Ask a Catholic

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by jeepnut

I'm ignoring most of your post because I feel we have an active discussion along those lines in another post. I hope that's okay. If you want me to specifically address these points again, I will.

However, I want to latch on to the above.

I'm am not claiming to believe that the universe came from nothing. I'm stating that that is the case. It is not scientifically possible for there to be any other explanation. Everything we observe has a natural explanation. That's the definition of natural. Everything we observe, (which we have already defined as natural) has a cause. Since everything has a cause, that cause must have occurred at a place in time. In other words, everything has a beginning. At some point, there must have been a time when the first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence. Before the first thing, there was nothing. I'm not talking about nothing as in there were formless atoms and matter, but that there was literally no thing. The total absence of anything. No atoms, no matter, no energy, nothing. Since we exist, we know that that first thing (whatever that may be) came into existence from nothing. We know that this is not naturally possible as science (the study of the natural world) tells us so. Therefore, the very fact that the universe exists is evidence that God exists. That is my proof.

God is the supernatural cause of our natural universe. The supernatural cause that is required for a natural, finite universe to exist.

You mentioned a couple posts ago about regrowing limbs. Why didn't you say "What if science finds a way to create limbs from nothing?" The reason is, is because you understand that there is no scientific explanation for something to be created from nothing.

I've mentioned it a bunch of times already, but that's not proof. Your only proof is that science doesn't have any proof...yet. Like I said, I'm not putting forth any facts as to how the universe was formed. I acknowledge that at this point in time, we do not know. We do know that it probably has something to do with an explosion near the center of the universe, as everything in the universe is moving outward at a great speed.

But somehow you are making the jump in conclusions from science hasn't come up with a reasonable answer yet, so the only possible solution is god. No. It's not like the origin of the universe is the last thing we don't know. There is an infinite number of things we do not know. You can't take all those things, and just say, "well, science hasn't found an answer in the brief time humans have existed...so it must be supernatural!"

That is not proof, and it never will be. You need proof that supports your side - I not need proof to dispute your side, because you are the one making the claim.

We do not really know that the first thing came from nothing. There's no evidence to suggest that. We do not know that there was a first thing. Like I said, that's your theory, not mine.

When you get into the science of the Universe - with space, gravity, and time, things get very bizarre. What if time is a thing, the same way gravity and space are things? What if this isn't the only universe? What if time itself came into existence at the same moment as the universe, so that essentially there is no "before"? It simply does not exist.

There are so many theories and possibilities out there, and that's why limiting ourselves to saying a god must be the only plausible solution is just silly.

As for your other question, striving to be "good"...I believe that what is "good" is a set of laws and commonsense derived by people over the course of humanities existence. Religion does not define what is good and bad - people do, and there are grey areas.

My own moral code is the sum total of the experiences in my life up until this point. I don't think God mandated that murder was bad, and then people thought, "You know, murder is bad." I think people figured out that murder, rape, thievery, jealousy, anger, etc were bad on their own.

[jeepnut]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I've mentioned it a bunch of times already, but that's not proof. Your only proof is that science doesn't have any proof...yet. Like I said, I'm not putting forth any facts as to how the universe was formed. I acknowledge that at this point in time, we do not know. We do know that it probably has something to do with an explosion near the center of the universe, as everything in the universe is moving outward at a great speed.

I agree that you haven't put forth any facts. But I disagree that I haven't put forth any proof (Since I have proven that the beginning of the universe cannot have occurred by natural means). You have repeatedly stated that you believe that the origin of the universe has a scientific explanation but have not provided proof for this belief. Science is the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. The natural world obeys the laws of nature. The laws of nature do not explain the creation of the universe.

By the way, the understanding that the universe likely began with an explosion near the center of the universe is a theory first proposed by Monseigneur Georges Lemaître; a Catholic priest.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

But somehow you are making the jump in conclusions from science hasn't come up with a reasonable answer yet, so the only possible solution is god. No. It's not like the origin of the universe is the last thing we don't know. There is an infinite number of things we do not know. You can't take all those things, and just say, "well, science hasn't found an answer in the brief time humans have existed...so it must be supernatural!"

That is not proof, and it never will be. You need proof that supports your side - I not need proof to dispute your side, because you are the one making the claim.

We do not really know that the first thing came from nothing. There's no evidence to suggest that. We do not know that there was a first thing. Like I said, that's your theory, not mine.

When you get into the science of the Universe - with space, gravity, and time, things get very bizarre. What if time is a thing, the same way gravity and space are things? What if this isn't the only universe? What if time itself came into existence at the same moment as the universe, so that essentially there is no "before"? It simply does not exist.

OK, let's investigate the possibilities.

1. The universe (or universes) had a beginning at some point. (In this possibility, time definitively came in to existence at the same time as the universe since time is rendered in relation to the universe and cannot exist without it.)

2. The universe (or universes) has always existed. - If this is the case, we must then also state that the universe is never ending as well, since no beginning necessitates an infinite universe.

Which is scientifically possible? We have observed decay and change in our universe. All observations point to the understanding that the universe will someday cease to exist. We observe this as entropy or the second law of thermodynamics. Without the input of energy, things will move from an ordered state to a disordered state. An infinite universe would not do this for it must constantly renew itself.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

There are so many theories and possibilities out there, and that's why limiting ourselves to saying a god must be the only plausible solution is just silly.

OK, let's not call it God. It is still a transcendent cause which is necessitated by the fact that the universe came into existence at a definitive point in time before which nothing existed.

Originally Posted by Vampyr

As for your other question, striving to be "good"...I believe that what is "good" is a set of laws and commonsense derived by people over the course of humanities existence. Religion does not define what is good and bad - people do, and there are grey areas.

My own moral code is the sum total of the experiences in my life up until this point. I don't think God mandated that murder was bad, and then people thought, "You know, murder is bad." I think people figured out that murder, rape, thievery, jealousy, anger, etc were bad on their own.

I would agree that people discovered that murder, rape, etc. are bad on their own. The Catholic Church agrees as well. Catholics call this natural law. Natural law is written on men's hearts and does not rely on the revelation of God. In other words, even someone who has never heard of God can observe that murder is wrong.

But why did we come to this conclusion? If life is meaningless and nothing we do matters, then there is no concept of good. What is good is up to each person to decide and would likely revolve simply around "what advances my desires at this moment." If murder solves a problem or provides an advantage, then it is good for the person who is committing the murder. Since life is meaningless, the feelings of the one being murdered are also meaningless. Good is relative.

Why is this not the case then? Why do we have objective wrongs? A meaningless universe presents no requirement for this to be the case.