Conversation With a Catholic Apologist

Thomas Aquinas

About a week ago I got into a theological debate with a Catholic on Twitter (@chisaikame). As is the case with most theological discussions the affirmative side started making claims based off of false premises. I decided it was too much to combat in 140 characters or less so I gave out my email address.

So here’s a breakdown of what happened. I’ll skip to the meat of the discussion.

I guess I’ll start by asking the first question.

Suppose I grant you the assumption that “something” caused the universe, that it was an intelligent agent that purposefully created the universe in which we live. How do you get from that “entity” to the God depicted in Catholicism?

Thanks,

- Rick

To which he responded with…

okay, i haven’t read much* on this topic so i may be off on some areas; very layman attempt on apologetics and lacking in adequate research.

ok, so if God is outside time and space and not a physical being and He is the logos or ‘first thought’ (my wording may not be spot on)… also, another undeniable thing about creation… is that from the tiniest cell, to the farthest galaxy… there is ‘intelligence’. and not just simple intelligence, but really complex, mind-numbing advancement… and not only that, human beings can read this imprint of intelligence, although not perfectly understand it… Creation seems to me, has sense and a meaning.

In his defense he did say that english wasn’t his first language. I’ll spare you the usual parts where I asked for proof of his claims and jump straight to where he called in reinforcements. A new gentleman by the handle (@htoddcarter) jumped in with the following:

I hope you don’t mind me jumping in here. But, I think I can answer
Rick’s question.

My answer centers around the fundamental difference between philosophy
and theology. In philosophy one starts with first principles and
reasons ones way to why the world works the way it does. In Christian
theology, God has revealed himself in a way that can never be known in
philosophy. So, there’s really no way to reason ones way to a
Christian Triune God. However, we can point out certain facts about
God that can be found via reason (just see St. Thomas Aquinas‘ five
ways for that) and we can definitely say that faith and reason never
contradict. But, faith is still a supernatural gift that can’t be
earned.

I hope that answers your question and feel free to share it on your blog.

God Bless!
--Todd Carter

So right off the start he admitted that there’s no logical way for him to get from deism to catholicism. So far he’s winning points in my book, much more honest than most Catholics I have encountered. Below is my response (brace yourself for a wall of text).

Sorry for the delay, been real busy.

I’ll tackle this point for point…

“So, there’s really no way to reason ones way to a
Christian Triune God.”

We’re in agreement there

“However, we can point out certain facts about
God that can be found via reason (just see St. Thomas Aquinas’ five
ways for that)”

Not in agreement there…

Here I’ll refute each of Mr. Thomas Aquinas’ five “proofs”.

1. The Unmoved Mover: “Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.”

Refutation:

If nothing moves without a prior mover than God must have a mover. Otherwise, not all things require a mover. If God doesn’t require a mover, then maybe the universe doesn’t.

Also, suppose I were to give into your argument, perhaps it wasn’t a “who” but a “what” that caused the universe. Maybe it was a random quantum fluctuation. If it was it would fit Aquinas’ definition, but it wouldn’t be anything like the “god” you speak of.

Pairs of virtual particles are created (and annihilated) all of the time, out of literally nothing. These particles affect each other’s motion, thus disproving Aquinas’s premise.

2. The Uncaused Cause: “Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.”

Refutation:

This is pretty much proof one repackaged, substitute “cause” for “mover”. What caused God? If God doesn’t need a cause, then why does the universe?

Why call it God? Same as before, even if we were to concede your point, you’re no closing to proving that it was “God” than any other natural event.

3. Necessary Being (cosmological argument): Breaks down like this:

Everything that exists must have a cause.

If you follow the chain of events backwards through time, it cannot go back infinitely, so eventually you arrive at the first cause.

This cause must, itself, be uncaused.

But nothing can exist without a cause, except for God.

Therefore, God exists.”

Refutation:

Mr. Aquinas must have really needed to hit that “5″ proofs mark, The first three are essentially the exact same argument. All you do by positing a God is push the problem back one step. If everything needs a creator, who created God? Another God? who made that God?

The third one can also be coupled with the first law of thermodynamics says that the amount of mass and energy in the universe will remain constant. Since this law only talks about mass and energy, space-time itself can, as far as we know, pop into existence whenever it wants. Some scientists, especially those who favor M-theory, say that, in a multi-universe model, when two universes collide it could create a matter and energy in a big bang, which would be the cause of mass and energy. Therefore, it is entirely possible for the universe to arise from material sources.

4. Greatest Being (Argument from degree): “Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.”

Refutation:

“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.”

— Thomas Aquinas

By saying, “as fire, which is the maximum heat”, Aquinas scuttles his own argument: fusion reactions, which power stars (including the sun) are much hotter than fire. Aquinas, of course, did not know this, and therefore could not have based his idea of heat on the “maximum heat”. Yet we do not doubt that he understood what “heat” means.

Likewise, we can know what “goodness” and “perfection” (in Aquinas’s sense) mean by comparing people and actions to each other, and not to some superlative standard of goodness and perfection.

The fact that we can imagine a perfectly good being in no way implies that that being actually exists.

5. Intelligent Design (teleological argument): “Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.”

Or what I like to call it “creationism in disguise”

Refutation:

This claims that we are designed to suite our surroundings. This is like a puddle saying, “man… it’s so wonderful that this pot hole should fit me so perfectly!, it must have been designed that way.” In fact, it is quite the opposite. We have adapted to our environment.

For everything that a creationist claims to have been “designed” there is always a simpler version from which it adapted. This brings us down to “irreducible complexity”, which has been dis-proven time and again. (see Dover Pennsylvania trial) To claim something is irreducibly complex is the same as the “god of the gaps” argument. “I can’t think of how this could be used for anything else, therefore it must be irreducibly complex, aka. God did it”.

There’s two problems with this:

1. A real scientist will always come along to think of what you didn’t and do the science you were unwilling to do.

and…

2. It still gets you no closer to proving that even if your argument was true (which is not for the reasons I pointed out) you’re still no closer to proving it was your God.

You still have all your work ahead of you. Even if we were to grant these arguments we could claim that it was the most perfect invisible pink unicorn that was the first cause / mover of the universe and it would fit with the “proofs” Aquinas provides.

…………..

Look, I’m not trying to be an ass here. I live my life wanting to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. I can’t “know” everything, nobody can. But I know that my beliefs inform my actions, therefore I want to get rid of these false beliefs.

I know you’ll claim to get strength from your religion and that you love your church, but when you get right down to it, it wasn’t God that saved you. It was you! It was your own desire, your own drive that lead you to the successes that you have. It’s not “the church” that you love, it’s the people in it. It’s the sense of community and friendship. These are things you can have without all the silly superstitions. Those silly superstitions just get in the way by dividing us up into different groups, telling us that we’re worthless due to original sin.

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that you are worthless. I believe that you… your life… is intrinsically valuable and that you and I won’t get a second chance. We need to make the most of this life.