Catholic Quarter

God of Atheists

By Drew Castel on May 29th, 2010

“The fool in his heart has said, ‘there is no God’” Psalms 14:2, 53:1.

To some, this sounds like a rather harsh statement. But what is it that makes this harsh? To begin, we shall venture into varying topics to help us respond to this statement.

Philosophy

We understand that things are of their own nature i.e. dogs only come from dogs, trees only from trees, humans from humans, and the such. To have always been, it must have come from it’s own type or kind. It is safe that tangible things produce more tangible things. Just as solids create more solids, liquids create further liquids, and gas into gases. What am I getting at? Where does emotion, the intangible, come from? And with that, what about thought? And foremost, what about life? All these are intangible, and by natural law, tangible creates tangible and intangible would create intangible. So what intangible thing fostered these three elements so sacredly woven into the core of our very being? Some say that we have come from a collaboration of elements and compounds, fusing together in chemical chaos, hence creating life. But these are all tangible things, which could explain our tangible existence in forms, but what about the intangible, formlessness that we are made of? All physical things can be rendered under the five senses, smell, touch, sight, taste, sound, or occupy space. But Emotion, life, and thoughts are absent of all these requirements. From what do these intangibles proceed from?

If man is only a mixture of chemicals and atoms, then why can we not reanimate or revive a freshly deceased person? A person but only moments dead has all the correct components in place, all the right levels of chemical mixtures to support life, and is atomically aligned. If chemicals is all that was needed for life, then why does a person have no life only a second after death when all the chemicals are as they were pre-mordem?

But many cling to that we are accidents of anatomic fusion. Let’s see with a clearer mind this line of thought. If five chemicals, in just the right mixture are to create life, what are the chances that in a vastly expanded universe, that each chemical should bind with just the right amount – without being too much or to little – and soon enough that the compounds doesn’t, so to speak, expire and become frail or useless? It is like placing five chemicals in space, which as everything does, will lose its potency over time, hoping that each mass of chemical will divide into the proper amount, float into one another in the right percentages, and do so in a timely matter before it loses its potent strength.

If this has really happened, then explain evolution. If I were to drop a creature into an unknown environment, what knowledge does it have of survival? Can it without foreknowledge, understand that falling into water can be killed by drowning itself? Or that fall from a cliff will mortally wound it? Or that other creatures larger than itself may consume or crush it under their foot? Or know what is poisonous from what is edible? And again, what intangible thing is supplying it capacity for knowledge? Lest one claims that a mixture of electrons and chemicals create knowledge, then we can call knowledge a tangible thing, able to exist outside a living entity. If this is so, please show me the physical form it takes and how I could inject, literally, this knowledge to have it as my own.

• Rene Descartes wrote, “Cogito ergo sum”, “I think, therefor I am”.
  • This is fallible because thought does not always consist with reality. If we see a stick half submerged in water, it looks misconstrued. This is only an interpretation of the minds inability to distinguish reality from sensory; sensory would be the vision seeing a bent stick, reality would say that the stick is straight despite its submergence.
  • Another reason as to why this cannot hold true, is if thought is reality, than my thought that another person’s thought are false would be true about their thoughts being false, therefor negate their reality produced within the mind.
• Alfred Jules Ayer said, paraphrasing, that things must be empirical to exist.
  • If this were so, than the process of verification would have to be rendered under the rigorous test of empiricism its self. Ayer writes, “Every meaningful proposition is verifiable in sense experience” tho the predicate, “sense experience”, is not sensible; it is abstract and intelligible.
    • Alfred Ayer died in 1989. In 1988 his heart stopped for four minutes at a London hospital. In his death, he calls of a red light and became ‘aware that this light was responsible for the government of the universe’ which left his atheist views unfounded, he wrote, ‘but slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death – which is due fairly soon – will be the end of me, though I continue to hope it will be.” This story weakened others in atheistic conviction, such as English writer Somerset Maugham who, on his deathbed, beckoned that Sir Alfred visit him and confirm with reassurance that there was no life after death.

Thomas Aquinas, considered to be the greatest theologian and doctor of the Christian faith enumerates five indoctrinated reasons as why to accept the existence of God,

• The first is called Motion:

“The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

• The second is called Causation:

“The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

• The third is called Necessity or Contingency:

“The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.”

• The fourth is called Perfection:

“The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.”

• The fifth is called Design:

“The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

Complimentary to Thomas Aquinas insight, I offered as another argument to promote the faith and belief of an Almighty Governor and Creator,

• The argument from conscience by Cardinal John Henry Newman:

“If, as is the case, we feel responsibility, are ashamed, are frightened, at transgressing the voice of conscience, this implies that there is One to whom we are responsible, before whom we are ashamed, whose claims upon us we fear. If, on doing wrong, we feel the same tearful, broken-hearted sorrow which overwhelms us on hurting a mother; if, on doing right, we enjoy the same sunny serenity of mind, the same soothing, satisfactory delight which follows on our receiving praise from a father, we certainly have within us the image of some person, to whom our love and veneration look, in whose smile we find our happiness, for whom we yearn, towards whom we direct our pleadings, in whose anger we are troubled and waste away. These feelings in us are such as require for their exciting cause an intelligent being: we are not affectionate towards a stone, nor do we feel shame before a horse or a dog; we have no remorse or compunction on breaking mere human law: yet, so it is, conscience excites all these painful emotions, confusion, foreboding, self-condemnation; and on the other hand it sheds upon us a deep peace, a sense of security, a resignation, and a hope, which there is no sensible, no earthly object to elicit. “The wicked flees, when no one pursueth;” then why does he flee? whence his terror? Who is it that he sees in solitude, in darkness, in the hidden chambers of his heart? If the cause of these emotions does not belong to this visible world, the Object to which his perception is directed must be Supernatural and Divine; and thus the phenomena of Conscience, as a dictate, avail to impress the imagination with the picture of a Supreme Governor, a Judge, holy, just, powerful, all-seeing, retributive, and is the creative principle of religion, as the Moral Sense is the principle of ethics.”

Ten other arguments proceed from varying sources, paraphrased and reiterated for simplicity for brevity;

• First is Infinite influenced by The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
  • Things must proceed from perfection, less in frailty all things are defective and can not strive again to obtain that state of perfection which one whence came from. Further, one cannot ascertain anything without ability of perfection, for perfection provides for all and is communal; what then constitutes order if there is no order but regression which is divisible and chaos? It is impossible to not have perfection, but only regression, because an infinite series of regression ultimately leads to utter depravity and failure.

• Second is One influenced by Monsignor Paul Glenn who summarized the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in A Tour of the Summa.
  • A plurality of infinities cannot coincide. For if two were equal in all things, being perfect, they would be indistinguishable and one, because perfection is not contingent but self-sufficient, being one. Or if one should have perfection that another does not, than that negates perfection, for perfection has no deficiencies. To be perfect is to have one, because to have two perfects intimates contingency, which distills perfection.

• Third is Simplicity influenced by Monsignor Paul Glenn who summarized the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Apologetics.
  • God is simple, in that He is not composed of parts or elements; He is therefor infinite and uncaused. Every being besides God is a composite of parts that come into union over a local cause. In God there is neither contingency or causality. In things of union, the elements came prior to being of union of one another, but nothing was prior to God to compose Him; all that God has, He Is.
• Fourth is Spiritual influenced by Charles Rice 50 Questions on Natural Law: What it is & Why we need it and Ibid:
  • God is Spirit, in which is simple. For if He were material, He would be made of elements and varying parts, thus contingent and imperfect due to reliance. If made as a physical being, each part would be contingent on the unison with the other, therefor possess inferiority for lack of self-efficiency. God calls Himself, “I AM” for there was nothing before Him to describe Him; there was just Him.
• Fifth is Eternal influenced by Monsignor Paul Glenn in Apologetics.
  • God has no perfection distinct from His essence, His eternity is one with Himself. He is necessary, without beginning or end. His existence doesn’t protract itself through successive moments; it is wholly present in a single ending now. He Is a single undying universal instant. Always being necessary means to be eternal, for necessity transcends all barriers, and that of time or contingency, and simply is, because it is necessary, therefor is eternal.
• Sixth is Personal influenced James H. Dolan in Theses in Natural Theology and Charles Rice in 50 Questions on Natural Law: What It Is & Why We Need It.
  • Given there is creation, there must be a creative designer; no effect can be essentially superior to its efficient cause. But in further response to revealing intelligent design, we see that it is orchestrated in harmony and order. Such minutest detail cannot be surpassed with vague expressions of being just chance, but personal in which the first intelligence delegated time and effort to the harmonious design of the creature.

• Seven is Omnipresent influenced by Monsignor Paul Glenn in Apologetics and Charles Rice in 50 Questions on Natural Law: What It Is & Why We Need It.
  • Since God is spirit, He transcends all material boundaries and natural law, for spirit is not a composite but an is. Without tangibility, it is unhindered by space or time, for space is a separation of matter and time is a measurement of increments of change in tangible things. If there was one place God could not be, His existence would be circumscribed.
• Eight is Omniscient influenced by Thomas Aquinas and Charles Rice in 50 Questions on Natural Law: What It Is & Why We Need It.
  • God is eternal, the summary of all things in a single instant. Nothing is old, happening, or coming according to Him. All things are but a moment, coexistent outside of time. If God could not know all things, including things, in which in human time are yet to come, then His knowledge be truncated, His perfection diminish, and He in totality be circumscribed by contingency on time which would bring forth knowledge of things to come. God’s knowledge is a substantial actuality. God knows the future, but “suspends” His will so that we may bring forth ours’. His knowledge is not withheld, but His will is deliberately by God Himself on our behalf. We have sovereignty.
• Nine is Omnipotent influenced by Charles Rice in 50 Questions on Natural Law: What It Is & Why We Need It and Monsignor Paul Glenn in Apologetics.
  • Since God is perfect, His power has no limit; there is nothing He cannot do. To ask whether it be possible that He make a weight He cannot lift, or a four-cornered triangle are contradictions in terms and cannot exist, let alone conceived. There is no labor in God’s power, for His will becomes existence. Infinite perfection excludes toil, labor, effort, fatigue, corruption. To say God’s work is different than His will is to say there are two aspects to God, therefor God is a composite of two things, hence becomes imperfect; this is nonnegotiable to necessity.
• Ten is All-Perfect influenced by James H. Dolan in Theses in Natural Theology and Charles Rice in 50 Questions on Natural Law: What It Is & Why We Need It.
  • God is perfection, for nothing good proceeds from something corrupt, nor can the cause be greater than the generator. Sense mankind has wisdom, God must be wisdom,; since mankind has love, God is love. “There must exist first perfection else a potency for any further degree of perfection cannot be admitted”.

Theological Perspective

• Psalms 19:1-4, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”
• Jeremiah 31:33, “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
• Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds will I write them.”
• Hebrews 8:10, “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”
• Romans 1:20-21, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
• Romans 2:15, “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”

“The very impossibility in which I find myself to prove that God is not, discovers to me his existence” Voltaire.

And because of this grace and allowance permitting us to seek our Almighty, it is most appropriate to quote,

“The simple words ‘Thank you’ will always stand out as a refutation of determinism, for they imply something which was done could possibly have been left undone” Archbishop Fulton Sheen, The Life of All Living.

God didn’t have to, but He did; Thank You.

Your’s,

Drew Castel.