Here’s a conversation I found on FB on David Quinn’s page: I found it to be a very interesting and educational post, so much so, that I’ve decided to copy and post some of it here for your interest. It’s long but worth the read.
David Quinn Scientist Stephen Hawking is now telling us that the universe spontaneously came into being without any need for God because of the law of gravity. But surely that rather begs the question, where did the law of gravity come from?
Paul O’Donovan The ‘most intelligent man in the world’ has never heard of causality? Cause and effect? He must have, it’s a basic philosophical and even a basic scientific principle – so implicitly Hawking is claiming that GRAVITY, is the first cause- the …uncaused cause from which all causes and effects come. The alpha and omega, the beginning and end.
So…gravity is God??? Next thing he’ll set up a Church worshipping it.
In truth the ‘most intelligent man in the world’ is not very intelligent at all, if he claims the law of gravity is the source of its own existence.
Alex Meates And how can the law of gravity apply in a place where it isn’t present to begin with?
Alex Meates I don’t think cause and effect applies so much nowadays. Especially coming from people who believe in god – an uncaused, supernatural entity.
Patrick West There’s no point for atheists or non-theists pursuing the cause and effect argument as it will always lead to the infinite regressence paradox (‘So who created God?’ etc). Looking for the meaning of life is like asking a dog to understand algebra: human beings are just not evolved enough to comprehend these things.
Alex Meates Patrick pretty much made a better job of the point I was trying to make…
Paul O’Donovan Well tell that to St.Thomas Aquinas (:
Cause and effect always applies, it is one of the Catholic proofs for the existence of God. It is called causality or the argument from causality, along with dependency(necessity), proof from motion, proof from law and order etc.
These proofs are found in most apologetical books, such as Apologetics and Catholic Doctrines by Archbishop M. Sheehan.
I think you are just misunderstanding in it. Catholic teaching on the matter is that God is the uncaused first cause. Whereas everything else in the universe is an effect produced by a cause, which in turn is an effect of another cause…etc etc until the first cause which is necessarily uncaused.
Alex Meates Again, yout argument is based completely on faith > science. You can’t argue that point to an atheist because the only proof you are giving for God’s uncaused coming into being is the bible.
Paul O’Donovan There is very much a point in pursuing the argument from causality for the very reason that it does lead to as you put it – a paradox. Causality in order for it to exist, needs a first cause, an uncaused cause- in order for it not to be a p…aradox.
As we see that causality does actually exist in the universe, there must therefore exist a first cause.
Alex Meates How can causality exist when there is even a such thing as an uncaused cause?
Patrick West Well I just think people should keep asking questions and stop seeking answers.
Paul O’Donovan ”You can’t argue that point to an atheist because the only proof you are giving for God’s uncaused coming into being is the bible”
I dont understand what you mean by this, I never mentioned the bible.
The argument from causality is a long st…anding principle in basic Catholic theology and philosophy when it comes to proving the existence of God.
It is based purely on natural truths, natural philosophy. It has nothing to do with revealed truth – i.e the bible. I can understand how you brought that up.
Funnily enough this is the second time I mentioned this quote on David’s page:
As the oath against modernism given by Pope St.Pius X states:
“And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated”
This is Catholic teaching.
Paul O’Donovan “Well I just think people should keep asking questions and stop seeking answers.”
A contradiction in terms my friend.
Monica Rapeanu Mr Hawking might like to explain and possibly even offer proofs of how gravity as a natural law, i.e. belonging to nature, is the cause of nature itself.
Good old Pascal was right: “There are two types of men, those who are afraid to lose God, and those who are afraid that they might find Him…”
Alex Meates Sorry Paul, I misinterpreted your previous post, but my argument still stands.
You say cause and effect is a viable theory, but how can you say that when you also belive that God is an uncaused being? I don’t see how you can believe both without defeating your own argument yourself.
If that quote is the sort of Catholic teachings you’re referring to, there is no way you’ll be convincing any atheists. To them, saying something like that quote you posted is like saying circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. You’re points come down to faith, like I said before.
Paul O’Donovan Alex, one cant have faith in the existence of God, if one does not already have certain knowledge that God exists. That is why St.Pius X put that very quote in the oath against modernism, because it leads to subjective thinking, where God i…s not a certainty.
God can certainly be known through reason alone. It is because of this that we make acts of faith in all the things he has revealed to us, i.e the Trinity, transubstantiation, etc etc etc.
Secondly cause and effect is not a theory. It a scientific and philosophical principle it is not disputed. For example you get your lighter and set a paper on fire. The cause is the flame from the lighter, the effect is the paper burning. No one disputes that there are causes and effects in the universe.
What atheists disupte is that if you go back through all the causes in the universe, what events shaped the universe and made it as it is, you will eventually come to a point where there is a first effect, something that was the first thing to happen in the universe. This first effect, MUST have had a cause, this first cause could not be an effect itself – otherwise it would not be the first cause, and thus the series goes on to infinity.
As was said above a paradox. An impossibility.
Therefore there must be a first cause, which has itself, no cause and is not itself an effect.
An uncaused cause, a cause which has existence in its very own nature.
This is where the arguments from causality and necessity-or dependence- converge.
This first cause has in its own nature – existence. Everything else in the universe has no grasp on existence, existence is not a part of its nature, it is held in existence by thing outside itself, laws, principles and forces etc.
The first cause is existence itself and has existence as its own nature.
As the apologetical book I mentioned above most admirably concludes every argument:
“This first cause we call God”
Patrick West I’m sorry Paul but that is sophistry. I am an atheist, but not of the militant variety, and I hold the Catholic Church with affection. But an appeal to authority is not proof of veracity. Just because someone said something it doesn’t make it true. There’s nothing wrong with being a Doubting Thomas 
Alex Meates I’m not disputing the principle of cause and effect, just that it can’t be true if God wasn’t created by anything, which you also believe. I’ve said it a couple times now.
I believe in a God of sorts, but I don’t think that it is the sort of… God, or higher power, we think it is. I do believe that there had to be some form supernatural happenings for the universe to be what it is, so I do in some respects believe in uncaused cause. I’m only refuting what you said to make the point that we can’t comprehend the nature of the universe, and that the statement you made about Hawkings’ theory being unbelieveable because of the principle of cause and effect was flawed because the very act of being a Christian and believing in God refutes the idea.
You can’t cite caused and effect as reason for Hawkings’ theory being wrong when you believe in a being that wasn’t caused, that’s all I’m saying.
Celestine Rafferty If uncaused existence is possible, though, then the universe could be uncaused, too, could it not?
Alex Meates Uncaused existence is a matter of faith.
Paul O’Donovan I understand where you are coming from Patrick, I have been there myself.
But I wasn’t addressing atheists, I was addressing Catholics (I didnt imagine any atheists to be posting here on this), where an appeal to authority is very often a proof of veracity.
But of course yes you are perfectly correct, an appeal to authority when debating with an atheist would make no logical sense.
So please understand my previous posts in that context.
God Bless
Paul O’Donovan Uncaused existence cant be a matter of faith, because it’s not a revealed truth. It’s a necessary reality when examining causality.
Faith (or an act therof) is believing what God says, because God said it.
And whilst it is true that God very often did reveal his existence in extraordinary ways – especially in the old testament, it was not to prove his existence, but to reveal something about him, some virtue, some law etc.
Alex Meates Rather, a matter of belief. There is little solid proof for the idea of uncaused cause, thus it comes down to the individual believing in it.
Also, in case you missed it, I replied to your other post too
Alex Meates “Its a necessary reality when examining causality”
That statement is a contradiction of itself.
How can uncaused cause be vital to the principle that everything has a cause?
Paul O’Donovan @Alex “Rather, a matter of belief. There is little solid proof for the idea of uncaused cause, thus it comes down to the individual believing in it.”
It’s a matter of experimental date Alex though. Of course one cannot proof the idea of an uncaused cause through that manner.
It a philosphical truth, the same as the idea of truth itself, or justice, or any such idea.
It’s not a matter of personal belief, that subjectivism, we are having an objective discussion, subjectivism has no place in a debate.
” “Its a necessary reality when examining causality”
That statement is a contradiction of itself.
How can uncaused cause be vital to the principle that everything has a cause?”
How is it a contradiction?
To answer your question it is vital because it is fact, that everything DOES have a cause, everything in our universe does have a cause, that is demonstrable and easily understood.
If one examines the seemingly endless series of causes and effects in the universe, one is inevitably drawn to the conclusion that at somepoint, somewhere, there was a first effect. The first even happened, the first thing, be it a law was made(which implies a lawmake incidentally,not to digress), a force acted on something, or be it energy, or light, or whatever. This first effect MUST have a cause.
This must be admitted, the first effect in the universe, has to have had a cause.
This cause cannot have had a cause, or we are back to our seemingly endless series of events, causes and effects.
Therefore…this first effect, was caused by an uncaused cause.
This uncaused cause we call God.
Monica Rapeanu @Celestine: if by universe you mean the totality of what exists, then you’re saying that all that exists has no cause which cannot be true for these reasons: nothing can will itself into existence, e.g. you did not will yourself into exist…ence, a stone cannot will itself into existence, etc. Secondly, if it is true that the universe is in motion then something/somebody must have set it into motion. Thirdly, we need to remember that – as common observation shows us – things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be “possible to be and possible not to be”. Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.Therefore, there must be a being of a non-transitory nature and obviously this cannot be called the universe. Contingent/transitory beings call for the existence of a necessary being, an Unmoved Mover.
Paul O’Donovan @ Celestine, “If uncaused existence is possible, though, then the universe could be uncaused, too, could it not?”
If the universe was a principle rather than an almost infinite series of principle perhaps.
…But the universe is made up of endless laws, principles, rules, forces, motions, physical and intangible bodies etc etc.
These did not put themselves in order. Thus enters the Church’s teaching on proof from law and order. Laws imply a lawmaker a lawgiver. Design implies a designer.
Also none of the things in the universe NEED exist, they could just as well not exist, they have no hold on their own existence, their existence comes from without, this implies after again a seemingly endless series of causes and effects a principle which has of its very own nature, existence itself, from which all other things draw their existence.
Celestine Rafferty That doesn’t answer my question, though. If you’re going to posit the existence of an uncaused cause, an Unmoved Mover, as Monica has it, why does that have to be God? Or more to the point, why does it have to be a personal, benevolent God?… Also the premise of causality is arrived at by inductive reasoning – on your experience of how things happen in the world. An atheist might accept that causality applies to this world (although scientists can demonstrate that gas molecules, for example, can move without anything to put them in motion), but how will you prove to him/her that causality is a principle throughout the universe?See more
Paul O’Donovan Celestine,
“If you’re going to posit the existence of an uncaused cause, an Unmoved Mover, as Monica has it, why does that have to be God?”
That is very true Celestine, bravo for bringing it up. But is a wholly seperate question.
Hence enter…s Christian Apologetics.
A long…long subject.
What we are speaking of however for the moment is the existence of God, apart from any revelations God has made about himself.
“Also the premise of causality is arrived at by inductive reasoning – on your experience of how things happen in the world”
No its not arrived at through subjectivism, inductive reasoning perhaps, but not subjective truths. The series of causes and effects in the universe, right down to our everyday lives and their events are an OBJECTIVE reality.
Observation of this objective reality allows to show the existence of a first cause.
“although scientists can demonstrate that gas molecules, for example, can move without anything to put them in motion”
No they cant, they merely demonstrate that they move without any APPARENT external force.
That does not mean there is no external force, it merely means we cant see one. Also even if there is no external mover in that case, the molecules do not choose to move, they move because there is a law stating that they do move, for whatever reason yet unknown-if any, and this law must have a lawgiver.
“but how will you prove to him/her that causality is a principle throughout the universe?”
When we speak of the universe, we speak of the observable universe, that is all that we can behold with our senses.
Celestine Rafferty @Paul. Thank you for the response. So, basically, you cannot prove that causality is a governing principle throughout the universe? So in a sense, Ockham’s Razor defeats the causality argument?
Don’t get me wrong – believe it or not I’m no…t an atheist. In fact, very far from it. But if you’re going to set out arguments for the existence of God to an atheist you’re going to have to look at and refute the counter arguments, too. You cannot argue from authority or apologetics because they are not points of engagement for an atheist.
To me, engaging an atheist with arguments about the existence of God is futile. There is no argument for the existence of God that cannot be countered or refuted. Engaging atheists about how we should live as sentient beings is, IMO, much more productive. And perhaps if we believers lived as we should, as if ‘ in him we live and move and have our being’, it might have more effect on atheists than trying to bash them over the head with syllogisms
Monica Rapeanu @Celestine: So let’s engage the atheists – as you suggest – about how we should all live…if you are to bring morality into the picture, can you avoid then talking about natural law which obviously did not create itself? There is a profound connection between who we are and how we act and we can’t dismiss this connection so easily.
Celestine Rafferty @Monica. I think you can avoid it. In fact I think that any argument from natural law is going nowhere with an atheist. But atheists are not amoral and it is possible to construct a morality without reference to natural law. Atheists do it all the time and manage to live lives of great probity and integrity. Engaging them at that level seems to me to be the way to go.
TCathal Loftus Absolute certainty is inatteinable because I cannot be absolutely sure of my premises, of reasoning as such and nor of my own capacity to ‘go figure’. In everyday life, I accept ‘the best evidence available’ and a ‘balance of probability’ standard of proof (In grave situations; ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. My belief in God is beyond reasonable doubt). But, there is intuition too; dear old Mr.Wittgenstein posits that even when reason delivers a perfectly valid truth, it still has to feel right! Annoyingly, I must allow that there have been times when my belief in God felt odd. See more
David Quinn For anyone interested, here is my debate with Richard Dawkins from RTE radio a few years ago.see HERE
Celestine Rafferty I doubt atheists would think they’re following any particular law but obviously I cannot speak for every single atheist’s way of constructing their moral lives.The way I see it, atheism is amoral but atheists are not: they can take their moral and ethical principles from any code they wish. Recently, I had an interesting conversation with a self-professed atheist, former clergyman. I asked him pretty much that: how did he construct his morality now. His reply was simple: empathy. Plus, he pointed out that Jesus was not the first one to say ‘do unto others as you would like them to do unto you’; it is a principle of enlightened self-interest (his words) expounded in many cultures long before Jesus walked the earth.See more
Paul O’Donovan @Celestine, “So, basically, you cannot prove that causality is a governing principle throughout the universe? So in a sense, Ockham’s Razor defeats the causality argument?”
No thats not what I am saying at all.
1. I didnt say causality is a ……governing principle, its not, its an observable process, easily seen in reality.
2. I already pointed out that you are using ‘universe’ in the wrong sense. The universe in the context we are speaking about is not the accumulation of galaxies and star systems, it is the observable world around us (and by world I do not mean planet) that we can behold with our senses.
3. The application of Ockhams razor to this argument is groundless, because we are speaking here of principles, such as justice, mercy, truth, existence, life, etc etc etc. Causality is a principle, it is an observable process in the observable world, whether or not there are causes and effects in other parts of the universe is immaterial to the discussion, there are causes and effects in the observable universe, which by the way extends to the farthest stars we can see – these being in themselves both causes and effects.
It would be quite a foolish assertion to claim that those stars caused themselves, or that they themselves do not produce effects(light heat gravitational forces etc)
4. The idea that causality does not apply a certain distance away from the observable universe is also a foolish assertion, one made by a mind which has completely lost sanity(I am NOT referring to you,only to the mind that asserts it). Causes and effects are a principle which apply to everything natural, everything physical, everything pertaining to energy and forces. Thus even if we cant SEE them because they are too far away, we know that if ‘THEY’ exist, (they being anything)…….they MUST have a cause and be in themselves effects. For there can be only one uncaused cause, otherwise there is an order between the two – which did not cause itself. That order then would have to come from another uncaused being, making the two other uncaused causes, no longer uncaused but caused.
“You cannot argue from authority or apologetics because they are not points of engagement for an atheist. “
Ive already addressed that above. I was addressing Catholics, unaware that there would be any atheists observing.
” There is no argument for the existence of God that cannot be countered or refuted”
Ridiculous logic. Ridiculous statement. Excuse me if my tone seems harsh, but you are bordering on the very insane notion that NOTHING is certain or knowable. To argue that point is to cease arguing, if nothing is knowable or certain then stop arguing and we will all live hedonistic lives, fornicating, adultery, murder, stealing etc.
The proofs for the existence of God are certain, anyone can object to them or offer an objection, but these objections have been refuted and refuted ad infinitum.
Just because an argument has objections to it, does not mean it is not true.
None of the proofs for the existence of God have ever been refuted. Plenty of their objections have however…
Remember atheists are arguing against heavy hitters at the end of the day. Aristotle, St.Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine dealt with all the objections quite neatly.
“Engaging atheists about how we should live as sentient beings is, IMO, much more productive”
Monica has dealt with that sufficiently, suffice to say I second her arguments.
Except that I have this to add in response to your response to her:
“But atheists are not amoral and it is possible to construct a morality without reference to natural law”
Its simply impossible to create a morality without reference to the natural law.
To prove this I ask you to demonstrate it – give ONE example of a constructed morality that has no reference to the natural law.
Its impossible.
“And perhaps if we believers lived as we should, as if ‘ in him we live and move and have our being’, it might have more effect on atheists than trying to bash them over the head with syllogisms”
This I do agree with you on.
Living the life of Grace, striving for perfection and for the true ‘soul apostolate’ as Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard put it, is the ONLY way to truly convert somebody. God ALONE can do any good, as Christ himself said in the Gospel. And example is MUCH more effective than words.
The early Christians were known as great people of love, great lovers (in the non romantic sense), it was this that converted so many and led them to the horrible deaths they endured for Christs sake.
…But! Without apologetical arguments, then our religion would based on nothing but subjective emotional experiences which would be as shaky and as flimsy as our emotions themselves are.
And when it comes to the existence of God, even if by our example we draw someone to Christ, we must still prove to them that God exists, if they are to be able to make an act of faith in what he said.
Faith in what God says is IMPOSSIBLE without first KNOWING that God exists. It cannot be based on emotion, because emotion is not certain, it must be based on reason!! On our intellect, objectivity and objective reasons.
Faith builds on reason…not the other way around.See more
Celestine Rafferty @Paul. I repeat: There is no argument for the existence of God that cannot be countered or refuted. Perhaps I should have added ‘for an atheist’, but as we were talking about arguing with atheists, I thought I didn’t have to say so explic…itly. I also repeat: arguing from apologetics is pointless with an atheist. I didn’t say that apologetics is useless. As St Peter says: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.”
I do not know for certain that God exists but I believe he does. That’s what’s called a leap of faith. Even St Paul praised those pagans who worshiped the Unknown God. See more
Paul O’Donovan @David, Loved this quote from your debate with Richard Dawkins:
“The scientist who speaks about evolution with all the authority of science can also speak about the existence of God with all the authority of science..and of course he cant!… The scientist speaking about the existence of God is actually engaging in philosophy and theology, but he certainly isnt bringing to it the authority of science”
A point which is always conveniently ignored by such scientists who engage in matters outside their competence!
Paul O’Donovan
@ Celestine: And I repeat Celestine, the idea that a proof of this existence of God has been refuted, is simply put….untrue.
Name one!
Also you havent answered my question in my post.
…
“I do not know for certain that God exists but I believe he does. That’s what’s called a leap of faith. Even St Paul praised those pagans who worshiped the Unknown God.”
Then your faith is baseless Celestine. In fact you dont actually have faith. What you have is a vague sort of hope.
In order to make an act of faith in God, you have to know that he actually first exists, before you can believe anything he says.
What a ridiculous notion to believe that one could believe anything God says, if they were not sure he existed! Even those pagans you mentioned knew God existed from the observable world around them – before they even THOUGHT about praying to him!
You cant make a leap of faith in Gods existence, because that would mean the existence of God is a revealed truth which you have to make a leap of faith in (properly referred to as an act of faith), such as the Trinity. Such revealed truths are truths which we CANNOT without revelation arrive at through the use of human reason…….unlike the existence of God, which is easily arrived at through reason alone.
Are you a Catholic Celestine? Because if you are then you should know this what the Church teaches. If you are not then I would be happy to talk more about it with you at length.
Celestine Rafferty @Paul. Of course I’m Catholic – do you seriously think that anyone in Ireland called Celestine would be anything else?
I think we’re talking past each other, Paul, and have different understanding of what we mean when we speak of ‘cer…tainty’ and ‘knowing’. So let’s start from the beginning: can we agree that faith is a gift?
Paul O’Donovan lol…yes I suppose I overlooked your very beautiful Catholic name!
Faith is a supernatural gift of God which enables us to believe firmly whatever God has revealed, on the testimony of His word. By it we believe in the truth of many things …which we cannot grasp with our understanding.
Celestine Rafferty Then we agree on that. Can we also agree that, for whatever reasons, there are people, even very intelligent, rational ones, from whom this great gift is withheld? [for some reason these words of Jesus come to mind: I praise you, Father, Lo…rd of heaven and earth, for hiding these things from wise and intelligent people and revealing them to little children.
Paul O’Donovan As I said to you via PM, ill get back properly to this later, but briefly, yes to your second statement also. However, you are falsely applying that principle to the existence of God, as one does not require the gift of faith to know that G…od exists, they merely need to use their God-given reason, which is withheld from precious few of mankind.
Faith is necessary for all the those things God has REVEALED…not his existence which is known through the light of human reason.
Celestine Rafferty OK, thanks Paul. As I said, perhaps we should take this to PMs anyway. Poor David’s page is being hijacked:)
Celestine Rafferty Sorry, David, but just to comment on Paul’s last post, then we’re gone. I promise! @Paul If God’s existence could be empirically proven, there would be no need for faith. And no atheists!
Alex Meates @Paul: I think we’ve gone off on a bit of tangeant here…
The point I was trying to make initially, was that you can’t refute Hawking’s theory of gravity being the first cause by using the principle of cause and effect. Why can God not have a cause and gravity can’t? Gravity being the first, uncaused cause has just as much merit as God being the first from a purely scientific standing point.
Alex Meates @Brian: I’m not an atheist, I’m just presenting Paul with a viable argument against his beliefs because I’m trying to be impartial.
The reality is that no one on this Earth can be absolutely certain how the universe was created. So I’m not… gonna sit here being ignorant and claim that I do, which is why in these sorts of arguments I give points for both sides. Each have their own plausible and unplausible arguments.See more
David Quinn If there is uncaused cause, there is nothing as I see it. God is much more likely to be that uncaused cause than gravity!
Paul O’Donovan @Alex,
I understand the point you are trying to make.
But the idea that gravity, a force that displays itself in only way, or a very limited number of ways, being the first cause is also not philosophically possible. The cause must be suffic…ient to produce the effect. That as an undeniable truth. For example, the watchmaker must be able to assemble watches in order to create a watch. For a being to create justice, it must have in and of itself and in and of its very own nature, justice.
This is where the Catholic arguments for the nature of God come into play (from the point of view of natural reason, and not revelation)
Gravity has neither love, nor justice, nor mercy, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, nor most importantly omnipotence.
For all the effects in the universe we see, all the many wonderous perfections of the material world, the beauty of the planets and galaxies and all the stars, down to the smallest rock or pebble or the eruption of a volcano or the motion of the sea, all of these have in some way a particular perfection, a particular aspect of them which in unique to itself and uniquely good.
Similarly in the animal species, there are so so many perfections and beautiful displays of order, that represent one or another perfection.
As also in man, there are innumerous qualities and attributes which represent particular perfections, our soaring intellects -so far above the animal and material kingdoms, our capacity for love and hope and fear and anger and courage. Our lofty and noble amibitions, our compassion, our search for truth and for justice and for happiness.
All of these….ALL of these, must be present in the cause of the universe. They must be present in a superabundant way, they must be present in a far greater capacity than in the effects of the first cause.
THE CAUSE MUST BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE EFFECT.
GRAVITY…..is not a sufficient cause for the effect of the universe.
Also, a simple argument can be made that gravity, is a law. A law must have a law giver.
So gravity has absolutely, positively, NO merit as the first cause of the universe.
“The reality is that no one on this Earth can be absolutely certain how the universe was created.”
- We are called Roman Catholics…..and we beg to differ. It was created by the uncaused first cause, the unmoved first mover, the necessary being upon whom all things are dependent. The only being who’s existence is a part of his very own nature….God
The historical means and process by which the universe was created however is subject to SCIENTIFIC debate. Not philosophy. Im not even going to bother sharing my opinions on that – because they would be just that, subjective and not objective like the previous points I made.
Alex Meates @Paul, Okay, I see what you are meaning with the whole cause and effect point, but that then raises the obvious question – how did God just get there? Especially when cause and effect is a law of the universe? That also applies to your next… statement “We are called Roman Catholics…..and we beg to differ” and the stuff following that…
I do believe in God (of sorts), like I said before, but while I do believe in him I still cannot be absolutely certain that he is there – there will always be apart of me that doubts it. I just see it as somewhat arrogant to say there is most definitely, 100% without a doubt, a God. Because there is no concrete (and when I say concrete I mean absolutely irrefutable) that supports the claims of either Christians or Atheists. In a way, both views come down to faith. Christian have faith that God is real, and Atheists have faith in the theories that scientists give them (and when I say theories, I mean theories, as in unproven ideas).
I do wish I could be really devout Christian and be able to tell myself that I am positive there is a God, but I can’t.
Paul O’Donovan @Alex I do understand where you are coming from Alex, it was a question I pondered over for a long time. No pondered isnt the right word, more struggled with. But the only solution for it is study. Read what St.Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle and…… St.Augustine had to say on it. That should more than answer any question anyone could ever have. Failing that, as it does seem a bit abstract with a lack of provided references, order this book- I mentioned it earlier, it was used in secondary schools in many schools in Ireland up until about 50 years ago – Apologetics and Catholic doctrine, by Archbishop Sheehan(try and find an original) -
Apologetics-and-Catholic-Doctrine
and for a fuller, exhaustive treatment of Catholic dogmatic theology, try Ludwig Van Ott’s ‘Fundamentals of Catholic dogma’ -
Fundamentals-Catholic-Dogma-Dr-Ludwig
God Bless
Two County Mayo based parish priests have publicly taken different points of view on the Corrib Gas Project, which aims to bring gas ashore in the county. READ MORE Both Fr Michael Nallen and Fr Kevin Hegarty made submissions to the An Bord Planeala hearing into the Corrib Gas Project in Bellmullet this week with both being firmly on opposite sides of the fence. There has been a fierce battle for years now to stop the destruction of this beautiful, untainted area of the West of Ireland. Apparently the gas supply will only last for 15 years! For more on the group opposing the project go HERE to Shell-to-Sea website.
As it happened the mission was put off for a while and in the meantime she ended up in another country where she went to a Catholic conference. She introduced herself to the organisers and told them about her qualifications and if in any way she could help, she would be delighted. The organisers thanked her and asked her if she wouldn’t mind helping out with the teas as they had no one to serve the tea. She left the conference and reported that it was the worst conference she ever went to, not what she had expected at all.
I listened to Dr. Suzanne Mulligan, a lecturer in Moral Theology at The Milltown Institute, Dublin, give a talk at the Knock Shrine Novena last week. The title was ‘The Moral Journey’:
August 2010: Humbert Summer School has its annual gathering of hacks to discuss politics and culture and the Church. It was set up by John Cooney, a columnist with the Irish Independent newspaper. Cooney has been writing articles in his column about the Catholic Church hierarchy and his dream to erase the current group of bishops and replace them with his ‘chosen few’ and above all to oust Cardinal Seán Brady. His inside contacts in Rome inform him who should take the seat of Armagh and he writes about it. Groupies?
