraction, not a metaphysical entity. The sentence: “nothing exists” is a linguistic absurdity.

The new causal chains are uncaused by the existing state of affairs. The expression of “ex nihilo creation” is a linguistic nonsense. You postulate that God exists, and he “created” the rest. Therefore there was no “nothing” not even according to you. But you cannot demonstrate that God exists. Even the word “exists” is undefined in this context. There is “physical existence”, something that we experience all the time. Then there is “conceptual existence”, which can refer to something else, but does not actually exist ontologically. This “conceptual existence” does not (and cannot) interact with the physical realm. Finally, you postulate a “non-physical” (spiritual???), yet physically active kind of existence. But you are unable to provide evidence to demonstrate this existence.

 

[exnihilo]

Nothing is just an abstraction, not a metaphysical entity. The sentence: “nothing exists” is a linguistic absurdity.

Nothing is the absence of anything. It isn’t an absurdity at all. It is something any of us can conceive of. It isn’t the case that nothing exists but we can understand nothingness.

The new causal chains are uncaused by the existing state of affairs. The expression of “ex nihilo creation” is a linguistic nonsense. You postulate that God exists, and he “created” the rest. Therefore there was no “nothing” not even according to you. But you cannot demonstrate that God exists. Even the word “exists” is undefined in this context. There is “physical existence”, something that we experience all the time. Then there is “conceptual existence”, which can refer to something else, but does not actually exist ontologically. This “conceptual existence” does not (and cannot) interact with the physical realm. Finally, you postulate a “non-physical” (spiritual???), yet physically active kind of existence. But you are unable to provide evidence to demonstrate this existence.

Right, theists say there always was something. That something is God. Exists isn’t being used in an unusual way. God exists in that he is.

There are several proofs of God. They do demonstrate that God exists.

 

[ethereality]

I must try to limit what I say, so I will try only to answer questions asked of me and indicate where I think someone is misunderstanding …

You have yet to demonstrate that.

I give up trying to explain matters to you, because somehow you are not understanding me, and not clearly communicating why you disagree.

Do you really want to claim that “assuming” is hard work?

I’m not claiming that making an assumption is hard work. Rather, I disagree with your apparent epistemology of seeing which assumptions lead to favorable conclusions and then choosing whatever is most favorable. Rather, I try to look at reality and make conclusions based on my experiences and my senses, because these are fundamental to action and communication.

Well, let’s look at the question “Why is it [God’s] nature to exist?”. If we expand it, it becomes “Why does someone whose nature is to exist has nature that is to exist?”

This is incorrect, as has been pointed out. Basically, nearly every conclusion MPat makes is incorrect.

For you just listed a good candidate for the cause of tree’s continuing existence: “the tree’s atoms”. Remove the atoms, and the tree will cease to exist.

Yes, of course. That gets to the point: Broussard must give us some reason for thinking the atoms themselves are not enough to account for the tree’s existence. I’m tired of repeating myself.

I see no reason to discuss an essay that hasn’t even been linked.

I was referring to the article linked in the OP.

Because you either believe something always existed or something popped into existence.

This is unclear and can be understood as false, as has been pointed out. Regarding the phrase ‘something always existed’, we must clearly consider the question of whether previous causal agents cease to exist whereas their effects continue to exist (the ‘per accidens’ series of a father begetting a son; the father dies, but the son continues to exist), and an infinite series being formed in this manner. It is not clearly true that “either one specific thing has always existed, or else the universe came from nothing”. It appears to me to beg the question to assert that if everything is finite (i.e. contingent being), then given infinite time, everything must necessarily cease to exist. That’s not self-evidently true because, as I’ve just said, it’s possible for A to create B and then cease to exist while B continues to create C. At this point Catholic Answers has always assumed that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is an absolute fact rather than a mathematical model we created with uncertainty. Clearly, this assumption leads to a belief, not knowledge. (Knowledge is true justified belief that it’s unreasonable to deny.)

 

[ethereality]

Science, which initially rejected the Big Bang as inserting God

Please stop this ‘collectivist’ language. Some scientists initially rejected it. Not “science” itself.

But more obvious is that we create new causal chains - as long as we postulate the existence of “free will”. Every new causal chain is something that is “uncaused” by the existing state of the affairs.

One could disagree with this in two ways: 1) Free will is an illusion, so the events are caused by the agents who are part of the system previously in time. 2) Free will is due to the brute fact of God (God making us from nothing and holding us in being each moment or else we would cease to exist, i.e. returning back to nothing), and so God is ultimately responsible for every action. Hence everything that begins to exist has a cause, no exceptions.

But you cannot demonstrate that God exists.

It seems to me God’s existence can only be known by experience, i.e. God must reveal himself. Hence Fr Larry Richards exhorts us to spend time before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer (i.e. physically in church before the Tabernacle), and assures us that if we do this, God will reveal Himself.

Even the word “exists” is undefined in this context.

I think the underlying assumption is that a being exists if it can be clearly identified and experienced or observed. So we do not need to insist that ‘to exist’ means ‘to be composed of matter or energy’, etc.

Nothing is the absence of anything.

Strictly speaking, this is incorrect. Put mathematically, x-x is different from 0. “x-x” is the absence of anything (“don’t have whatever you’re thinking of”), whereas “0” is the abstraction to refer to ‘nothing’. We commonly say x-x = 0, but this is literally an equivocation (or else a definition), us declaring the two to mean the same thing. But they literally are not the same thing.

[Nothing] is something any of us can conceive of.

This is again incorrect. A catholic priest pointed out to me years ago when I said ‘I wish I were dead’ (or ‘I wish I never existed’) that “No, you don’t: You just wish you weren’t in your present state. None of us have experienced what it is to be dead, so we don’t know what that’s like. Being is the only state we have ever experienced. We have no idea what non-being is.” This is a technical point, but important for critical thinking. ‘Nothing’, like 0, is an abstraction commonly defined as ‘not anything’, but we don’t actually conceive of it. Similarly, Jean Danielou wrote a book called /God and the Ways of Knowing/ explaining that all our knowledge of God is actually negative – that we cannot conceive of God, and consequently all our knowledge is about what God is not – e.g. God is not finite, not human, not capricious (subject to fickle emotional changes), etc. We can know aspects of God, e.g. that He is three persons yet one being, but we cannot know God in His entire nature.

So we must be clear about what we actually are thinking, lest we tempt skeptics to ridicule us.

 

[ethereality]

There are several proofs of God. They do demonstrate that God exists.

No, and I’m tempted to anger here. There are several attempts to show that God exists, but every one I have seen rests on uncertain or else false premises. Hence they only persuade the reader if he already believes the foundational premises are true. For every supposed ‘proof’ I have seen (and I’ve seen at least two dozen), all of them have an equally plausible or more plausible atheistic alternative. None of them rest on clearly true premises, and hence none of them are ‘sound arguments’ in the sense of having certainly true conclusions (i.e. none of them are demonstrations).

I suppose I’ve written more than I intended.

Edit: I misspoke. Some – I think the kalam argument is an example – rest on true premises but contain logical fallacies.