Contending For The Faith---Part 54

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. 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..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone had suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Some Common Arguments Against the Existence of God Refuted

In this week's post, I will respond to some commonly used arguments by atheists against the existence of God. These are the short, snappy "arguments" (more akin to quips than anything serious) that unbelievers often use to stump Traditionalists and other theists. I will give a terse response to each, so that you may have a ready comeback and see the "argument" for what it really is--a fallacy. On one point--"the universe had no beginning"--I discuss it more so the science can be comprehended along with the philosophical application. I take no credit for the answers. All I did was make the answers given by great thinkers (Aquinas and others) into a terse, readable post.

God bless you all, my dear readers.---Introibo

 

Atheist Objection: “Can God create a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”

Reply: This question seems to have only two possible responses. Either He cannot create it, in which case He is not omnipotent; or He can create the rock, but cannot lift it, in which case again He is not omnipotent. In both cases, God is not omnipotent. However, God has to be omnipotent; therefore, He does not exist. This is wrong as it is based on a false premise. God's omnipotence does not mean the ability to do anything, but rather the ability to do anything that does not contradict His essence/attributes.

God cannot lie because He is Truth itself. In the instant case, God is the greatest possible Being. Therefore, there can be nothing that, in any aspect, is greater than God, because then He would not be the greatest possible Being. Such a rock is a contradiction incapable of being realized--just as there can never be a "married bachelor." 

Atheist Objection: “A perfect God could not have created an imperfect world. Since the world is obviously imperfect, God does not exist.”

Reply: Two responses: (1) God did create a perfect world and it was made imperfect by Original Sin. (2) God can create imperfect things in order to lead them over time to a state of perfection. In this view, man (who is not a “thing” but a being) is not born complete. He can study, educate himself, grow, achieve things, and in so doing determine what he will be later on in eternity through what he freely decides to do with his life on Earth. Only machines, which are tools, are expected to be perfect and complete at the moment of their creation. Man, by contrast, is a free being, and this means that he has the privilege of evolving and perfecting himself over time.

As to the material aspect of the Universe, a perfect Universe is either deterministic or has already reached its end. However, ours is neither, for the moment.

Atheist Objection: “If God is omniscient and knows the future, man is not free; if, on the other hand, God does not know everything, He is not all-knowing and therefore does not exist.”

Reply: Knowing the future is not the same as causing the future. For example, you may be standing up on a large hill. You see two cars speeding towards each other coming from opposite sides of the hill, where neither driver can see the other car. Given their speed and direction, you know they will crash a few seconds before it happens. Yet it was the free will of the drivers to go past the speed limit which caused the accident, not your knowledge of what would happen as a result.

Atheist Objection: “The Universe is self-sufficient. It does not need a cause.”

Reply: Atheists cannot escape the scientific fact that the Universe did have a beginning. It is expained by the Big Bang Theory. (BBT).

 I find it sad that, here in America, there are many people who do not understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. The common (and incorrect) notion is that a theory is a "hunch" or an "idea." A law is something true. Scientific theories can become scientific laws with enough facts proving them true. All of this is wrong.

Just as theology has words with specific meanings within the discipline, so does science. A scientific theory is a description of the natural world that scientists have arrived at by means of rigorous testing. It tries to explain the "why" about something. Scientific laws explain the "what" that has always been observed and tested. So, for example, gravity is both a theory and a law. The law of gravity explains what happens between objects depending on mass and distance. Laws also usually describe what happens in the terms of a mathematical formula. 

An accepted theory is the one that has the most evidence in its favor from multiple sources. Both theories and laws can change when/if new evidence is found which causes the theory or law to be undermined or in need of revision due to the newly discovered evidence. The BBT is not some "hunch" that isn't true because it's not a law. It is the best scientific theory backed up by multiple lines of evidence as to the origin of the universe. Over 98% of cosmologists, and over 95% of all scientists subscribe to it because of the evidence.

Of course, the usual objection to follow is the disparaging of science by declaring that the scientific establishment gave us COVID vaccines and climate change nonsense. While science can be abused and misused, two points must be made: (1) most scientific advances have been genuine and wonderful. Think of neurosurgery that routinely saves lives and wasn't available a mere 40 years ago. (2) the establishment has every reason to be against the BBT because it was discovered and promoted by Catholics, and it points to God. 

The Catholic Origin of the Big Bang

Father Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Roman Catholic priest and physicist from Belgium, was the scientist who proposed the BBT. The notion that the universe had a beginning did not sit well with many at that time. Some were even disgusted by it. Renowned English astronomer and physicist Arthur Eddington said that “philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order of Nature is repugnant.” (See Arthur S. Eddington, “The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics,” Nature 127 (March 21, 1931): 447–53).Notice that Eddington didn’t claim the science was bad or that these new scientific discoveries were repugnant. Rather, he was bothered by the philosophical implications of the discovery.

The prevailing scientific theory in cosmology prior to Fr. Lemaitre, was The Steady State Theory (SST), which claimed the universe always existed from eternity. The Communists and other atheists loved the SST because if someone asked, "What created the universe?" the answer was straightforward---"The universe was always there. It didn't need or have a creator." Fr. Lemaitre's theory was met with derision and horror by Communists/atheists. A beginning of the universe clearly implied a Creator. The question of how the universe was created was back on the table. 

Schools in Communist countries banned the teaching of the BBT so young Communists wouldn't doubt atheism. In fact, it was an opponent of the theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the name for Lemaitre’s theory, referring to it mockingly as “this big bang idea” during a radio broadcast. Over the years, many theories were proposed to get rid of this “definite beginning” of the universe, and a war of theories was waged until, finally, in the 1960s, the BBT displaced the SST as the accepted cosmological theory. (N.B. Although the formal SST was developed by Hoyle in response to the BBT that he so hated, it was held that the universe was "always there" --a form of the SST--a long time prior. Einstein himself subscribed to it until Fr. Lemaitre's work changed his mind). 

Note well why Hoyle rejected the BBT; he was an atheist and anti-Catholic.

Hoyle did not want to believe that the universe was created from a big bang, because that would imply that there was a creator, and to him, that idea wasn’t a possibility because he was an atheist. He believed that, “religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly dreadful situation in which we find ourselves…No wonder then that many people feel the need for some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory” (positiveatheism.org). His belief, in his own words, was that “‘every cluster of galaxies, every star, every atom...had a beginning, but the universe, itself, did not’” (Willick 2003). This is why he proposed that the universe has been around forever, and that we were not created from some all powerful deity, but from the right combinations of heavy elements that were fused through the nuclear reactions that take place in the center of stars, a process that he named “nucleosynthesis."

(See csueastbay.edu/philosophy/reflections/2004/contents/jon-brix.html; Emphasis mine). 

This puts the lie to the contention that the BBT was "used by atheists to deny God" as some assert. It is actually the opposite---it was opposed by atheists in academic circles until the manifest weight of the credible evidence was too great to hold the BBT back from acceptance. An assertion by those who oppose the BBT on religious grounds is an ad hominem attack on Fr. Lemaitre as a "Modernist." This is rank calumny. Father was never under suspicion of Modernism or any heresy by the Holy Office. He was praised by Popes Pius XI and Pius XII.

In 1951, Pius XII gave an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled “The Proofs for the Existence of God in the Light of Modern Natural Science,” offering an enthusiastic endorsement of the theory with Fr. Lemaitre present in a place of honor.

With the same clear and critical look with which it examines and passes judgment on facts, it perceives and recognizes the work of creative omnipotence, whose power, set in motion by the mighty “Fiat” pronounced billions of years ago by the Creating Spirit, spread out over the universe, calling into existence with a gesture of generous love matter busting with energy. It would seem that present-day science, with one sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to the august instant of the primordial Fiat Lux [Let there be Light], when along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, and the elements split and churned and formed into millions of galaxies.

The Supreme Pontiff asserted that the BBT proved the existence of God.

Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, science has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator.  Hence, creation took place.  We say: therefore, there is a Creator.  Therefore, God exists! (See ucatholic.com).

Evidence for the BBT

I strongly suggest reading the four page summary of evidence which I now condense. It comes from the University of Western Australia.

Two major scientific discoveries provide strong support for the Big Bang theory:

• Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed; and

• the discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation

1. Early in the 20th century the Universe was thought to be static: always the same size, neither expanding nor contracting. But in 1924 astronomer Edwin Hubble used a technique pioneered by Henrietta Leavitt to measure distances to remote objects in the sky. Hubble used spectroscopic red-shift data to measure the speeds these objects were travelling then graphed their distance from Earth against their speed. He discovered that the speed at which astronomical objects move apart is proportional to their distance from each other. In other words, the farther away objects are from Earth, the faster they are moving away from us. This became known as Hubble’s law

2. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was initially very hot and dense. As it expanded, it cooled (your refrigerator works on the same idea, expanding a liquid into a gas to cool the inside). Cosmologists were able to calculate the theoretical temperature of today’s Universe and began to search for evidence of it.

It was eventually discovered by accident in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson as ‘noise’ in an antenna they had built to research how radio signals could be reflected off orbiting satellites. They first thought it was radio interference from nearby New York City, but eventually recognized it as radiation from beyond the Milky Way. The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) that Penzias and Wilson observed is leftover heat radiation from the Big Bang. Today, CMBR is very cold due to expansion and cooling of the Universe. It’s only 2.725 Kelvin (-270.4 °C), which is only 2.725 °C above absolute zero. Cosmic microwave background radiation fills the entire Universe and can be detected day and night in every part of the sky.

(Condensed from "Evidence for The Big Bang;" uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf).

Philosophical Argument for God from the BBT

The BBT shows that all which exists in the universe--all matter, energy, and even space and time itself--started from nothing in an amazing singularity approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The Kalam Cosmological Argument runs thus:

Premise 1: Everything which begins to exist must have a cause.

This is common sense and proven from all experience. No scientist (or anyone else) believes things pop into existence out of nothing. Atheists Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have redefined "nothing" to mean "space" and "gravity" respectively. This is disingenuous to say the least. If I say, "I had nothing for breakfast today." It means I didn't have anything. It doesn't mean I ate something and that something I call "nothing." Krauss and Hawking do NOT believe something comes from "not anything;" they just want to escape the beginning of the universe and its theistic implications.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist. 

This we know from the BBT. 

Conclusion: The universe has a cause.

It follows logically from the two premises. The First Cause must be space-less (because there was no space), timeless (because there was no time), immaterial (because there was no matter--or even energy), and a Mind of great Power (because if all the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe to exist were present, then it would have existed from eternity--therefore, it must have been willed into existence at a certain point). You just described God. Welcome to theism.  

Objection: Then who created God? Answer: God wasn't created. Notice that the first premise is whatever begins to exist must have a cause. God, unlike the universe, is eternal. Moreover, the question is irrelevant. Once, I had a very bad gastrointestinal issue that couldn't be resolved. My doctors were stumped. One very intelligent gastroenterologist thought it was a rare bacteria that's hard to diagnose even with extensive tests.  The cure, if that was the cause, was to take a powerful medication for ten days, along with some other protocols. Desperate for a cure, I agreed. After the ten days, I was cured. When I asked him, "Where could I have gotten this bacterium?" he replied, "Who knows? The fact that the cure worked means we found the cause." Analogously, even if God "needs a creator" (He doesn't) it wouldn't mean He didn't create the universe.

Atheist Objection: "Religions have always been the cause of violence and wars.” 

Reply: Those who make this argument point out that religion has most often engendered war and violence. Consequently, as these religions have brought about evil, they cannot really be established by a good God. Ergo, the atheist asserts we can conclude either that God is evil or that He does not exist. Since the Church asserts that God cannot be evil, He must not exist. 

The premises of this argument are false, and we only have to look at the misfortunes of the twentieth century for ample evidence of this fact. The wars waged over the last century by dogmatic materialists were far more cruel, violent, prolonged, and lethal than all the religious wars of the past put together. 

The crimes and violence of Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot have no precedent in human history.

Phillips and Axelrod’s Encyclopedia of Wars cataloged 1,763 wars that have taken place throughout the history of humanity. Of these 1,763 wars, 123 were based on religious motives, or less than 7% of the total. Not only are the wars waged for religious reasons less numerous than some people suppose but, according to the same encyclopedia, the number of people killed in these 123 “religious” wars is equivalent to 2% of the total number of persons killed in all historical wars. That means that “religious” wars in general have had fewer victims than wars waged for other motives.

Conclusion

This post presented five atheist objections to the existence of God. I say "objections" rather than arguments, because frequently, the short one or two sentence objection is used to befuddle believers and make atheism seem "evident." It is my hope that you understand why they are wrong and are thus better prepared to defend our Holy Mother the Church whenever She is attacked.