Ten Questions for philosophers from Msgr. Charles Pope

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

The conclusion is reached by inference. For example, if the answer cannot possibly be explained by physical evidence, there must be an explanation by inference. No object in the universe can cause its own existence. By extension the sum total of the universe cannot cause its own existence. Therefore there must exist a Cause outside the universe that has always existed and which has the power to create the universe.

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

I am at sea here. Copy and paste so I will know what you have in mind.

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.

No, not Plato’s forms. There is no Ideal Form in actual existence. Forms exist only in individual horses. We know what they are by a process of abstraction from the real animal. This " abstracted " form is a concept we have of the actual horse-ness as it exists in the actual horse. And since none of these individual instantiations are perfect, there must exist a power which causes them in all horses. This power we call God.

I suggest you get " Aquinas " by Edward Feser. You can also check out his blog - the Edward Feser blog. You can also read the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Ques 2, art 3. on the existence of God. newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

The idea presented is that all horses echo the horse form…

Even given " progressive " development, you will find that raises other questions involving moving from potential existing forms to actually existing forms which cannot be explained other than by resorting to a First Cause which is outside the universe and which is Uncaused Itself. But the scenario you suggest is far from proven. Even if it were, there would have to be an explanation of how something less perfect could cause something more perfect.( We may be getting into forbidden terroitory here.)

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?

I don’t think that matters, I am not speaking as a Zoologist. It is enough that there are " forms" whose existence has to be accounted for.che

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?

You are evading the issue. It is the form of the horse which makes it what it is, gives it life, directs all its physical/biological/instinctual activities for the growth, development, reproductive needs, and well being of the individual. The " individual " natures of the animal’s cells, etc. are co-opted and subject to the " commands " of the form, the good of the unit as a whole…

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.

If our concepts do not reflect reality we are in trouble, don’t you think. So, we assume, as a self-evident truth, that our concepts represent the actual instantiations outside the mind. Even science does that. Horse-ness exists both as a concept in the mind ( more or less idealized) and in particular horses, as imperfect ( more or less ) instantiations of the concept…

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

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

I thought the question was “why is there existence?”. I answered that question and you responded by a quasi restatement of the argument form design. Does that really answer the question of why there is existence?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I thought the question was “why is there existence?”. I answered that question and you responded by a quasi restatement of the argument form design. Does that really answer the question of why there is existence?

We exist, the universe exists because God wanted to show forth His Glory, share it with His creation and draw us to Himself.

Actually Msgr. was asking a series of questions which should lead us to think. By answering them honestly, we should see that God must exist or nothing makes sense, neither us, nor the world. Once we see that God exists, then we should begin to look for a way to know Him personally. For it is only then that we will begin to find peace in our lives.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

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.

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

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?

I’ll leave it there, it seems you and the Msgr. have much to learn about guiding folk towards Christ, the first lesson of which is that dismissing out of hand beliefs other than your own turns folk away.

 

[inocente]

I’ll leave it there, it seems you and the Msgr. have much to learn about guiding folk towards Christ, the first lesson of which is that dismissing out of hand beliefs other than your own turns folk away.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ll leave it there, it seems you and the Msgr. have much to learn about guiding folk towards Christ, the first lesson of which is that dismissing out of hand beliefs other than your own turns folk away.

How have we pushed folks away? I think you have misinterpreted what Msgr. said. He was reacting to certain groups of what can only be described as militant and hostile atheists. You must be aware of how aggressive these groups have become in the last few years. So he is simply asking them how do they account for the world and our place in it if God does not exist. How is that being " pushy? "

Futher, he is asking them, " …why are you so hostile? "

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

We exist, the universe exists because God wanted to show forth His Glory, share it with His creation and draw us to Himself.

Actually Msgr. was asking a series of questions which should lead us to think. By answering them honestly, we should see that God must exist or nothing makes sense, neither us, nor the world. Once we see that God exists, then we should begin to look for a way to know Him personally. For it is only then that we will begin to find peace in our lives.

Linus2nd

Certainly, I agree the questions are interesting. The first question is why is there existence and you respond because God wanted to demonstrate his glory.

Do you not see how this fails to answer the question? If there is a God, then He already exists. Hence, existence precedes God.

So then the ultimate and last hinge upon which reality depends is not God, but, the condition of “being” The question is not why did God create beings like us. Rather the question is "why is there an “is”

By positing the question, I believe the Msgr has provided a profound insight which leads to there not being a Deity, and, I do not believe you have properly responded to the question in any way that can bring one back to a position that God existed prior to the condition of being. The Msgr’s query leads to verification for Sartre’s existentialism----namely, that existence precedes essence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Certainly, I agree the questions are interesting. The first question is why is there existence and you respond because God wanted to demonstrate his glory.

Do you not see how this fails to answer the question? If there is a God, then He already exists. Hence, existence precedes God.

So then the ultimate and last hinge upon which reality depends is not God, but, the condition of “being” The question is not why did God create beings like us. Rather the question is "why is there an “is”

By positing the question, I believe the Msgr has provided a profound insight which leads to there not being a Deity, and, I do not believe you have properly responded to the question in any way that can bring one back to a position that God existed prior to the condition of being. The Msgr’s query leads to verification for Sartre’s existentialism----namely, that existence precedes essence.

By the same token, existence itself could not precede some form of essence because then the question arises: Where did different essences come from if existence is simply a naked “to be” without any essence?

Aquinas is positing that this quandary leads to the metaphysical conclusion that we must arrive at Being where existence and essence (fullness of being) must come together in order to properly explain the contingent existence of every “thing” in the universe where essence and existence are not so intertwined.

 

[WmJackP]

By the same token, existence itself could not precede some form of essence because then the question arises: Where did different essences come from if existence is simply a naked “to be” without any essence?

Aquinas is positing that this quandary leads to the metaphysical conclusion that we must arrive at Being where existence and essence (fullness of being) must come together in order to properly explain the contingent existence of every “thing” in the universe where essence and existence are not so intertwined.

I am afraid I don’t follow this? If we have to ask where did the different “essences” come from, then we also have to ask where did God come from. You solve really nothing by positing an extant “being”----- God. If essence precedes existence, then you could just as well posit a rational universe as the last hinge on which reality depends. And please don’t respond that if there is a rational universe that there must be a supreme intellect, because, if you do then you must also anthropomorphize mathematics, physics and anything else that has internal consistency.

If existence, however, precedes essence, I personally think the Msgr makes a profound observation—although unintended—when he asks why is there existence. It ultimately makes Krauss look right with his hypothesis that there is no such thing as nothing.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Certainly, I agree the questions are interesting. The first question is why is there existence and you respond because God wanted to demonstrate his glory.

Do you not see how this fails to answer the question? If there is a God, then He already exists. Hence, existence precedes God.

If there is a God, of course He exists. But what do you mean by saying " existence precedes God? " Thomas defines God as Pure Actus Subsistens or the Substance which simply Exists, which is Pure Existence. But God is an Existence which is an Infinitely Intelligent, Powerful, Loving, Eternal, Perfect Being. In Him Existence is not distinguished from His Being or Substance.

So then the ultimate and last hinge upon which reality depends is not God, but, the condition of “being”

Again, I don’t have any idea what you mean by " condition of being. " But I think I may have explained it above.

The question is not why did God create beings like us. Rather the question is "why is there an “is”

In other words you are asking why God exists? He exists because He is a logical necessity. Without Him nothing else could exist. Not only that, nothing about our life would make any sense either.

By positing the question, I believe the Msgr has provided a profound insight which leads to there not being a Deity,

I sure don’t see how.

and, I do not believe you have properly responded to the question in any way that can bring one back to a position that God existed prior to the condition of being.

Again, you need to explain what you mean by the " condition of being. "

The Msgr’s query leads to verification for Sartre’s existentialism----namely, that existence precedes essence.

So this all comes from Sartre? What a waste of time. Sartre is a dead end as is all Secular Humanism. Those who worship man have a troubled god indeed. You would be better off reading the Summa Theological, Part 1 and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

So this all comes from Sartre? What a waste of time. Sartre is a dead end as is all Secular Humanism. Those who worship man have a troubled god indeed. You would be better off reading the Summa Theological, Part 1 and/or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.Linus2nd

No all of this comes from the Msgr’s question which I might remind you was “why is there existence”.

My reference to Sartre was not intended to necessarily credit this great French thinker but merely to point out that the Msgr’s question of “why is there existence” when considered within the context of your Church’s concept of God does lead to an existential observation, namely, that existence precedes essence. Right or wrong, the concept of God as a “person” (three in one if you prefer) with motives and a redemptive plan implies that these essential aspects (or essence) presupposes existence. Hence, existence precedes essence.

Instead of responding to the Msgr’s question, however, you parrot back Thomistic conclusions which, at least in my view, fails to respond to the question of “why is there existence”…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No all of this comes from the Msgr’s question which I might remind you was “why is there existence”.

My reference to Sartre was not intended to necessarily credit this great French thinker but merely to point out that the Msgr’s question of “why is there existence” when considered within the context of your Church’s concept of God does lead to an existential observation, namely, that existence precedes essence. Right or wrong, the concept of God as a “person” (three in one if you prefer) with motives and a redemptive plan implies that these essential aspects (or essence) presupposes existence. Hence, existence precedes essence.

Instead of responding to the Msgr’s question, however, you parrot back Thomistic conclusions which, at least in my view, fails to respond to the question of “why is there existence”…

The question, " Why is there existence? " is rather imprecise. I am assuming the Msgr. is reallly asking, " Why does anything exist? " Or perhaps he is asking, " If God does not exist, how does the world exist? " The Msgr. did not clarify what he actually meant. But he did refer us to prior discussions ( which I have not read either). I was merely answering the question based on your responses. Whatever the Msgr. intended, he certainly did not mean to imply that " …existence precedes essense…" That is incoherent, it has no meaning. That is why I asked what you meant by it.

My answer gave you the traditional Catholic answer to the question, " …why does anything exist…" You may not accept it, but that is the only answer possible.

Sartre was highly intelligent and could obviously write, but " great thinker? " Popular is some circles perhaps. He was a " thinker, " but great?

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

The question, " Why is there existence? " is rather imprecise. I am assuming the Msgr. is reallly asking, " Why does anything exist? " Linus2nd

Have you ever considered running for political office? I always find the political debates so amusing when the moderator asks a question, and, watch as the politicos answer a question more to their own liking, rather than the one actually asked. Sure if you re-define the question, you can answer the question in a way that suits ideology.

As a side note-------please forgive me if I don’t jump into a pretended controversy as to whether J. P. S. was a “great thinker” or not. Your judgment is as good as mine, just as mine is as good as yours on Thomas. Judgment calls are arguments neither of us can win.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Have you ever considered running for political office? I always find the political debates so amusing when the moderator asks a question, and, watch as the politicos answer a question more to their own liking, rather than the one actually asked. Sure if you re-define the question, you can answer the question in a way that suits ideology.

As a side note-------please forgive me if I don’t jump into a pretended controversy as to whether J. P. S. was a “great thinker” or not. Your judgment is as good as mine, just as mine is as good as yours on Thomas. Judgment calls are arguments neither of us can win.

You did not respond to my post # 69 and my post # 71 was not an attempt to deflect discussion. I honestly don’t know exactly what Msgr. really meant. I don’t see how any one can, it is imprecise. It’s anticedents are unclear.

 

[WmJackP]

You did not respond to my post # 69 and my post # 71 was not an attempt to deflect discussion. I honestly don’t know exactly what Msgr. really meant. I don’t see how any one can, it is imprecise. It’s anticedents are unclear.

The antecedents are unclear? Indeed ! How can you possibly maintain that that the “antecedents” to “what is existence” lack clarity. You certainly are now sounding like Clinton–depends on what the Msgr’s definition of “is” is. Please do try running for office. You’d be great in the debates.

As another side note. I am afraid I am not cataloging your commentaries by any numeric index system, so, you’ll have to ask your (#69) question again—just be sure all your antecedents are clear.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The antecedents are unclear? Indeed ! How can you possibly maintain that that the “antecedents” to “what is existence” lack clarity. You certainly are now sounding like Clinton–depends on what the Msgr’s definition of “is” is. Please do try running for office. You’d be great in the debates.

As another side note. I am afraid I am not cataloging your commentaries by any numeric index system, so, you’ll have to ask your (#69) question again—just be sure all your antecedents are clear.

I think you are just evading now. My posts #s 69 & 71 are easily accessible. Just scroll backwards. Msgr’s question seemed meaningless to me, because, in this universe, there is no pure " existence." To ask " Why is there existence? " is therefore meaningless. That is why I assumed he really intended to ask, " Why does anything exist? " This was the famous question asked by John Locke and I don’t believe anyone had ever asked before.

Do you see why I asked it now? On the other hand if you had something else in mind, ask away? But to say that " existence " existed before God is equally incoherent, because that assumes that there is something out there called " existence. " It is just as bad as Msgr’s question.

Linus2nd

 

[JamesCaruso]

1.Why is there existence?

Existence is the necessary attribute of all things.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am afraid I don’t follow this? If we have to ask where did the different “essences” come from, then we also have to ask where did God come from. You solve really nothing by positing an extant “being”----- God. If essence precedes existence, then you could just as well posit a rational universe as the last hinge on which reality depends. And please don’t respond that if there is a rational universe that there must be a supreme intellect, because, if you do then you must also anthropomorphize mathematics, physics and anything else that has internal consistency.

If existence, however, precedes essence, I personally think the Msgr makes a profound observation—although unintended—when he asks why is there existence. It ultimately makes Krauss look right with his hypothesis that there is no such thing as nothing.

My point was that it is logically necessary to arrive at Being whose essence and existence are one and the same in order to escape the very quandary you set out above.
Essence cannot precede existence and existence cannot precede essence, therefore the only sufficient explanation is in essence and existence as one Being, whose essence is “To Be,” ipsum esse subsistens.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Existence is the necessary attribute of all things.

Yes, but in the created universe there is no such thing as pure existence. In the created universe " existence " is a mere attribute, as you say. Philosophers would say that it is the interior principle ( cause ) by which a " what " becomes a real substance.

In God however, we run into " Existence " which is an actual Substance. The Essence of God is His Existence.

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

Msgr’s question seemed meaningless to me, because, in this universe, there is no pure " existence." To ask " Why is there existence? " is therefore meaningless. Linus2nd

Well aside from failing to give your Msgr enough credit, I think it is quite presumptuous to declare---- without foundation----- that there is no such thing as “being”. Certainly, the celebrated Thomas speak fluently of “esse” and indeed asserts authoritatively that the Deity itself is, in fact, pure “being” or existence or—to use Thomas’ word “esse”.

Hence, if one borrows from Thomas’ definition and then asks the Msgr’s question, the question really becomes why is there God? Would you say that is a meaningless question too? I would say the question is full of meaning and actually disproves rather than proves the existence of God. After all, if Thomas’ line of logic is followed, one can no longer say that there cannot be an infinite regression without first arriving at a personal God because the arrival point after such a regression becomes existence itself-------- without a “person” behind the mask of “being”.

Maybe we should pick another of Msgr’s 10 questions to critique as it seems this discussion is not becoming productive. Your choice and I’ll try to answer.