Ten Questions for philosophers from Msgr. Charles Pope

[WmJackP]

Why is there existence? Perhaps, the condition of “Being” is the state in which reality manifests rather than in a state of “nothingless”. Some (Lawrence Krauss, eg.) have persuasively argued that there is no such thing as “nothing”. A better question may be why should there be a Deity-------- the condition of “being” is certainly simpler and less complex than a personal Deity with a redemptive plan and a penchant for inspiring scriptural passages. A question, perhaps, more in need of an answer is why should there be a Deity. “Existence” is certainly a necessary precondition to a Supreme Being, it seems to me.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why is there existence? Perhaps, the condition of “Being” is the state in which reality manifests rather than in a state of “nothingless”. Some (Lawrence Krauss, eg.) have persuasively argued that there is no such thing as “nothing”. A better question may be why should there be a Deity-------- the condition of “being” is certainly simpler and less complex than a personal Deity with a redemptive plan and a penchant for inspiring scriptural passages. A question, perhaps, more in need of an answer is why should there be a Deity. “Existence” is certainly a necessary precondition to a Supreme Being, it seems to me.

So, you are sitting at dinner and as you are eating dessert a basket ball suddenly appears in the middle of the table. What is your reaction? Probably you will say something like, " where did that come from, " or " who put that there. " Perfectly reasonable questions. One thing you don’t do is shrug you shoulders and say, " gee, another basket ball. " The same with the whole universe. We are so used to it, we take it for granted. But look at it like the sudden appearance of the basket ball. Surely, some person ( highly intelligent, unbelieveably intelligent and powerful ) caused the universe to come into existence or causes it to exist ( in case one wants to think of the universe as always existing).

It just is not quite reasonable to shrug you shoulders and conclude that a universe made up of unintelligent matter, for the most part, causes its own existence. Does a house or jet plane suddenly appear without the architect, without the engineer? Of course not. So how could the universe be any different ( all due to the day dreams of Krauss et al )?

You exist, did you cause your own existence? No, and neither did your parents. They new the process, they didn’t fashion the product, they didn’t design it, the actual making of you was entirely out of their hands. And just as importantly, you continue to exist without their help. How is that? What unknown power keeps you going? Not the backon and eggs you have each morning, that’s for sure.

And if you want some deeper reasons for the why of you and the universe check out the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Ques 2, Art. 3.

P.S. As a lawyer don’t you assume that for every crime there is a perp? You are admitting intelligent causality in such a case. Why should it be reasonable then to dismiss causality when we switch to the existence of the universe?

Linus2nd

 

[Sparkythedog]

Sparkythedog wrote:

On the contrary,
the empirical mechanisms are fully known.

1. the universe could not have existed through an infinite past
2. the universe could not have come into existence by “accident” because an accident only happens to something that already exists
3. likewise, the universe could not have come into existence by “chance” for the same reason
4. likewise, the universe could not have come into existence by a “quantum effect” for the same reason

Therefore,
the only possibility that remains is a supernatural cause,
that is, God. :

How do you know these are the only choices for how universes could be created?

Also, what does “supernatural cause” mean?

 

[Sparkythedog]

So, you are sitting at dinner and as you are eating dessert a basket ball suddenly appears in the middle of the table. What is your reaction? Probably you will say something like, " where did that come from, " or " who put that there. " Perfectly reasonable questions. One thing you don’t do is shrug you shoulders and say, " gee, another basket ball. " The same with the whole universe. We are so used to it, we take it for granted. But look at it like the sudden appearance of the basket ball. Surely, some person ( highly intelligent, unbelieveably intelligent and powerful ) caused the universe to come into existence or causes it to exist ( in case one wants to think of the universe as always existing).

My first reaction would be to play some basketball.

After that, though, I would definitely be confused regarding where it came from. But the reason I’d be confused, is because I know some things about basketballs. Most importantly (for our purposes) is that all known basketballs are made by humans. Materializing out of thin air is very unusual for a basketball. If no further observations could be made, the most I could say about how this unusual phenomenon occurred is, “I don’t know”.

The universes, on the other hand, is something different. The universe is the totality of all we can observe. A basketball is only a part of the universe. From observation we think that the universe is expanding in all directions. With this empirical knowledge, we can deduce that the universe was once much denser. From our observation of the current behavior of matter, energy, and space, we have derived models for the behavior of a very dense universe. I’m not a cosmologist by any stretch, but my understanding is that we can only run the clock back so far before we reach the limits of our understanding. Beyond that we have no concrete understanding.

Nothing we know of today mimics the creation of the universe. We are unable to make any observations aside from computer simulations. So what can we say about it? The most I can say is that I don’t know. I would like to find out, but until we learn more I cannot know.

I noticed you didn’t answer the basketball question. So I’ll put it to you. How would you explain a basketball appearing (seemingly) spontaneously on your table?

What unknown power keeps you going? Not the backon and eggs you have each morning, that’s for sure.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. It actually is the bacon and eggs that keeps you going (along with everything else you eat). Just try not eating for a few days and see how far you get. There is nothing mysterious about how we get energy, it’s been known for quite some time.

 

[inocente]

I certainly disagree with this on several levels. First, morality is not based on emotions at any level. It is a matter of obeying the moral law, which means knowledge and will must be evaluating and willing for or against an action, depending on how it conforms with the moral law. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, St. Thomas and all respected Catholic philosophers/theologians I know teach that man is the only animal capable of thought, judgement, willing. And this is what the Catholic Church teaches. If animals were moral, thinking creatures it certainly would have be a matter of Revelation. And Revelation gives no hint of this.

You’re making a self-fulfilling prophecy here: 1. I refuse to believe morals have an emotional component. 2. Thus, morals require rational thought alone. 3. Animals can’t think rationality. 4. Therefore animals can’t be moral.

You argument depends crucially on point 1 but you dismissed emotion out of hand (to avoid any confusion it’s worth saying that emotion means an instinctive or intuitive state of mind).

Yet Paul disagrees with you, he says there is an emotional component to morals - “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” - Rom 1:15. In fact that kind of analysis goes back a long way, see for instance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology#Background.

So your argument that animals aren’t rational isn’t particularly relevant, except that the Msgr’s audience is likely to accept that we are animals too, and that there’s an alternative way that the requirements of the law came to be written on our hearts, unknown to medieval philosophers. The Msgr. will just push those folk away if all he can offer is YEC closed dogma.

 

[inocente]

So, you are sitting at dinner and as you are eating dessert a basket ball suddenly appears in the middle of the table. What is your reaction? Probably you will say something like, " where did that come from, " or " who put that there. " Perfectly reasonable questions. One thing you don’t do is shrug you shoulders and say, " gee, another basket ball. " The same with the whole universe. We are so used to it, we take it for granted. But look at it like the sudden appearance of the basket ball. Surely, some person ( highly intelligent, unbelieveably intelligent and powerful ) caused the universe to come into existence or causes it to exist ( in case one wants to think of the universe as always existing).

I agree with the other canine on this one. Where a question can’t be answered, the Msgr’s audience’s preference is probably not to accept an answer just for the sake of having an answer:

“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.” - Richard Fenyman

 

[Sparkythedog]

Dogs are very profound. Who’s a good boy!

I am. (wags tail)

 

[empther]

Sparkeydog’s post 43

How do you know these are the only choices for how universes could be created?

Because there is nothing else. It’s either “accident” or “chance” or “quantum effect” or God.
Since the first three are impossible as I explained, that leaves only God.
Any other cause other than God would be something that already existed, but that would be part of the universe and that’s a begging of the question.
Don’t pretend you don’t understand so as to protect your atheist argument. Nobody is fooled.

Also, what does “supernatural cause” mean?

Something different from the natural universe, the laws of nature, the inanimate world etc etc etc.
Don’t pretend you don’t understand so as to protect your atheist argument. Nobody is fooled.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My first reaction would be to play some basketball.

After that, though, I would definitely be confused regarding where it came from. But the reason I’d be confused, is because I know some things about basketballs. Most importantly (for our purposes) is that all known basketballs are made by humans. Materializing out of thin air is very unusual for a basketball. If no further observations could be made, the most I could say about how this unusual phenomenon occurred is, “I don’t know”.

The universes, on the other hand, is something different. The universe is the totality of all we can observe. A basketball is only a part of the universe. From observation we think that the universe is expanding in all directions. With this empirical knowledge, we can deduce that the universe was once much denser. From our observation of the current behavior of matter, energy, and space, we have derived models for the behavior of a very dense universe. I’m not a cosmologist by any stretch, but my understanding is that we can only run the clock back so far before we reach the limits of our understanding. Beyond that we have no concrete understanding.

Nothing we know of today mimics the creation of the universe. We are unable to make any observations aside from computer simulations. So what can we say about it? The most I can say is that I don’t know. I would like to find out, but until we learn more I cannot know.

I noticed you didn’t answer the basketball question. So I’ll put it to you. How would you explain a basketball appearing (seemingly) spontaneously on your table?

First, we can infer from the existence of the universe that there is an Ultimate Cause of its existence and that Cause does not itself have a Cause, or we are forced to go on to infinity, which is clearly to say that nothing exists even now, which is incoherent. Therefore, there is an Ultimate Cause, Itself Uncaused, which causes the existence of everything else, including the sudden appearance of the basketball.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. It actually is the bacon and eggs that keeps you going (along with everything else you eat). Just try not eating for a few days and see how far you get. There is nothing mysterious about how we get energy, it’s been known for quite some time.

Your " backon and eggs " may keep you going but they don’t keep you in existence. Probably a poor image, but I’m just an ordinary guy. Someone else could probably find a better image.

Look. Everything has a specific nature. Each horse has the nature of horse-ness. And since each horse has it, no horse has it perfectly or completely. Therefore, no horse causes the horse-ness in all other horses because first it would have to cause the horse-ness in itself. This is clearly incoherent. There must therefore be an Ultimate Cause of horse-ness, which is not a particuar horse itself. The same with all other natures without exception.

In the same way all things in the universe have one common characteristic. They all exist. And because each of them share the common note of existene, none possesses it perfectly. Therefore, none of them can be the cause of the existence in any other existing thing. Therefore, there must exist some Ultimate Extent, itself Uncaused, which is the cause of the existence of all other existing things.

Linus2nd

 

[DaveBj]

Also, what does “supernatural cause” mean?

Something different from the natural universe, the laws of nature, the inanimate world etc etc etc.

Altho I put myself in the camp of the creationists and believers in intelligent design, I sort of at the notion of the universe’s being created by a “supernatural cause.” If there is no universe to start with, then there is no nature, and therefore there is no supernatural. The cause of the creation of the universe is neither natural nor supernatural; it just is.

However, I guess you could say that the cause of the creation of the is “natural” within its own system and by its own definition. I dunno; my mind gets twisted into knots when I try to think like God.

 

[Gorgias]

Some (Lawrence Krauss, eg.) have persuasively argued that there is no such thing as “nothing”.

Hmm… it’s been a while since I encountered Krauss’s argument, but doesn’t he posit that the ‘nothing’ that matter proceeded from is actually a quantum framework? That is, that energy kept popping into and out of ‘existence’, but at some point, what popped into existence was matter… and it ‘stuck’…? If this is a reasonable facsimile of his argument, then all he’s done is pushed the question back one level: it was “why is there matter instead of nothing”, and now it’s simply “why is there a quantum sub-stratum rather than nothing”? To shrug and say “there’s no nothing, just the sub-stratum” isn’t an answer at all!

A better question may be why should there be a Deity-------- the condition of “being” is certainly simpler and less complex than a personal Deity with a redemptive plan and a penchant for inspiring scriptural passages. A question, perhaps, more in need of an answer is why should there be a Deity.

Perhaps it’s a better question. Here’s the problem, though: stating it like that is an incomplete way to ask the question, it seems. If there were nothing – true nothing – that might be the best question to ask. However, the question really is, “given that creation exists, why should there be a Deity?”. That is the question that religionists tend to ask atheists, and which seems not to get a direct answer.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You’re making a self-fulfilling prophecy here: 1. I refuse to believe morals have an emotional component. 2. Thus, morals require rational thought alone. 3. Animals can’t think rationality. 4. Therefore animals can’t be moral.

You argument depends crucially on point 1 but you dismissed emotion out of hand (to avoid any confusion it’s worth saying that emotion means an instinctive or intuitive state of mind).

Not true. No one has proven that it has any relation to morality. Thomas Aquinas, for example, bases it on the Natural Law, which all men know and upon which they judge all their acts.

Yet Paul disagrees with you, he says there is an emotional component to morals - “They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts” - Rom 1:15. In fact that kind of analysis goes back a long way, see for instance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_psychology#Background

Wilipedia is not an authortative source on the subject. How does Paul disagree?

So your argument that animals aren’t rational isn’t particularly relevant, except that the Msgr’s audience is likely to accept that we are animals too, and that there’s an alternative way that the requirements of the law came to be written on our hearts, unknown to medieval philosophers. The Msgr. will just push those folk away if all he can offer is YEC closed dogma.

Don’t be too quick to dismiss Mideavel thinkers nor the Greeks either. I would suggest that they are much deeper than today’s " thinkers. "

If folks are " pushed away " by being confronted with the truth, then they are truely lost. If they dismiss logical inference, if they dismiss Revelation, if they dismiss Dogma, what is left?

Linus2nd

 

[Sparkythedog]

Empther,

Before I address your post, I have to say that I’m a bit taken aback by the hostility presented here. My purpose on this forum is to have conversations with people who’s views differ from my own. It’s how I test my own ideas and beliefs.

I’m not here to try and deconvert you, or take away your belief in Jesus or corrupt you in some other way. When I ask a question, I’m genuinely interested in your answer. I may not agree with what you have to say, but that is where the fun of having a discussion like this comes from.

If my questions upset you, I apologize. That is not my intent. I only want to have a thoughtful discussion.

And now my reply…

Because there is nothing else. It’s either “accident” or “chance” or “quantum effect” or God.
Since the first three are impossible as I explained, that leaves only God.
Any other cause other than God would be something that already existed, but that would be part of the universe and that’s a begging of the question.

There is a logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity, where someone states that because they cannot imagine how something could be so, therefore it is not so.

You give four options and say they are the only ones. But if we had this conversation one hundred years ago the quantum option wouldn’t have been on the radar because we didn’t know about such things. Maybe a hundred years from now there will be more options. To show that God created the universe, we need to show how God created the universe. There needs to be evidence of a causal link.

There is another logical fallacy called special pleading, where someone introduces special conditions without giving sufficient reasons for doing so.

You say in your reply that the first three options are invalid because something couldn’t have existed before the universe. But then you introduce God, which I assume you believe existed before the universe. This is what I don’t understand. If there is no need to explain where God came from, why is it impossible to believe in other pre-existing conditions?

Something different from the natural universe, the laws of nature, the inanimate world etc etc etc.

I truly don’t understand what this means. Many people throw around this term and I have a feeling they all mean different things. Some mean ghosts, some mean spirits, some mean Gods. There are scientific hypotheses that posit other universes or multiverses that may have different laws from our own. All of those could be called supernatural but they are not all the same ideas.

As far as the supernatural goes, what evidence can be presented that your particular version of the supernatural world exists?

 

[Sparkythedog]

Altho I put myself in the camp of the creationists and believers in intelligent design, I sort of at the notion of the universe’s being created by a “supernatural cause.” If there is no universe to start with, then there is no nature, and therefore there is no supernatural. The cause of the creation of the universe is neither natural nor supernatural; it just is.

However, I guess you could say that the cause of the creation of the is “natural” within its own system and by its own definition. I dunno; my mind gets twisted into knots when I try to think like God.

I can empathize with your feelings of about the creation of the universe. It may just be so bizarre that we have no frame of reference with which to imagine it. Unfortunately, I must defer to those who study such things.

 

[DaveBj]

I can empathize with your feelings of about the creation of the universe. It may just be so bizarre that we have no frame of reference with which to imagine it. Unfortunately, I must defer to those who study such things.

I normally don’t get into “sweatshirt/tshirt theology,” but I do have a sweat that sums up my thoughts on the issue: “I believe in the Big Bang – God said ‘Let there be,’ and BANG! There it was!”

 

[empther]

Altho I put myself in the camp of the creationists and believers in intelligent design, I sort of at the notion of the universe’s being created by a “supernatural cause.” If there is no universe to start with, then there is no nature, and therefore there is no supernatural. The cause of the creation of the universe is neither natural nor supernatural; it just is.

:bigyikes:

Well, I’m not sure I can believe my eyes.
Why could there not be a God before God created the universe?
This is indefensible.

 

[empther]

From Sparky…

Empther,

Before I address your post, I have to say that I’m a bit taken aback by the hostility presented here. My purpose on this forum is to have conversations with people who’s views differ from my own. It’s how I test my own ideas and beliefs.

I’m not here to try and deconvert you, or take away your belief in Jesus or corrupt you in some other way. When I ask a question, I’m genuinely interested in your answer. I may not agree with what you have to say, but that is where the fun of having a discussion like this comes from.

If my questions upset you, I apologize. That is not my intent. I only want to have a thoughtful discussion.

And now my reply…

:coffeeread:

Originally Posted by empther View Post
Because there is nothing else. It’s either “accident” or “chance” or “quantum effect” or God.
Since the first three are impossible as I explained, that leaves only God.
Any other cause other than God would be something that already existed, but that would be part of the universe and that’s a begging of the question.

There is a logical fallacy called the argument from incredulity, where someone states that because they cannot imagine how something could be so, therefore it is not so.

You give four options and say they are the only ones. But if we had this conversation one hundred years ago the quantum option wouldn’t have been on the radar because we didn’t know about such things. Maybe a hundred years from now there will be more options. To show that God created the universe, we need to show how God created the universe. There needs to be evidence of a causal link.

Someone living a hundred years ago could have dismissed the ability of “quantum effect” ( a favorite atheist term ) to create the universe ** even before the idea was known ** by simply saying anything that acts on something must act on something that already exists. Quantum mechanics does not create something from nothing and no scientist worth his pay will say that. So called empty space is anything but empty. Indeed, space is created by matter.

Likewise,
we can dismiss any future “options” as having the ability of creating a universe out of nothing. If there is nothing, there are no “options”. It’s only after the universe comes into being that you have “options”.

The evidence that God created the universe is that there is no other choice. Nothing natural could have done it. Nothing natural existed when there was nothing in the first place.

 

[Sparkythedog]

First, we can infer from the existence of the universe that there is an Ultimate Cause of its existence and that Cause does not itself have a Cause, or we are forced to go on to infinity, which is clearly to say that nothing exists even now, which is incoherent. Therefore, there is an Ultimate Cause, Itself Uncaused, which causes the existence of everything else, including the sudden appearance of the basketball.

I still do not see how you get to uncaused cause. What you are proposing is an interesting hypothesis, but what evidence do you have that such a thing exists? By what process does this uncaused cause create a universe? These are just two questions that need to be answered before I could begin to accept such an explanation.

Please see my recent reply to empther for more on this.

Look. Everything has a specific nature. Each horse has the nature of horse-ness. And since each horse has it, no horse has it perfectly or completely. Therefore, no horse causes the horse-ness in all other horses because first it would have to cause the horse-ness in itself. This is clearly incoherent. There must therefore be an Ultimate Cause of horse-ness, which is not a particuar horse itself. The same with all other natures without exception.

I’ve been meaning to respond to this idea of “horse-ness”. This reminds me of Plato’s cave or Aristotle’s idea of matter and form.

The idea presented is that all horses echo the horse form. But how does the ideas of forms deal with change. What about creatures that aren’t quite horses. A modern horse is a large animal with one toe on each foot. 25 million years ago a “horse” was a medium size animal with three toes and 60 million years ago, a “horse” was a small animal with four toes. Has the form of horse-ness slowly changed with successive generations? When the group of early animals that gave rise to horses split to become tapirs and rhinoceri, did the forms split as well?

How far removed from a horse does something have to be to have it’s own form. Does the zebra have horse-ness or does it have zebra-ness? How about a donkey? If you cross a zebra with a horse, does it have zorse-ness? If so, where does the new form zorse-ness come from? Did we create it with the crossing?

Why do forms pertain to the same boundaries that we use to classify things? A horse can be classified as a sustained series of chemical reactions involving the intake and expulsion of various compounds. A horse is a collection of both “horse” cells and the cells other species. A horse is a part of a larger ecosystem and could not exist without it. Do any of these things have a form associated with them?

My thoughts are that what you are calling forms are our own conceptual representations of the world around us. It suits us to classify this thing as a horse rather than a colony of cells. Horse-ness is something that exists in our minds not out there.

 

[Sparkythedog]

we can dismiss any future “options” as having the ability of creating a universe out of nothing. If there is nothing, there are no “options”. It’s only after the universe comes into being that you have “options”.

The evidence that God created the universe is that there is no other choice. Nothing natural could have done it. Nothing natural existed when there was nothing in the first place.

Well, then… I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

 

[empther]

Well, then… I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

Agreed.
I’m right, you’re wrong.