Can Someone Respond To This "refutation"

[phatcatholic]

pham,

first, [b][url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0002.html"]here[/url][/b] is the article, in which Peter Kreeft proves the existence of God.

now, i posted this at a phorum where some atheists were denying this, and asked if anyone would like to try and refute it. well, i got some interesting replies. they are provided below:

[quote]OK - Peter Kreeft tries to make the following points.

1. The apparent design in the universe implies a designer - God.

He (Kreeft) makes the basic mistake (which has already been touched on in this thread) of saying that a non-believer has to say all the apparent design is down to chance. But atheists like me don't say that.
A snowflake looks 'designed'. It isn't. It takes the shape it takes because of simple atomic structures and the laws that govern them. Same goes for a soap-bubble - a perfect sphere. God must have made it! Nope - just matter doing its stuff according to the fundamental laws of physics.
Undesigned pattern is everywhere.
Keefe then takes the human brain as the ultimate 'piece of design in the known universe'. Again, he says there's no way that could come about by chance and chance alone. And he's right - but chance alone isn't the mechanism. I'll repeat that, because people miss its importance. *Chance alone isn't the mechanism*.
Complex living creatures (and the brains inside them) came about through 'chance' genetic errors that were then *shaped by evolutionary pressures*.
That's a very different notion from chance alone - and it explains, fully, how life evolved.
Keefe appears to be aware this idea blows the argument from design apart, so he tries to cripple it by saying: 'There's very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of “natural selection” as the mechanism of evolution. Natural selection “explains” the emergence of higher forms without intelligent design by the ''survival of the fittest'' principle. But this is sheer theory.'

That's simply nonsense. The evidence that supports natural selection as the fundamental mechanism of evolution is overwhelming. If you like, I can point you towards countless scientific papers to support my statement, but this link (already posted earlier) should do it.

[url="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-sumimprobabilityofgod.shtml"]http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Wo...lityofgod.shtml[/url]

I'll answer Kreeft's other points in later posts - but would you respond to the above, please, Phatcatholic?

John[/quote]

John replies again here:

[quote]2. Kreeft's First Cause argument was demolished long, long ago.

He says 'How can anyone squirm out of this tight logic?' and lists 4 ways in which philosophers try to do so. One of them is the self-contradiction I pointed out earlier in this thread, during an exchange with Jax. I'll paste it below:

*Sorry, Jax, but that argument died a death long, long ago.
You say that everything has a cause, and every cause must have been caused by a prior cause, and so on until we reach a first cause - God - which does not require an explanation, thus 'proving' that he exists.
But the argument isn't valid.
First, by exempting God from the argument (i.e. God had no beginning), you render it self-contradictory. If the premise is true, the conclusion can't be true; if the conclusion is true, the premise can't be true.
However, the major fallacy is the assumption that the universe requires a causal explanation.
The universe is the totality of all that exists. You can't go outside existence in search of a cause for existence simply because there isn't anywhere to go!*

Kreeft says this:

'Third, it's sometimes argued (e.g by Bertrand Russell) that there is a self-contradiction in the argument, for one of the premises is that everything needs a cause but the conclusion is that there is something (God) which does not need a cause. The child who asks, “Who made God?” is really thinking of this objection. The answer is very simple: The argument does not use the premise “Everything needs a cause.” Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause.'

His 'simple answer' is just an attempt to slide away from the fact that the self-contradiction destroys this argument utterly. By exempting God (saying he isn't in motion, isn't depedent, is perfect etc.) Kreeft fractures the logic and makes the whole thing a nonsense.

If you try to prove God exists by using Reason, you have to stay inside the walls of logic. If you wander outside to give your God special dispensations, you're no longer using Reason - and that's exactly what Kreeft does above.


John[/quote]

i'm afraid i may need the church scholars on this one. i know how to respond to some of his arguments, but most of them i feel ill-equipped to tackle. LaudDom, where u at bro!

anyone's help would be greatly appreciated. i want to be able to provide a response that is as detailed, thorough, and comprehensive as possible. i'm sure he will have more to say, but we'll start by tackling this much.

thanks pham,
phatcatholic

ps: if i don't get alot of response, then i may move this topic to the debate table.

Edited March 17, 2004 by phatcatholic

[jmjtina]

[quote]It takes the shape it takes because of simple atomic structures and the laws that govern them. [/quote]

I read somewhere in a scientific journal for the atomic structure to "fuse" together, as with humans to MAKE a human, (which is obviously more complicated than a snowflake) is like One trillion to one possible. I'll look for it.

Carson, Laudate_Dominum , and Blazer, Cmom, Just, Jake, and others would be good at helping out ASAP. And some others may even step up! I'm sorry I can't help asap.....but I can pray!

In Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed is the only thing I can come up with now.
------
Material beings-the human body for instance- are made up of atoms and again of elections and protons, and these again of who know what; but whatever may be the ultimate constituents of matter, God made them of nothing so that they and the beings so imposingly built up of them exist only because He keeps them in exsistence. Spiritual beings- the human soul for instance- have no constituent parts. They are created by God of nothing and could not survive and instant without His conserving power. We are held above the surface of our native nothingness soley by God's continuing Will to hold us so. "In Him, we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28)

If we see anything at all- ourself or some other man or the Universe as a whole or any part of it-without at the same time seeing God holding it there, then we are seeing it all wrong.

If we saw a coat hanging on a wall and did not realize that it was held there by a hook, we should not be living in the real world (or thinking logically) but in some fantastic wolrd of our own in which coats defied the law of gravity and hung on the walls by thier own power. Similarly if we see things in existence and do not in the same act see that they are held by God then equally we are living in a fantastic world, not the real world.

Seeing God everywhere and all things upheld by Him is not a matter of sanctity, but of plain sanity, because God is everywhere and all things are upheld by Him. What we do about it may be sanctity; but merely seeing it is sanity. To overlook God's presence is not simply to be irreligious; it is a kind of insanity. like overlooking anything else that is actually there.

it is part of the atmosphere in which we live-and which therefore we too must breathe- to take for granted that these considerations are edifying and possibly even relevant if one happens to be a religious temperament; but not otherwise. It may be a first step toward a fumigation of the atmosphere if we see the fallacy of this too easy to view.

If you were driving in a car, saw it heading straight for a tree, and called out to the driver to swerve or he would hit it; and he said "it is no good talking to me about trees; I'm a motorist, not a botanist." you would feel that he was carrying respect for the both rights of the specialist too far. A tree is not only a fact of botony: it is a fact. God is not only a fact of religion: He is a fact. Not to see Him is to be wrong about everything, which includes being wrong about one's self. it does not require any extreme of religious fanaticism for a man to want to know what he is: and this he cannot know without some study of the Being who alone brought him into existence and holds him there.
--------
So, even though Darwin himself understood there is a God, the atheist John himself is willing to state there isn't? Believe and support Darwin in one area, and yet not in the other? In Darwin's book on evolution, He himself wrote that there is evidence of God.

God Bless you Nick. I'll look for stuff. :pc:

[Laudate_Dominum]

phatcatholic,

I just read your post and I will try to help out if I can. I'm falling asleep right now but I at least wanted to acknowledge that I'm aware of the situation and will put together some information 4 u sometime.

I just read the guys replies and the Dawkins article and didn't notice anything particularly original. I haven't read Kreefts article yet, I'll check it out tomorrow. I'm too tired right now.

This gentleman's assessment of what I assume was Aquinas' "second way", or the efficient causality argument (I need to read the article), seems to follow the same line of reasoning as Kant's criticism. This suggests that the fellow may respond better to transcendental reflection rather than cosmological arguments. But still, the kantian critique falls short so I believe I can put a little something together if I can manage to find the time and inspiration. Hopefully some of the other peeps will have some good stuff.

This actually sounds fun, I'm starting to burn out on verse slanging so this may be a nice change.

God bless you phatcatholic.

Ad Jesum Per Mariam.

[jmjtina]

do you need a slap to wake up? :slap:

:crackup: Your a night owl! :pepsi:

naw, just kidding. go to :sleep:




i look forward to reading no verse slanging. :pebcam:

[Laudate_Dominum]

:sleep:


















good night tina! :wavey:

p.s. phatcatholic-- I just realized that our boy Dave has some serious goods on his site:
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ470.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ470.HTM[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ75.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ75.HTM[/url]
[url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ157.HTM"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ157.HTM[/url]

peace.

Edited March 17, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Archangel]

Be it a person, a tree, a snowflake, or a soap bubble, all created things were created by a creator. A person: their parents. A tree: a seed. A snowflake: water. A soap bubble: soap. Then you must ask, "Who created their creators?" You will keep asking this until you get to the elements and their atoms. "Who then created the fundamentals of the universe?" Even those things were created.

That there is the dilemma for atheists. They resort to the "laws of physics" (and throw in some linguistic gymnastics as well) to explain the existence of the universe. But then you ask again, "Who created the laws of physics?" They say, "The universe." But then you ask again, "Who created the universe?" They say, "The laws of physics." So on and so forth. Atheists end up with an irrational loop to describe their existence. (Even the universe and the laws of physics were created.)

The way out of this loop, and the best explanation to who created the universe and the laws of physics, is an Uncreated Creator -- one who exists above and beyond creation in order to bring forth creation and bring order to creation. For Catholics, our Uncreated Creator is God.

Atheists assume that there is no God because they cannot detect God through their senses. That may be fine for animals, but we are humans. We have an intellect that appreciates not only the rational, but the beautiful as well. Animals can see lines, shapes and colors, but only humans can appreciate it as art. Animals can hear sounds and tones, but only humans can appreciate it as music. Is human appreciation of art and music the product of evolution? If so, of what evolutionary "survival of the fittest" advantage is there to appreciating art and music? Would not humans be better off with stronger muscles and sharper teeth or the ability to fly through the air or breathe under water?

Lastly, animals can detect the world through their senses, but only humans can appreciate it as the work of God. So, is an atheist an animal or a human ....

-------------
Anyway, you can also find some info here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/almanac/rumble.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/almanac/rumble.htm[/url]

[phatcatholic]

general responses are helpful, but i feel like the only way to be effective w/ this person is to respond to his posts on a point-by-point basis. i know that is a chore, but if anyone is willing to do that, i would greatly appreciate it.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

As soon as I have a good chunk for free time I'll take a stab at it for you brother.. But hopefully other people on here will beat me too it because its Saint Patrick's day so I won't be around tonight so it might be a while.

[peach_cube]

Just a few thoughts...

a) on the Argument from design....While on the topic of Fundamental laws of Physics, I find it a bit interesting that we are discussing the he believes all things are governed by these fundamental laws (thus including the laws of thermodynamics) which would include entropy, (decreasing organization as time goes on) and then juxtaposing that with natural selection (which tends to increase organization (complexity) as time goes on). The 2 seem to contradict eachother if one is professing a universe governed merely by laws of physics (which by the way are not laws in a strict sense, due to their theoretical breakdown in certain aspects of quantum mechanics and around/in supermassive blackholes)

b) The first Cause does not "prove" God's existance in the sense that this gentleman is implying. It is dependent upon 1 thing, the law of cause and effect. Using that the arguement proves that there must be either infinite regression (which I believe Kreeft deals w/ in Fundamentals of the Faith), cyclical creation, or an uncaused cause. His objection that the uncaused cause fractures the argument is valid, however IF the law of cause and effect is True, then there are very few options that can be logically concluded. One is that there is a begining, an uncaused cause, or for the scientifically engaged the "Big Bang" (Infinite amount of matter in an infinitely small point). It boils down to proving that the law of Cause and effect will hold true (very difficult to do). Many will bring up time travel in refuting this (which can be quite complex, and theoretical in itself.) Usually objections become so ridiculous that it gets to a point where people bring Stephen Hawking into the arguement and (ironically) mention ideas of Hawking's that Hawking himself refuted.

Holding my degree in Astronomy and Geology I've wrestled with these thoughts myself a long time ago, however it boils down to the fact that every atom and subatomic particle in my being tell me that this world has a source, the uncaused cause.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If you ask me his "refutation" is not in the least bit convincing.

Why do atheists have to argue their beliefs anyway?

[Theoketos]

[QUOTE]non-believer has to say all the apparent design is down to chance. But atheists like me don't say that.
A snowflake looks 'designed'. It isn't. It takes the shape it takes because of simple atomic structures and the laws that govern them. Same goes for a soap-bubble - a perfect sphere. God must have made it! Nope - just matter doing its stuff according to the fundamental laws of physics.[/QUOTE]

To stick to logic one would still have to say that the Laws of Physics “designed” the snow flake and universe. The next question is how did those laws of physics come about. It really all works out so well. Thus I do thing that it is either completely random or ordained by a creator.


[QUOTE] Complex living creatures (and the brains inside them) came about through 'chance' genetic errors that were then *shaped by evolutionary pressures*.
That's a very different notion from chance alone - and it explains, fully, how life evolved .[/QUOTE]

There are arguments that state that evolution proves a Creator, by intelligent design. And there is a huge jump between life and primordial soup. And no one can yet replicate that. Yes they can make amino acids, but there is still a huge jump between that and life.

The question is not that creatures changed through chance or not, but that there was design behind it. Yes it is chance, but there are so many things that are done by chance that the fact that there are things is beautiful in and of it self. Even an atheist can see this.

[QUOTE]That's simply nonsense. The evidence that supports natural selection as the fundamental mechanism of evolution is overwhelming. If you like, I can point you towards countless scientific papers to support my statement, but this link (already posted earlier) should do it.[/QUOTE]

This is an argument from authority and thus is weak, for I can show a list of objective papers that prove the opposite and will do so at any one’s bidding.

There is a biologist named Michael Behe who said something drastically different. His theory states that certain things in biology are irreducibly complex which means “a system is irreducibly complex if it is made up of a number of components and there cannot exist a simpler form of the system which functions. A simpler form of the system is a system where the components are the same except for the removal of one or more components.”

Any way the above theory is just an instance that does not fit into the “totally explains” part.


[QUOTE]First, by exempting God from the argument (i.e. God had no beginning), you render it self-contradictory[/QUOTE]

If the universe has a beginning then some thing began it. This could be something out side of it or something that is still inside of it.

But, it is hard to prove that the universe has not always existed. But if it has always been, then so has God. With out faith it would be easy to say that God has no beginning as matter has no beginning. I think that is what Aristotle said.

[QUOTE’ The universe is the totality of all that exists. You can't go outside existence in search of a cause for existence simply because there isn't anywhere to go!*[/QUOTE]

Here there is no proof that one can not go outside the universe to explain it self. Until there is more said on this point I can say nothing of substance.

But with out much substance I can say that there is some thing super substantial.

Though I think that by saying this he saying that there is only matter in the universe, and that is whole different argument, though a fun one.

Lastly, remember that both science and religion seek the truth.

Pham, tell me if I need to clarify some stuff, I am on spring break and do not have all my books with me…

Edited March 19, 2004 by Theoketos

[Theoketos]

I could not get the quote code to work...
I could say more but not with out using some really big words, but I love natural Theology!

Edited March 19, 2004 by Theoketos

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote]
[quote]First, by exempting God from the argument (i.e. God had no beginning), you render it self-contradictory[/quote]

If the universe has a beginning then some thing began it. This could be something out side of it or something that is still inside of it.

But, it is hard to prove that the universe has not always existed. But if it has always been, then so has God. With out faith it would be easy to say that God has no beginning as matter has no beginning. I think that is what Aristotle said.

[quote] The universe is the totality of all that exists. You can't go outside existence in search of a cause for existence simply because there isn't anywhere to go!*[/quote]
[/quote]
This fellow seems to have a misunderstanding regarding the nature of God. The cosmological arguments do not imply that one must go "outside of existence" in search of a cause. I think he would enjoy reading some early medieval muslim philosophy. Contingent beings (ie., matter) participate in existence through limiting essence, whereas God IS existence. Contingent beings have an essence which does not exist necessarily, whereas God's existence is of His essence. The fact of existence necessitates an essence which necessarily exists and which is the efficient cause of contingent being.

But I suppose the fellows problem is not metaphysical anyhow, I suspect his issues are more epistemological. I perceive the Kantian idea that there is a logical impasse to which all rational principles lead when applied to the infinite which forbids their extension beyond the cosmos which is the object of our sense-experience. This being a denial, on epistemological grounds, of the possibility of metaphysics. But the very concept of the uncaused cause, or unmoved mover (move in the broader scholastic meaning of change) admits this principle, and this same principle provides the refutation of the Kantian problem. One must grasp that the idea which attributes autonomous activity to the sum of the objects of our sensible experience comports a necessary contradiction. It is no riposte to say that the contradiction only appears when one wishes to go beyond the limits of sense-experience. All thought locates itself in such a beyond. If it refuses to do so, it thereby refuses all distinction between truth and non-truth. For, while numerous truths obviously only apply to what is relative, the idea of truth as such being a relative is a contradiction, simple non-sense. By accepting the truth of the phrase "everything is relative", one implies, consciously or otherwise, that at least that proposition is an absolute.
If this be so, the argument from change (or efficient causality) is not guilty of evading the antinomies inevitable in passing out of the bounds of the cosmos into the divine infinity. Rather, it alone makes the only possible logical deduction from them which is not destructive of all logic. This is the principle of counter-position and it applies to all reasoning which makes the transition from the world to God.
It is the underlying principle of these arguments which has led many scientists to assert the existence of God on scientific terms. If, they say, the physical world has, at least in us, produced a thought and if this thought is capable of turning back, so to speak, upon the world, then the latter itself must proceed from a transcendent thought.

Edited March 19, 2004 by Laudate_Dominum

[Brother Adam]

Lee Strobel has a profound new book out on this subject to compliment the "Case for Christ" book. In it he drills many of the worlds-literally-top experts on the subject.

[Theoketos]

Thinking about contingent beings reminds of the Point that God still moves in Creation. This is to say that He still creates. With out this force we do not exist.