Proof of the Human Soul?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the human soul is the innermost aspect of man and the spiritual principle that separates from the body after death. The body then decays and the soul goes to meet God (CCC #363, #997). But is it possible to prove that the human soul exists?

Whenever someone asks for proof of something, especially something immaterial, I sometimes ask if it is possible to prove anything at all. This is not to be flippant; it’s a serious question.

Suppose you were told that last night while you slept your brain was taken by aliens and installed into an alien supercomputer. This supercomputer is now inputting all the correct electrochemical impulses into your brain to precisely simulate the world you are familiar with. You think you are reading a blog post right now, but it is actually the alien computer inputting the data directly into your brain—similar to the concept in the 1999 movie “The Matrix”. This might sound absurd, but you would simply have no way of proving that this artificial reality is false. If all the data you have is only virtual data being continuously streamed into your brain, you would have no outside system to use as a relevant basis of comparison.

For a less fantastic example involving “proof”, consider our criminal justice system. Have you ever been a juror in a criminal trial? I have; it was quite a rigorous exercise in reason with a bunch of perfect strangers—and it went on for two days. Proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt gets rather contentious when all twelve jurors cannot agree on when the threshold for a “reasonable doubt” has been achieved. It seems to me that when people try hard enough, they can always find a doubt that is reasonable…at least to them.

Here’s another case in point; suppose you and I see a cat running across the street. We agree that it was indeed a cat and we go forward with that premise. There is no doubt that we saw a cat; it is an unquestioned fact. We later receive more data that informs us that it was actually a funny looking raccoon. This is not so different from observations used in science. Once something is “proven” is the science settled forever? No; not if more data is found to question the previous thinking. Consider that Isaac Newton and centuries of Aristotelian logic held to the assertion that our universe and past time were infinite. Today many accept the premise that time/space had a starting point or Big Bang.1

There are many such examples about “proof” and I was reminded of these when discussing near-death experiences (NDEs) with someone as evidence for the human soul. Of all the unanswered questions in science, one of the biggest is “What is the biological basis of consciousness?” The hidden assumption in the question is (of course) that there must be a biological basis.

Consciousness can only be a product of a working brain; which is essentially a “meat computer” ultimately controlled by the universal and unchangeable laws of physics and chemistry. Therefore, NDEs must be manufactured in the brain. They are delusions produced by the brain under extreme duress, such as a lack of oxygen or being under the influence of powerful drugs administered during a medical emergency. Agreed?

For the strict materialist the paragraph above might be a satisfying answer, but like the example of the cat vs. raccoon, could there be more data to question the thinking behind NDEs and human consciousness? I believe I found such data in an article written by Fr. Robert Spitzer when I searched the Magis Center for Faith & Reason for NDEs.

Now, it is understandable to think that a priest writing something about NDEs could have a non-scientific and manipulative agenda about the afterlife, but the very opening paragraph shows the concern for scientific objectivity, “I cite the evidence of near-death experiences with some trepidation, because there are many books written on this subject which are not scientific…these nonscientific books have rather manipulative agendas, and some are quite cultic in character.”

The article goes on to summarizes three separate scientific studies on NDEs: The van Lommel et al Study, The Melvin Morse Study of Near-Death Experiences of Children and The Kenneth Ring, et al Study of Near-Death Experiences of the Blind. For me, the most interesting data that challenge the premise about consciousness being only a product of the brain are as follows:

Flat EEGs: People reported clear and lucid consciousness during the time in which there was no electrical activity in the brain cortex and no brain stem function either, evidenced by fixed dilated pupils and absence of the gag reflex. How can lucid conciseness continue when the brain is clinically dead?

Out of Body: People experienced an out-of-body state with sensorial capabilities. Out of body could even mean out of the room where they laid unconscious, going through walls, seeing things and hearing conversations which were later verified to be accurate. How does one experience this without a body, unless their consciousness is somehow “non-physical”?

Blind from Birth: Those blind from birth reported that they could see. If all our memories and knowledge are stored in our brain and our brain never received any visual inputs from our eyes, how does a blind person see during an NDE?

NDEs and Children: Wouldn’t it be foolish to believe a child? Maybe sometimes, but if you’ve spent time with children you know they can be very unbiased and matter-of-fact. Small children do not know what an NDE is and are not motivated by cultural or religious agendas, so how likely are they to purposely report data to help these agendas?

Low Percentage: Not everyone reports an NDE. In the van Lommel study only 18% reported an NDE, but 100% of them suffered a shortage of oxygen, were given morphine-like medications and were victims of severe stress. If an NDE is just a biological reflex of a dying brain, shouldn’t it be closer to 100%? If endorphins were suddenly and unexpectedly released into the brains of 100 people, wouldn’t about 100 of them report “good feelings”?

Do these objective aspects of subjective near-death experiences prove the existence of the human soul and the afterlife? Perhaps not, but beware of willful ignorance and having qualms with an agenda. As in the criminal trail example above, people are good at raising “reasonable doubts” for just about anything. Should consciousness without a physical brain be considered a real possibility? As with the most basic principles of reason, when many clues point in a certain direction, we do well to explore that direction seriously. In the grand scheme of reality these studies are additional data points (and there are many) that concur with the Catholic worldview.

1. Thomas E. Woods, How Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington D.C: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2005), p. 91

Of Restrooms and Reason

Recently, the topics of gender and restrooms came up where I work during some required “diversity training” sponsored by our Human Resources department and the companies’ legal team—I was inclined to call some parts of it the “comply or be punished training”.

There are currently no transgender employees in the building I work in (that I know of), but as a policy our company will allow any such individuals to use whatever restroom they best identify with. One of the presenters said something to the effect of “Just deal with it. You’ll have your own private stall anyway”. I thought, “Why can't the transgender individual just deal with it (“it” being the restroom that best matches their body)? They’ll have their own private stall anyway.”

The situation reminded me of a book called Ten Universal Principals; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues by Fr. Robert Spitzer and how the first three principals can be used on just about any topic. Regardless of the situation, some things can be universal to any thinking process and can proceed without invoking any specific belief system. The first three principals are the “Principles of Reason,” and they underscore the universality of rational thought.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (Plato & Aristotle)

Valid opinions or theories have no internal contradictions.¹

If I said I was a married bachelor and we were clear on the meaning of “married” and “bachelor”, then a married bachelor is an internal contradiction. There would be no need for you to investigate my life to see if my claim was true or false. It would be the same situation if I said I could draw a square-shaped circle. If we are clear on the definition of these shapes, then we know that drawing a square-shaped circle is not possible. No further probing required.

So if I’m a man, saying I’m a woman and using the ladies room would enter into the realm of contradiction, right? Not really; if we simply change the definition of gender to exclude (or make subordinate) any physical aspect of the human body, we can avoid this embarrassing conundrum. But don’t definitions need to make sense to be accepted as true? No; consider pro-choice thinking. If we can accept that a person in his or her first stage of life ought to be lawfully referred to as a “non-person”, we’ll accept any incoherency about the human condition.

The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato & Aristotle)

Non-arbitrary opinions or theories are based upon publicly verifiable evidence.²

Data accessible only to you is subjective. Data accessible to everyone is objective. If I say I’m a man, what objective and publicly verifiable evidence can I show to support my theory? There is genetic data, hormone data, size/shape and also physical body parts that can be publicly verified…hopefully in a way that will not violate public nudity laws. But here again, it comes down to “definitions”. Words are important! Revenant data cannot be sorted from irrelevant data without first defining categories clearly. If gender is defined as primarily existing “between the ears”, then a note from my psychologist saying that I truly believe I’m a woman may suffice to comply with this second principle of reason.

The Principle of Complete Explanation (Socrates, Plato & Aristotle)

The best opinion or theory is the one that explains the most data.³

Are all opinions equally valid? No, some are more valid than others. If my explanation is better than your explanation, it is more valid. Simply put, “better” means being able to explain the most facts using the fewest and simplest assumptions. I would argue that a restroom is a physical place in which we do physical acts, ergo the restroom we choose should best match our physical bodies. If this is coherent, then there should be a certain universality about it. If I go to the gym (physical place) for a workout (physical acts) the equipment I choose should match, or be adjusted to match, my physical body.

Of course, if not for the urinals all the restrooms would be physically the same, but such is not the case where I work and in most places. Even if they were the same or if a person had a full sex-change operation, reflect upon explaining who we are based on whatever we self-identify with in terms of public policy.

The philosophy that says “I think, therefore I am” makes the reality of our being dependent upon our mind. If my mind determines my being, then the old saying follows that “perception is reality”. If this is true, then there should be a certain universality about it. If I think I am a cat, then I am a cat. But who thinks that? Let’s be practical; if a Caucasian man was raised by African Americans in an African American community and he also self-identifies as an African America, then this is the reality. He is an African American and should have access to any and all affirmative action benefits. Agreed?

 

Always remember that perception is not reality; it only informs our response to reality.

In God we trust…all others bring “data”.


1. Fr. Robert J. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2011), p. 11.
2. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles, p. 14.

3. Spitzer, Ten Universal Principles, p. 9.

 

The Mother of ALL Questions

There are many BIG questions in life like…

• Why are we here?
• What’s the meaning of life?
• What’s the best way to live?
• How can I have lasting happiness?
• Are you saved?

I would suggest that there is one question that acts as the mother of them all…

How do we know what’s true?

I recently finished a book called "Ten Universal Principles; A Brief Philosophy of the Life Issues", by Fr. Robert J. Spitzer. I was immediately struck at how the first three principals were very similar in concept to the problem solving methodology we use where I work. I was surprised, but then again not so surprised, because in the end coherent logic is coherent logic.

In problem solving we want to know, “Why did it happen?” in regard to a certain object(s) or system(s) with a deviation or multiple deviations. Other modes of thinking also ask “why?” but go beyond objects and deviations. Disciplines like philosophy, theology and metaphysics also ask “why?” and can begin to tackle a question like “How do we know what’s true?”

Regardless of the thinking discipline, some things are universal to any thinking process. The first three principals are the “Principles of Reason” which underscore the universality of rational thought.

The Principle of Non-Contradiction (Plato & Aristotle)

Valid opinions or theories have no internal contradictions.

If I said I was a married bachelor and we were clear on the meaning of “married” and “bachelor”, then a married bachelor is an internal contradiction. There would be no need for you to investigate my life to see if my claim was true or false. It would be the same situation if I said I can draw a square shaped circle. If we are clear on the definition of these shapes, then we know that drawing a square circle is not possible. No further probing required.

An awareness of contradictions can help problem solvers to hone in on potential causes without incongruities and move towards a valid solution. Suppose you came home one dark and stormy night and noticed your front porch light was out. Since the light is on every other night, you think the storm has caused a power outage. As you walk into the house you see the digital clock on the microwave oven lit up with the correct time as usual. Unless there is some other power supply for the microwave, maintaining your theory of a power outage in the house would be contradictory.

In terms of faith & reason, you’ll find no contradictions in Catholic teaching. Once objections and over-generalizations about the faith are separated are clarified, what might appear to be a contradiction is actually not. I won’t attempt to list the many misconceptions about Catholicism here, but let’s ponder a couple of things.

The development of doctrine can create the illusion of contradiction. If the Truth does not change, why has the Catholic Church changed or added to its teaching over the centuries. Imagine a dimly lit room; you can barely make out the shape of the room and the faint outline of some furniture. If we turn up the lights, we see things more clearly, even the color of things, the paintings on the wall and all the knickknacks on the coffee table and end tables. The room did not change, we just see it better. It’s the same idea with the development of doctrine. The Truth has not changed, it is better understood.

Do the four different gospel accounts of the life and times of Jesus and his miracles contradict each other? Consider the resurrection as written in each gospel. All four have a different take with different details. Is this evidence that the resurrection is a farce? I think it’s exactly the opposite; it’s evidence of its authenticity. From my experience, whenever I hear different people describe the same complex and puzzling situation, mixed in with some emotional baggage, the gist of the problem is the same after some deliberate questioning, but many of the details are different. In fact, I would be surprised and even suspicious if each account was exactly same.

No one can be forced to accept Catholic dogmas, but they cannot be validly rejected via the principle of non-contradiction. This is not so for at least one other non-Catholic Christian dogma. Anyone who accepts the dogma of Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) runs into the wall of contradiction and most likely does not realize it. If one believes that all matters of Christian doctrine and practice should be based on the Bible alone, then one accepts a contradiction. The problem is that this doctrine is not found in the Bible (it’s unbiblical), so you need some other non-biblical source of authority to declare it. If this wasn’t clear enough, the Bible itself points us to another authority. In 1Timothy 3:15 the pillar and foundation of Truth is said to be the Church, not scripture itself.

In a way contradictions are beyond not true; they are meaningless. They cannot be, therefore they have no “being”, and therefore they are no-thing; they are nothing… and nothing is impossible with God.

Don't think about this pic too long.
It'll drive you nuts.

The Principle of Objective Evidence (Plato & Aristotle)

Non-arbitrary opinions or theories are based upon publicly verifiable evidence.

Data accessible only to you is subjective. Data accessible to everyone is objective. This is not to say that data only accessible to you is not true; it's just not good objective evidence. When problem solving, this concept can be embodied in something called a problem specification. Without going into all the excruciating details, a problem specification is a formal way of sorting relevant data from irrelevant data, documenting the specific facts and making them "visible" to everyone. Grade schools teach this basic principle to children via the activity of “Show & Tell”. Telling is not good enough; we must learn to “show” and show in a public way.

This may be where the materialist or atheist thinks he has the deist cornered. There is no publicly verifiable evidence for the existence of God, right? People always “tell” and never “show”. Even if we exclude evidence via the historical method, witnesses of events past and present and those today who witness with their very lives, there are still many proofs for the existence of what Catholics would call God; they are also publicly verifiable and the thinking is made “visible”. A good and rather lengthy five-step proof can be found in another book by Fr. Spitzer called "New Proofs for the Existence of God". The beginning of the proof can be found at THIS LINK. The reality of these proofs does not mean that all who read and understand them will have faith in God, but they are publicly verifiable evidence nonetheless.

As a side note to any Christian or Deist, if you were to say “God told me ABC” or “The Holy Spirit taught me XYZ”, it may be perfectly true, but it is not good objective evidence since it is data only accessible to you.

By the way, if you ever wondered why it takes the Catholic Church so long to declare a saint a saint, it is because they are sorting relevant data from irrelevant day, looking for publicly verifiable evidence and making the thinking “visible”. These things take time.

The Principle of Complete Explanation (Socrates, Plato & Aristotle)

The best opinion or theory is the one that explains the most data.

When a number of possible causes of a problem have been identified, problem solvers are challenged to identify the best opinion or theory as the most probable cause by looking at any assumptions that have been made and documented. The most probable cause will have the fewest number of assumptions, the most reasonable assumptions and the overall simplest assumptions.

The world view of materialism does not explain the most important “data” found in the human condition. Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Morality, Love, Justice, Purpose, etc. cannot be reduced down to only physical elements of matter and energy if they are to have any meaning. Everything about life cannot be explained by merely seeking biological opportunities or avoiding biological dangers without some serious gaps. To avoid these data gaps some will simply wave the evolutionary magic wand. For example, how can evolution explain homosexuality in terms of a species surviving and reproducing? I was once told that having a certain homosexual percentage in the population prevents overbreeding, and thus helps the species as a whole. So there you have it, and how can anyone argue with such a firm wave of the evolutionary magic wand.

Consider too the data from design. No matter how much evidence of purposeful design is found in our finely tuned universe and planet, the data is explained away by “dumb luck”. Additionally, the origins of life cannot be explained by the survival of the fittest, because in beginning there was nothing alive to survive to be the fittest. The random jostling of matter and energy will have to do as the explanation. Chance is used to explain away any data which points to deliberate design, but how well does randomness really explain all the data as compared to an intelligent cause?

Non-Catholic Christians are in the unenviable situation of trying to explain a lack of Christian data from shortly after the Book of Acts was written to around the time of the Protestant Reformation; about 1,500 years. Did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church for 1,500 years and then finally reemerge in the hearts of Martin Luther, John Calvin and others to guide them to all Truth? If so, the reformers and their descendants would surely agree on doctrine, and all non-Catholic Christians would follow their teachings today with no further divisions needed, right?

Or perhaps the real Church went underground to hide from the oppressive Catholic Church and was finally able to resurface after 1,500 years. If we are to follow the previous principle of reason, we should ask, “Where is the publicly verifiable evidence for the existence of this 1,500 year underground church?” What if we claimed that the Church Christ founded has had a lot of problems over the centuries, but has never stopped being the one universal and apostolic Church on earth and it is called the Catholic Church today? Which explanation of Christian historical data has the fewest number of assumptions, the most reasonable assumptions and the overall simplest assumptions?

In his book, Fr. Spitzer recounts how, when he taught philosophy to university students, he would ask, “Are all opinions equally valid?” Most students would answer yes, in the spirit of fairness and equality. Then Fr. Spitzer would use principles, like the three listed above, to demonstrate how some opinions are more valid than others. Catholicism is an all-encompassing worldview that can be examined by using classic, rational thought, and it all stands to reason. If God is the source of reason, then the reality of God and his Church will not violate the basic principles of reason.

A Cabin from Nothing

The argument from design can be an intriguing argument for the existence of God, but it’s also an intriguing way to explain unbiased reasoning.

Imagine you were walking in a deep forest with a friend when you both stumbled upon a log cabin. You would naturally assume that something with intelligence created it (presumably a person or a group of people), even if there was no empirical evidence of a builder other than the cabin itself. Unless you had more evidence, you will NOT presume a specific builder by name, but the assumption of intelligence will become a base premise that is non-negotiable.

 

Now suppose your traveling companion said the cabin is just a result of the random forces of nature, matter and energy coming together over time to form the cabin. You would not only disagree, but perhaps also steer your friend toward some psychiatric help. Even if your friend could recite astonishing details about the forces of nature, matter and energy to prove his sanity, you might then conclude that he is so smart, he has become stupid. To accept your friend’s conclusion would be not only unreasonable, but also irresponsible.

• Now, just begin to increase the physical size of the cabin. Suppose it was the size of a mountain. You would have the same conclusion about “intelligence”. You will not presume the builder must specifically be Paul Bunyan, but the same impartial assumption about an intellect remains.

• Now, increase the size of the cabin to the size of planet earth…same conclusion about intelligence, although you might drop the part about the source of it being human.

• Now, keep increasing the size of the cabin to the size of the universe…same conclusion.

• Now consider our minds, our bodies, our planet and the finely tuned universe we live in that are all much more complex than a log cabin… same conclusion. Intellectual honesty tells us that it’s all beyond what random mindlessness can do for itself.

The science of the past took reason seriously with a premise like this, “We know the creator is intelligent, so we must go forward assuming the universe is intelligible.” This is similar to our approach about the cabin. If you desired to learn more about the construction details, you would do so under the assertion that there is “thinking” behind it all. Today, many hold the backwards, upside down and non-negotiable premise of, “We know the universe is intelligible, so we must go forward assuming there is NO intelligence behind it.”

“It is truly glorious for a religion to have such unreasonable men as enemies.”

- Blaise Pascal

All this might sound very similar to Paley’s watchmaker analogy, which may in turn remind some of the rebuttals offered by philosopher David Hume. For example, very complex self-order is observed in nature regularly, such as the process of snowflake generation from water molecules. This is true, but assuming intelligence behind it is still reasonable. Observing an application running on a computer may give the appearance that the computer is a self-ordered thing, but we know there is a programmer, not to mention a host of other precise, intelligent conditions needed for a computer to run.

Here is another; who designed the designer? If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then this great designer requires an even greater designer and so on and so on ad infinitum. If we can accept a mysteriously self-ordered intelligence as an explanation for the natural world, why not just accept a mysteriously self-ordered natural world by itself?

The problem is the reality we observe in the natural world; the data and the logic. Nothing in the natural world is really self-ordered. The order everything has is contingent upon the order of something else that came before it, until you trace back to some final reality that requires no other condition for its order. Why the need for a final reality? Why not just keep tracing conditions back to infinity? The reason is that an infinite succession of past conditions presents us with a contradiction.

• Premise #1:Infinity as applied to an accumulating succession is always more than can be ever achieved. It is unachievable.
• Premise #2: For something to exists, all the conditions needed for its existence must be achieved.
• Conclusion: Anything that exists cannot come from an infinite succession of conditions because it would depend upon an unachievable number of past conditions being fulfilled. To say it can is like saying the unachievable has been achieved, which is a contradiction. This is true for an infinite succession of intelligent designers as much as anything else.

(see formal proof for an unconditioned reality).

An unconditioned intelligent “something” that transcends the natural world is the reasonable and responsible position to hold using reason alone, and we would all do well to ponder what a curious “something” that would be. Nothing in this post definitively proves all the Catholic theology there is about God, but to say the universe and everything in it, from the stars in the sky to the love in your heart, is a mindless accident that magically happens by itself is truly wishful thinking for the non-believer who wishes to avoid the reality of things. In terms of believing in fairytales, never was the shoe so firmly on the other foot.

“Man does not explain himself to himself without the odd suspicion that he is missing something.”

 - James V. Schall, S.J.

 

 

The Tree of Being

There is theology that says if God were to stop loving you or thinking of you for one instant, you would cease to exist. This is difficult to comprehend since we may think of God as puppet maker, and we His puppets.

A puppet maker will make a puppet (or a clay man) and do what he wishes with it. If he leaves it alone and forgets it, the puppet surly continues to exist, although it may be rather unanimated. This kind of thinking is based on human imagination, and the limits of our imagination impose limits to reality which are not really there, for God is being itself and continually holds everything in existence; makes sense considering He calls Himself “I AM” (see Exodus 3:14).

 

Analogies are most helpful…

When you stand in front of a mirror, what do you see? You see your image & likeness. If you leave the mirror even for an instant, what happens to your image & likeness? It ceases to exist! You “being” in front of the mirror continually holds your image & likeness in existence.

Fr. Spitzer gives a more complete analogy in his book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” with something called the Tree of Being. The Tree of Being relates to the more formal concept of Simplicity. What is simpler (or less restricted) is more capable of being in unity with what is more complex (more restricted) and God is infinitely simple. How can God be “simple” and how can something simpler help hold something more complex in existence? Just think of a cat.

Ø  What makes a cat act like a cat?

Its cells; if the cat’s cells stopped acting like cells, the cat can’t really be a cat and would cease to exist.

Ø  What makes the cells act like cells?

The molecules; if the molecules stopped acting like molecules, the cells can’t really be cells and they would cease exists.

Ø  What makes the molecules act like molecules?

The atoms; if the atoms stopped acting like atoms, the molecules can’t really be molecules and they would cease to exist.

And so it goes…

Ø  What makes the atoms act like atoms? The protons.

Ø  What makes protons act like protons? Quarks.

Ø  What makes quarks act like quarks? The most fundamental conditions (time? space? energy?)

Ø  What makes the most fundamental conditions act like the most fundamental conditions? A unifying field (UFT)?

Ø  What would make a unifying field act like a unifying field, and where does this end?!

It ends at the top of the Tree of Being. Logic demands that it end with one thing that needs nothing else to “act” for its own existence; one unconditioned reality that would be infinitely simple, and therefore completely unrestricted, and therefore unifying in all things.

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

It is said that God has “no parts” when referring to His simplicity. If there are no parts, then nothing can be added or taken away, not even knowledge, power or love.

God is at the top of the Tree of Being and if He were to stop “acting” with regard to us, we could not be. God acts through His will and intellect and the action of the will is “to love” and the action of the intellect “to know”. So as we said on the onset, if God were to stop loving you or thinking of you for one instant, you would cease to exist. If God stops acting (loving/knowing), we stop being.

Given all this, it should come to no surprise that humans seek things that are simple, unifying and ordered to their proper end like love, truth, goodness and beauty; all these things flow down from the top of the tree. We seek well-being and so we journey on in hope, focused on the tree top, moving towards the oneness and simplicity of God. As we journey we can take confidence that His being is with us, continually holding us and constantly sustaining us. For it is written…“And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

 

Reasonable & Responsible

Continuing some reflections from the book “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Fr. Robert Spitzer, let’s consider the significance of infinite vs. finite past time and why the discussion might matter.

Most scientists accept and that our universe is 13.7 billion years old and that the big bang actually happened as the beginning point. When Fr. Spitzer refers to “the universe”, he does not mean only our universe as in one of many, he means ALL physical reality (time, space, matter, energy, etc.); anything that is not nothing.

There are several speculative scenarios about the universe where “something” was supposed to have happened or physically existed before the big bang, so the big bang is not really the beginning of the universe or the beginning of time. These scenarios are called Past-Extended Big Bang models or PBBM’s. In the book, Fr. Spitzer runs through many arguments for the Standard Big Bang model as the most reasonable & responsible model; where the big bang IS the beginning of time and of all physical reality (you’ll need to read the book for all the excruciating details).

The discussion reminded me of the problem analysis method we use where I work. Specific inputs about a specific problem (data, experience, judgment, knowledge) are used in a specific troubleshooting process. Before using (or wasting) company resources testing random possible causes, we first determine the most probable cause via reason alone; this becomes the cause we test first without any absolute proof that it is actually correct. The most probable cause is the proposed cause that has the most reasonable assumptions, the fewest assumptions and the overall simplest assumptions given ALL the inputs available; reasonable & responsible as Fr. likes to put it.

He says:

“In view of the extensive applicability and preponderance of evidence for a beginning of the universe (and the narrow and tenuous path which must be taken to get around it), it can be concluded that the evidence currently supports a reasonable likelihood of a beginning – a point at which the universe came into existence.”

Other interesting discussions revolve around the odds of an anthropic universe (one that will allow the emergence of ANY life form) materializing by itself as a random occurrence. What are the odds of all the necessary physical constants being set precisely as they are? An analogy was given in the book to demonstrate something that is physically possible, but might be called statistically impossible; it involved a monkey and a keyboard. What are the odds of a monkey randomly typing at a keyboard and outputting a perfect transcript of Shakespeare’s Hamlet? There are no laws of physics that will prevent the monkey from hitting all the right keys, but to think this will happen by itself is unreasonable & irresponsible. If we did see it happen would we say, “That’s one lucky monkey” or would we suspect an intelligent agent was influencing the monkey somehow

What else is physically possible, but might be called statistically impossible? How about a game of pool? What are the odds of you breaking a pool rack only to find that the balls settled back down (randomly) to reform the same exact triangle? Again, there is nothing in the laws of physics to stop it from happening, but it won’t. If it did happen would you say, “What an interesting coincidence” or would you be spooked out of your mind?

 

Think of winning the lottery, but not just once. What would be the odds of winning one thousand times is a row? There is nothing preventing you from picking all the right numbers every time, but to think this will happen is unreasonable & irresponsible. If somebody won that often would you say, “Lucky-bum” with a shrug of the shoulders, or would you say the game was rigged. The same is true with the remarkable fine-tuning observed in the universe. To think it can all happen randomly is something unreasonable and irresponsible. Creation must be rigged in our favor so to speak.

So back to why contemplating infinite vs. finite past time might matter. Things happening BEFORE the big bang obviously bring back discussions of infinite past time, space, matter and energy. This is a very helpful assumption to hold on to if we are to say there is no God because an infinite universe brings infinite possibilities, which makes improbability disappear. This explains away the analogies of the monkey with the keyboard, the spooky pool rack and the mega lottery winner.

Even with the big bang as the beginning of time, an infinite number of dimensions to our universe (a multiverse) will still bring back a discussion of infinite possibilities, but Fr. Spitzer explains in the book that a multiverse cannot currently be verified through evidence. Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than an infinite deity, but this would rest on FAITH and not observation.

Seems to me, Fr. Spitzers' book is all about intellectual honesty coupled with reason's responsibility. Using reason alone, we can construe that an intelligent unconditioned reality must have been the cause of every conditioned reality, or in other words, there must be something beyond "the physical" which caused "the physical" and that something must be intelligent. Even with no absolute empirical proof and no faith, this becomes the most reasonable & responsible conclusion given all the inputs we have, including the new inputs from contemporary physics and philosophy.

Today's Gospel was appropriate:
"I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?"
John 3:12

 

The Unintelligibility of Infinite Past Time

“New Proofs for the Existence of God”, by Fr. Robert Spitzer, goes into several discussions about time. Time is more than just a simple measure of change, but a component of BOTH change AND existence; an actual part of physical reality, but can past time be something infinite?

Isaac Newton and centuries of Aristotelian logic held to the assertion that our universe and past time were infinite. This created an apparent conflict with religion centuries ago. The Church taught, and scripture supported, that God created everything, therefore there must be a beginning since the act of creating implies a starting point (see condemnations of 1277, #87). But a true conflict between religion & science is always false because the truth is the truth. If we have a perceived conflict, it is because the physical reality is not completely understood or the spiritual reality is not completely understood (or some combination both).

We may see no problem at all with the idea of infinite past time. Just imagine the number line you studied in elementary school. Positive numbers are on the right with an arrow at the end and negative numbers are on the left with another arrow. Make the numbers some unit of time and, VUALA; we have infinite time. Of course, a timeline is only a symbol of time, not time itself. If we try to trace things, or the causes of things, back in time to infinity we get into some logic problems.

The best practical analogy I’ve ever heard for this is from another book entitled, “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Suppose you are at a deli counter to buy some meat and you are told to first take a number. You are then told that you must take a number in order to take a number, and this process of taking numbers to take the next will continue to infinity. You will realize that you will NEVER reach the counter and you will NEVER get the meat. You then notice that others have meat in their cart from the same deli counter. You conclude that the process of taking numbers must have ended at some point. It could not have logically continued to infinity as is clearly evident by the meat existing in the cart.


Fr. Spitzer shows how the statement “infinite past time” actually violates of a rule of logic called the Principle of Non-Contradiction; it’s the same as saying I have a “square circle”. Past time can only be viewed as having occurred, having been achieved or having been actualized, otherwise it cannot be distinguished from present time (occurring/being achieved/being actualized) or future time (not having occurred/not achieved/not actualized). Infinity as applied to an aggregating succession, must always be more than can ever occur, be achieved or actualized. If we put these two ideas together we have an obvious and serious problem:

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:

Infinite future time does not present this logic problem because future time has not occurred, has not been achieved, has not been actualized. As we pray in the Glory Be, “…as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.”

Once we accept that time had a beginning point, we stand at the threshold of physics and metaphysics. From nothing only comes nothing, therefore the “something” that can cause time to exist must be an unconditioned reality that transcends time…and what a curious “something” that would be!!

Stay tuned for more insights from “New Proofs for the Existence of God” in the weeks to come.