Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Nixbits]

Solmyr:

My heart only pumps blood. It has no other function. If you use it allegorically, then you need to explain HOW can one (allegorically) open one’s heart to God. I don’t refuse anything, I simply have no idea HOW to do it.

Solmyr, thank you for posting this. I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Some theists may believe that we are being deliberately difficult or pedantic. Some will claim that deep down we know how to “open our hearts to God” as Charlemagne suggests. Could it not be true, though, that we simply don’t know what is meant by opening our heart to something that we don’t believe in? I certainly don’t.

 

[DrTaffy]

The evidence has been presented many times in this forum.

Then it should be trivial for you to link to it, or cut and paste your favourite argument.

That you have not refuted it, or offered abundant evidence of your own against God is plainly apparent.

It is plainly apparent that objections have been raised to all the arguments presented pretending to be ‘proofs’ of God, and that you have failed to convince the skeptics.

As for presenting abundant evidence against God, why would I want to? I don’t claim to be able to prove that there is no God, although some very specific definitions of ‘God’ are either demonstrably nonexistent or at least have glaring problems. Nor do I expect a non existence of God to reward me in a non existent afterlife for converting theists. So what would I get out of trying to disprove God?

You are close minded.

That is rude. Not to mention more than a little high handedly judgemental. What is the point of such ad hominem?

You want absolute incontrovertible and demonstrable proof, God standing in the dock before you awaiting your judgment.

No, I want reasonable evidence or argument.

What other reason would they have for being here? To make atheists of us all?

To engage in reasonable debate with people with different views from ours? Why do you respond to atheists so much, and get so heated about it?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Solmyr, thank you for posting this.

I found his thread on this topic too be pretty interesting too.

 

[Bradski]

Rather, Bradski, you should examine all the classical arguments for God’s existence, AND THEN determine whether the evidence is far more in favor of God’s existence than against.

Then please start a thread. We can then educate all those Christians who might have reached a position of belief without having studied all the arguments. Although I will not be held responsible if any open minded Christian finds them lacking (I’m sure you know the old saw about how you turn a Christian into an atheist – you send him to a seminary to study theology).

The evidence has been presented many times in this forum.

Not all of it, apparently.

It would be a mistake to think that what has been presented here on the CAFs is the case for the prosecution.

Look forward to discussing the matter with you in the new thread. Maybe you should brush up on it first.

 

[ynotzap]

My heart only pumps blood. It has no other function. If you use it allegorically, then you need to explain HOW can one (allegorically) open one’s heart to God. I don’t refuse anything, I simply have no idea HOW to do it.

Anyone can have an encounter with God, in Jesus Christ. When one uses the terms, open your heart, it really refers to the will of man, a desire for the encounter, and the mind,to receive the enlightenment, we call it “amazing grace” which is the work of the Holy Spirit. There are requirements, sincerity, humility, repentance. One, to my knowledge can’t really have repentance if he doesn’t really know what he is repenting for. If one’s conscience is not informed of what is morally right or wrong. If the good will is there to begin with, it can come later, when the conscience is informed. Jesus didn’t come to condemn, we do that to ourselves, and He didn’t come to judge, we judge ourselves in the presence of His truth, His light. His mission was to redeem man from the works of Satan, to re-establish man in sanctifying grace so that he can be united with God even in this life, and forever in life after death. God does not create to uncreate, or annilate, it’s an eternal act. We convert no one, only God can do that, all we can do is point the direction, become a conduit, an instrument for Him. To evangelize is to preach Christ, the Good News, and to live as He instructs us to live. We can only do that, according to His will, and that is made manifest to us through the Holy Bible, a humbling instrument to those who are proud, and we all have an amount of that in us, some more than others. I do my best to make people aware that Satan is real, that evil spirits are real, they are fallen angels, but that means nothing to those that don’t accept, or believe. These spirits take advantage of our ignorance, our weaknesses, our self-will, and selfishness, our hatreds, prejudices, envy, and greed. It’s been proven to me experiencially, not theoretically, and some don’t accept or believe my testimony. Well some didn’t believe Christ either, so who am I, and why should I expect different. The Christan Catholic Church knows, and has much proof. Even the late Saint Padre Pio knew experiencially, read his life. He experienced phenomenon that couldn’t be explained by science, nor will it ever be. The world of the spirit in God is not confined to physical laws. When Padre Pio was asked how he could be in two places at one time, he answered “by the extension of my personality” try to understand that, and that was only one spiritual phenomenon. These things happen to testify to the reality of Jesus Christ, and who He is. I must add, no one goes to Christ unless the Father calls him, and no one goes to the Father except through Christ. The Father has to initiate the call, we can’t do it ourselves, so pray the Father calls us. He is the one who causes a “change of heart” in us, a change of will and desire, a change of life.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Your “insight” here is exactly what prompted Einstein’s famous “God does not play dice” quote. The problem is that now a generation of scientists have investigated this very issue from all sorts of angles. For example, the Bell Theorem says that it is impossible to find certain kinds of variables and still get the (successful) predictions of quantum mechanics. In other words, the theorem rules out a whole class of possible conditions. In fact there has even been
experimental evidence that comes down in favor of the . Now it is certainly possible that the missing variables belong to some a class not covered by the Bell Theorem. But it turns out that most of those other classes have equally troubling implications or involve violations of other well known and successful ideas (like having information move faster than the speed of light.)

I think your “to know” vs “knowledge” is a distinction without a difference. Or alternatively you’re conflating different conceptions of knowledge.

Not quite. Points 1-4 misunderstand my position on skepticism. I am not advocating that pure skepticism is correct , just that you can’t “beat” it in an a-priori sense. I tend to agree with the sentiment “it may be possible to be a complete skeptic, you just can’t be anything else, not even a defender of skepticism.” **I think that Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum is *probably ***correct, but not some the kind of guaranteed fact he was looking for. Consequently, I think that we simply have to acknowledge that all our pronouncements about the world are necessarily colored with the faint tinges of doubt.

That is why #1 is wrong. I am not asserting-as-true the proposition “We don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in.” We may very well have that access. What I am saying is that we can’t know for sure whether or not we have the access. Hence my reasoning is more pragmatic. Given that we’re not sure about our ability to sense things accurately or reason about things accurately, what can we possibly do? Well we might as well start somewhere, so we assume that our senses and reason are at least somewhat reliable. If it turns out that we don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in, then this is no worse a method than any other available to us.

This approach means that at no point are there any sacred cows. If there is some evidence that contradicts our reason, we have to consider both the possibility that our reasoning was wrong, as well as the possibility that our evidence was wrong. The strongest claims, and the ones that I would colloquially refer to us as “knowing” are the ones that have solid support from both reason and empirical evidence.

The “light is an electromagnetic wave” claim is sort of true-by-definition. We’ve defined both the concepts of light and electromagnetic waves, and it turns out they both refer to the same thing.

I promise I will come back to the first part of your comment, JK. The second part seems to contain some nuances with which I tend to agree, but I would like to keep my comments for later. For the moment I would like to focus on the sentences that I put in bold characters:

When you say that “Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum is *probably *correct, but not some the kind of guaranteed fact he was looking for”, what do you mean with the term “probably”; and, are you absolutely certain that the cogito is not the guaranteed fact Descartes was looking for?

Provided you think “that all our pronouncements about the world are necessarily colored with the faint tinges of doubt”, what does “evidence” (especially “empirical evidence”) mean to you, and by which means could it “turn out that we don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in”?

In view of your answers to these questions, how can you be so certain that our definitions of “light” and “electromagnetic waves” refer to the same thing?

 

[ynotzap]

The Universe couldn’t exist without a cause because it could not cause itself to exist,and it does exist. If it existed eternally, existence would be it’s nature, and wouldn’t need a cause. If it existed eternally, it would not change, it would contain all being. What ever it could be, it would be. This is contrary to our experience, the criterion of our knowledge. The universe manifests dependence, not independence. It depends on order, and an ordering agent. It depends on motion, it can not move itself. We are totally dependent, we and the world are not self-sustaining. If it did not exist eternally, it had a beginning, We had a beginning, and we are part of the Universe. We didn’t always exist. All indication prove that the universe has a cause apart from itself. If one thinks otherwise, then refute, and prove that the universe doesn’t need a cause by disproving the above statements.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My heart only pumps blood. It has no other function. If you use it allegorically, then you need to explain HOW can one (allegorically) open one’s heart to God. I don’t refuse anything, I simply have no idea HOW to do it.

Begin by going to Church prepared to believe rather than to resist with all your might, and you might find out HOW to do it.

Above all, be patient with God, as no doubt he has been mighty patient with you.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To engage in reasonable debate with people with different views from ours? Why do you respond to atheists so much, and get so heated about it?

Ah, at last an answer I can believe. You are in it for sport.

You are not going to win, so you need to find another reason.

A reason that rises above mere athletics.

And yes, sometime the truth sounds rude.

Why do you come to Catholic Answers so often and get so heated about it?

 

[PRmerger]

Solmyr, thank you for posting this. I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Some theists may believe that we are being deliberately difficult or pedantic.

Yes.

Or just simply being fundamentalist.

Some will claim that deep down we know how to “open our hearts to God” as Charlemagne suggests. Could it not be true, though, that we simply don’t know what is meant by opening our heart to something that we don’t believe in? I certainly don’t.

Egg-zactly. It’s NOT the part about “I don’t understand what it means to open our hearts”…

it’s the part about “God” that you don’t embrace.

But we already know that.

Incidentally, I googled “open our hearts” and this song came up.

youtube.com/watch?v=uIZQzTqq6qw

It doesn’t mention the Numinous at all.

Clearly, one doesn’t have to be a Believer to get the concept of opening one’s heart.

But one does have to be an atheist, weirdly, to declare “I don’t know what that means!”

#curious

 

[PRmerger]

Then please start a thread.

No thank you.

If you want to say that you’re an atheist and haven’t found any compelling evidence to believe, while also saying you haven’t actually examined the evidence except on a Catholic forum, that’s up to you.



But, again, that’s like a 6000 year old earther saying, “I haven’t found any compelling evidence to believe that the earth is older than what the Bible says it is. I haven’t read any scientific materials that support the view that the earth is billions of years old…but I have talked (a lot) to some really knowledgeable people, like Bradski, PRmerger, ThinkingSapien, stewstew03, on a forum, and I’m not convinced.”

Okey-dokey, then.

Stay uninformed.

 

[PRmerger]

(I’m sure you know the old saw about how you turn a Christian into an atheist – you send him to a seminary to study theology).

Too true, too true.

And I’m sure you’ve heard the old saw: “That idea is so insane only a PhD could possibly believe it”.

It’s often the little child who points out, “But the Emperor is naked!”

 

[Solmyr]

First, I would like to ask you to break down your post into paragraphs. It would be easier to follow what you want to say. Please.

Anyone can have an encounter with God, in Jesus Christ. When one uses the terms, open your heart, it really refers to the will of man, a desire for the encounter, and the mind,to receive the enlightenment, we call it “amazing grace” which is the work of the Holy Spirit.

I am simply open to God’s existence. That is all I can offer. I am willing to accept him, if he chooses to reveal himself to me. What else can I offer?

There are requirements, sincerity, humility, repentance.

I am sincere. Humility? What is that for? And repentance for what? I never do anything that would go against my ethical principles. So what is there to “repent”?

The Father has to initiate the call, we can’t do it ourselves, so pray the Father calls us.

Since God is immutable, there is no reason to pray for anything. And so far he did not initiate anything.

He is the one who causes a “change of heart” in us, a change of will and desire, a change of life.

Well, he certainly did not do it with me.

 

[Solmyr]

Begin by going to Church prepared to believe rather than to resist with all your might, and you might find out HOW to do it.

I am not for God, nor I am against God. I am prepared to accept God, if he chooses to manifest himself to me.

Above all, be patient with God, as no doubt he has been mighty patient with you.

This simply a cop-out. I have been advised all sorts of activities, but none of them made any difference. Of course the believers have a ready-made comment on that, too: “God is not a vending machine”. You should really not try to blow both hot and cold from your mouth, it only decreases your credibility.

 

[Bradski]

If you want to say that you’re an atheist and haven’t found any compelling evidence to believe, while also saying you haven’t actually examined the evidence except on a Catholic forum, that’s up to you.

Did I say that? I’m pretty certain that I didn’t. Let me check the Kindle app on my phone.

Yep, there’s books by Fesser - The last Superstition, and Horn in there - Answering Atheism. Lots of stuff about your classical arguments in both (I was thinking of downloading Summa Theologica, but really, I don’t have the time – I’ll go with what the apologist say and trust them to get it right).

One by a guy by the name of Wallace called God’s Crime Scene. Covers all the arguments for God and does it quite well. Why I Believed by Ken Daniels, The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, Natural Moralities: A Defence of Pluralistic Relativism by Dave Wong, works by Aurelius and Nagel and the complete works of Plato, Seneca, Paine and John Stuart Mill. Although not many of those last few are actively arguing for God, but one needs to hear all sides.

There’s also a barrel load of philosophical, political and science books which tend to give the more secular side of things.

If you want to discuss any of the arguments that Fesser or Horn or any of the others make (or more directly Aquinas or Plato or whoever), then, again, start a thread and we can all knock it around for a while.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

When you say that “Descartes’ Cogito Ergo Sum is *probably *correct, but not some the kind of guaranteed fact he was looking for”, what do you mean with the term “probably”; and, are you absolutely certain that the cogito is not the guaranteed fact Descartes was looking for?

I don’t think an explanation of Descartes’ motivations for finding the cogito is relevant here. You can read the that sort of stuff for yourself or start a new thread on it. I provided it simply as an example of a traditional encounter with skepticism that you might be familiar with.

Provided you think “that all our pronouncements about the world are necessarily colored with the faint tinges of doubt”, what does “evidence” (especially “empirical evidence”) mean to you, and by which means could it “turn out that we don’t have access to the truth about the world we live in”?

In view of your answers to these questions, how can you be so certain that our definitions of “light” and “electromagnetic waves” refer to the same thing?

For example, we could be systematically deceived in some way that would cause us to be unable to ever find out the truth about the world we live in.

Because as I said, we are taking a balance of probabilities. We can’t rule out the possibility of systematic deception, or last-thursdayism, or any other such skeptical construct. However, if we assume that those sorts of ad-hoc alternatives are unlikely, (and that they aren’t useful) then we can build up a set of things that we are reasonably sure about and do turn out to be useful.

 

[PRmerger]

Did I say that? I’m pretty certain that I didn’t. Let me check the Kindle app on my phone.

Yep, there’s books by Fesser - The last Superstition, and Horn in there - Answering Atheism. Lots of stuff about your classical arguments in both (I was thinking of downloading Summa Theologica, but really, I don’t have the time – I’ll go with what the apologist say and trust them to get it right).

One by a guy by the name of Wallace called God’s Crime Scene. Covers all the arguments for God and does it quite well. Why I Believed by Ken Daniels, The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, Natural Moralities: A Defence of Pluralistic Relativism by Dave Wong, works by Aurelius and Nagel and the complete works of Plato, Seneca, Paine and John Stuart Mill. Although not many of those last few are actively arguing for God, but one needs to hear all sides.

There’s also a barrel load of philosophical, political and science books which tend to give the more secular side of things.

If you want to discuss any of the arguments that Fesser or Horn or any of the others make (or more directly Aquinas or Plato or whoever), then, again, start a thread and we can all knock it around for a while.

Well! Why didn’t you say so way back when, luv?

I was simply going by your statement here:

The only evidence that I consider is that supplied by you

All I do is listen to YOUR arguments and decide if they are credible.

But I retract my assertion then that you’ve only examined the evidence provided by CAFs posters.

Feser and Horn = good stuff
(Presuming you mean Edward Feser. One “s”.)

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I don’t think an explanation of Descartes’ motivations for finding the cogito is relevant here. You can read the that sort of stuff for yourself or start a new thread on it. I provided it simply as an example of a traditional encounter with skepticism that you might be familiar with.

I don’t care about Descartes, JK. If I mentioned him it was because you decided to mention him. I am interested in the meaning you give to the term “probably” and on the absolute certitude you seem to display on your example or on whatever example you like. So, please forget Descartes if you like, but be so kind to focus on the key terms and answer the question.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Provided you think "that all

) then we can build up a set of things that we are reasonably sure about and do turn out to be useful.

I don’t see how your words can be an answer to my questions. Could you please clarify?

 

[Bradski]

Well! Why didn’t you say so way back when, luv?

The ‘you’ in ‘The only evidence that I consider is that supplied by you’ means Christians, not you personally or just the forum. Although I would expect the forum to be able to be able to supply a reasonable argument a la Aquinas and the rest.

One wonders how many have read enough to be able to do it. Versus the general population of Christians. From past polling I would suggest a very small proportion indeed.

As you say, it is quite important if you want to make sure you’ve made the right decision.