Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[catholic1seeks]

As far as I know, there’s an infinite chain of causality that had no start and will have no end. Even the Big Bang was caused by things that were caused

But that is really no explanation at all. If each link in this infinite chain (going back in time, or simultaneous – doesn’t matter for the point) is itself contingent, then NOTHING is explained. That would be like saying there is an infinite number of cars on a train without having an engine. The train wouldn’t move.

Having an infinite number of contingent things means there is no ultimate source of existence. The chain itself couldn’t exist. They are all receiving existence but getting it from no where.

 

[Curious11]

You hold that under controlled conditions you can replicate results. That you can remove interfering causes to learn more about a thing through empirical means.

Up to date it’s always worked. If you dropped a feather and a hammer on the moon up until now you saw them fall to the ground at the same time. There’s no guarantee that tomorrow some cosmic being won’t change the laws of physics in the blink of an eye, but there’s a good chance that won’t happen and you’ll be able to replicate the experiment the next time you’re on the moon.

 

[Curious11]

Maybe it’s existed in perpetuity. I honestly don’t know, and that’s absolutely fine. Scientists never said they had all the answers, they never said that.

What they did say is that ignorance of the cause is not proof of an intelligent being moving the strings

 

[catholic1seeks]

Put aside the possibility that the Universe might be infinite in the past (in time). [There are good reasons from science that this is NOT the case, and there are good philosophical reasons, too, that an actual infinite of discreet objects (e.g., time) is impossible.]

But permit that the Universe is infinite past. That has nothing to do with the existence of the alleged infinite universe. For if the Universe or multiple chain of Universes is contingent, then nothing is explained.

There must be some reality that has existence by its very nature for anything at all (e.g., the hypothetical chain of Universes) to receive and “pass on” existence.

 

[Curious11]

Time is continuous, not discreet. The passage of a specific amount of time is a convergent geometric progression, but that doesn’t prove it’s discreet

 

[catholic1seeks]

That’s beside the point. Read what I said ^

 

[Wesrock]

Maybe it’s existed in perpetuity. I honestly don’t know, and that’s absolutely fine. Scientists never said they had all the answers, they never said that.

What they did say is that ignorance of the cause is not proof of an intelligent being moving the strings

I would agree. That would be a God of the gaps argument. It’s not that we believe we found a gap where God needs to be inserted, but that a system (infinitely long, circular, always existing, what have you) would be inexplicable if all members involved had their causal powers in a derivative way and that there must be some First Cause that does not have its power derivatively, but inherently.

Eh, that needs further qualifiers, as there are infinite regresses where that is fine and infinite regresses where that is not.

 

[Curious11]

There doesn’t have to be a first cause. That’s linear reasoning, what if we’re in a circular loop? Where’s the start of the circle?

 

[anon10271182]

Don’t be getting too Thomistic, now–in other words, too logical!
LOL!

 

[catholic1seeks]

It’s not that we believe we found a gap where God needs to be inserted, but that a system (infinitely long, circular, always existing, what have you) would be inexplicable if all members involved had their causal powers in a derivative way and that there must be some First Cause that does not have its power derivatively, but inherently.

Right and just to be clear, my argument is not a God of the Gaps. I’m also neutral to whether time is infinite past or not for sake of argument.

 

[Wesrock]

There doesn’t have to be a first cause. That’s linear reasoning, what if we’re in a circular loop? Where’s the start of the circle?

First does not necessarily mean the start of a chain. It simply designates the member without derived causal power. You could have a circular loop in an hierarchical series, but that remains inexplicable if the causal power of all members is derived, as there’s no cause for the circular system to be there in such a way in the first place.

 

[Wesrock]

I have to duck out of this discussion for now. Talk with you all later.

 

[Curious11]

That’s my point, maybe there is no member without a causal ancestor. Just because something seems like a paradox doesn’t mean that it’s impossible.

 

[anon10271182]

How did the circle come to exist?

 

[IWantGod]

How would Catholics react, and how would the Church react?

I imagine some people would be in denial.

Personally, i would merely come to the realization that life is meaningless and that our motivations for sustaining human life and creating new life would be completely irrational. Beyond pleasuring ourselves and pandering to our emotional impulses, our behavior in the world and how we judge things and each-other essentially has no point to it. But some people are okay with approaching life as a user experience in which they invent their own meaning, indulge in fantasies, and masquerade the human identity as being something worthy of importance and respect. Life can be the ultimate ego trip for some people, and that can be the point of it for them. You are welcome to it…

I’m a tragic nihilist at heart. My faith is all that binds me.

I would take the ultimate escape. If i could muster the courage i would probably commit suicide since my ability to pleasure myself and indulge in something i know to be a pointless act of self-deception influenced by my genes is limited at best. At least i wouldn’t have to suffer anymore.

As for the church, some would remain Christians, mostly the kind that think the world is 10,000 years old. Some would leave and become humanists. And the rest would probably join me in the eternal nothingness.

 

[catholic1seeks]

It’s not that it just seems so, but rather, it is impossible and incoherent.

If all causes are themselves subject to causes, and if those causes are themselves subject to causes, then again, everything is merely derivative. This is tantamount to saying that nothing exists.

But things do exist. You exist. I exist. The world exists…

So there is at least one reality that is causeless – a reality that is not contingent but instead exists by its own nature.

It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about an infinite or finite series or a circular series of causes. If NO REALITY had existence by its own nature, then everything would be receiving existence… but from what? There would be NO ULTIMATE foundation for existence.

So yes, saying everything has a cause and is contingent is unintelligible and impossible.

I’m leaving laptop soon. Hope others contribute.

 

[CelticWarlord]

Well, I can’t tell you how Catholics would react, but I would want to know just who did the proof test and how.

If you were to ask me if God exists, I would answer that the energy of the universe exists. This is what people have commonly called God. If one, on the other hand, defines God as “a being”, a spatially locatable entity, then I must agree with Bishop Robert Barron; that no such God exists.

 

[phil19034]

Wesrock:

Not being able to do the logically impossible isn’t a limitation.

Interesting. When an atheist asks for logic the answer given is that logic doesn’t apply to the supernatural, the metaphysical.

But when it comes to the Christian’s definition of God, all of the sudden logic comes right back into play. So in reality, it’s not logic at all that is the question, it’s more like WHOSE logic will be dismissed and whose will not. That is what exposes the human construct “ness” about it.

Interesting. When an atheist asks for logic the answer given is that logic doesn’t apply to the supernatural, the metaphysical.

I believe you are misunderstanding @wesrock

God can break the laws of nature by preforming a supernatural miracle.

But God is not going to do an illogical miracle. For example, He’s not going to cure a 75 year of Dementia by supernaturally changing the person to 35 years old.

God is not going to create a round square.

God is not going to do something that contradicts Himself

 

[Wesrock]

Maybe I lied about ducking out entirely. But this is an excellent comment.

That’s my point, maybe there is no member without a causal ancestor.

Precisely, but what would that member(s) have to be to not itself be caused? We also can’t argue “everything must have a cause” if we admit that there are things that might not have causes without being guilty of special pleading. So if not everything must have a cause, exactly what things must have causes?

 

[Techno2000]

How would Catholics react, and how would the Church react?

I can tell you if the reverse happened, I’d become a believer.

I would be sad, because I would have nothing to look forward to after this short miserable life is over with.