The Infancy Insanity

Here comes the obligatory Christmas post. I’ll be taking a new look at Christmas, though. Here’s a question. Have you ever considered just how insane the idea of Christmas is? There’s a tapestry hanging in the Vatican that helps demonstrate this. It was painted by Raphael and then woven in Brussels in the 1500s. It’s called The Adoration of the Magi, but it points out another truth. Here’s the tapestry.

To Be Reasonable

Alright, it’s finally time to get back into this series. So far, we’ve established a few characteristics of that being that we’re calling God.

God is One

God is Simple (as in having no parts)

God is Omnipresent (everywhere)

God is unchanging

God is existence itself.

Let’s explore a few more characteristics of God before we try to move forward in the conversation, just to see how far pure thought will get us.

I seem to recall a disclaimer from the beginning of the series- there will only be one assumption used in this entire series- that something (namely the Universe) exists. Looking back, that’s not entirely true. There is a second underlying assumption, but this one is critical to understanding anything. That assumption is that we are able to trust our capacity to think reasonably. Let’s take a minute and examine that assumption.

Can we trust our reason? That’s a pretty big question. If we can’t, well… There goes everything you ever thought you understood, because your mind could be deceiving you. This is something that the French philosopher and father of the Enlightenment René Descartes understood quite well. Unfortunately for the future of philosophy, Descartes was unable to answer the question very well. Why? Because he insisted that already existing structures of thought could provide no answers. Let’s take some time and examine the question, then.

It most certainly seems as though we can trust our reason. For example, if I give you this: 2+2=?, most people can usually see the answer is 4. How? Through reason, that the quantity of two, added to itself, always equals four. There’s a beautiful philosophical question hiding in there, but we’ll deal with that later. You can also say that because the ball is falling, you know it had been off the ground previously.

If, for some reason, we think we can’t trust our reason, then we have a problem. What’s that problem? Well, that we can’t trust the conclusion, that our reason is unreliable. Why? Because we can’t trust the path to get there. It’s a proof that there is no such thing as a proof. It’s a bit of a problem.

So we must be able to trust our reason. That’s the presupposition that shapes the very foundation of everything we produce, do, and are. But we must be careful with trusting our reason. Can it be trusted? Yes. Can it be deceived? This is also true.

So how can we know for sure that our reason is actually being trustworthy? How do we know that our reason isn’t being deceived? How can we tell fact from fiction? If our reason is being deceived, what can we do about it? And, above all, we still haven’t actually answered the most important question, why do we trust our reason?

These questions are all very important. But first, I’m going to deal with one tiny, but very critical, question- why does it matter?

There are some who will say that philosophy has no place anymore, because science is capable of answering any questions that humanity can answer. What they don’t realize is that by saying that, they are making a philosophical statement. How are scientific conclusions made? Experiments are conducted, data is measured, and suddenly, the experimenters are left with a large table of numbers. Those numbers by themselves mean absolutely nothing. So what happens to them?

This is where philosophy appears in science. The scientists must look at the numbers and draw conclusions from them. They must be able to say whether or not variable x has any effect upon the result, and whether or not the effect, if there is one, is significant. Conclusions must be drawn from the numbers, those numbers don’t speak for themselves.

Even in the realm of science, the necessity of trusting the human capacity to reason is absolutely critical. But it’s something that’s often overlooked. Next time, we’re going to start actually breaking the question down.

And this is where the very philosophical part of the journey begins.

The Man of the Church

Last time, we discussed why only men can be priests. We only got as far as the decisions of Jesus and the original 12 apostles. This time, we’ll discuss more of the history as well as the theological reasoning.

There are a number of things that changed in the time since the time of the apostles. For example, women wearing veils was something that was actually a discipline and has since been changed. Why should the prescription on priests be different? Well, there’s a slight difference between a discipline and the priesthood. See, the ministerial priesthood (the ordained priesthood) is started by a sacrament, Holy Orders. The problem with a sacrament is that it is an outward sign of grace. They were instituted by Christ, and we don’t have the authority to change them.'

We can’t make the Eucharist coffee and donuts instead of bread and wine, just because the culture thinks it’s a better idea. We can’t change that, because the bread and wine thing was instituted by Christ, and the outward sign is actually a part of the sacrament. It actually does make a difference that it be men, and this has been recognized for essentially the entirety of the Church. In the Council of Nicaea in 325, twelve, out of twenty, of the canons dealt with ordination. These canons are official, definitive, authoritative statements from the Church. The most obvious, though, would be canon 19. It deals with the ordination of women as deacons, and explicitly says that there are many females who are called deacons, but they should be counted among the laity.

The very nature of the priesthood, though, also rules out the idea of using women. Why? Because in the Catholic Church, the priest acts in the person of Christ. It’s not merely a role in a show, though. Let’s pretend it is only that simple and mundane, though. The priest is acting as Christ. Let’s find something similar. The movie Braveheart, starring Mel Gibson, is a pretty popular one. What if the role of William Wallace was played by a woman? Let’s take… Shirley Temple? Or maybe Julia Roberts? How about Jennifer Anniston? Seeing any of these women trying to play the role of the epitome of a man’s man is nothing short of laughable.

Even with all that, though, will come the claim that women have a “right” to the priesthood. Well, this claim involves a fundamental misunderstanding about the priesthood. It is not a right. It has never been about rights. If anything, the priesthood is a sacrifice, a painful thing, that should be taken very seriously. There’s an old saying that goes “the road to hell is lined with the skulls of priests.” Every priest automatically carries responsibility for his flock. He is the one responsible for them to make it to heaven. In the book of James, there’s a warning- “Let not many become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment” (James 3:1). It’s not a call to take lightly.

And ultimately, that is what it is. The priesthood is a calling. Christ chooses his priests. We don’t decide to be priests for him. It is not about rights. Ultimately, it isn’t even about the symbolism. At the very heart and soul of the issue is the fact that Christ chooses his priests. And the Church, speaking with the authority of Christ, as she has done since the time of Christ, has spoken definitively, saying that Christ has always, and will always, only choose men.

Priestess of Christ?

Last time, we talked about the truth behind the myth of Pope Joan. We ended with a question, though. Why does it matter that only men can be priests?

Well, in 1976, it was formally and officially put into words by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in their letter to the world, Inter insignores. In that letter, and in Pope John Paul II’s document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, it was stated that the priesthood was reserved for men, and men alone, and there was nothing the Church could do about it. Now, these two letters were not authoritative in themselves. However, they were authoritative in that they were the teaching of the entirety of the Magisterium, meaning that reserving the priesthood for men alone is an official and formal teaching of the Catholic Church, and none can, in good conscience, reject this teaching and remain Catholic.

Why is this, though? Why do we stick with the “archaic” idea that only men have the “right” to be priests, even after Paul says in Galatians that “there is no male and female” (Galatians 3:28). Well, there are a number of reasons.

The first, and most obvious, reason we don’t allow for women to become priests is the very simple reason that Jesus didn’t choose any women to be among his twelve apostles. Instead, Jesus chose twelve men to lead his Church after he left.

The objection to that is usually that choosing women to be priests would have been incredibly unusual and would have thrown everyone off of his message and driven most of his people away. Except for one minor point. In that time, the Jews were the weird ones for not having priestesses. The Romans had the Vestal Virgins, the Greeks had Oracle at Delphi, among others, the Egyptians had Cleopatra and God’s Wife of Amun. The list goes on and on with the different priestesses in the region around Israel. Priestesses actually would have been normal.

Beyond just the normality of priestesses in the world at the time, though, Jesus wasn’t exactly known for following social customs. He spoke to a Samaritan woman, a known adulteress, while in Samaria, breaking at least three different social taboos simply acknowledging her existence. He dealt with the ritually unclean on a nearly daily basis. One of the twelve was a tax collector, the absolute lowest of the low in the world of Jewish social customs. A woman would probably actually have been closer to normal than some of the other things he did.

There’s also the fact that Jesus did actually greatly respect women in his ministry. The first people he appeared to after the Resurrection were women. Jewish tradition would have thrown out their testimony, but they were the ones who were to bring testimony to the Apostles, yet they were never to be counted among the number of the 12. Mary, the very mother of God, the absolute pinnacle of womanhood, without whom Jesus isn’t born, wasn’t even numbered among the twelve. The one with the strongest claim to any authority outside Christ held none.

Beyond just what Jesus did, though, the Apostles continued the trend of not choosing women. After Judas died, in the upper room, Mary had been present, but instead of choosing God’s mother, the obvious choice, they chose Matthias. Mary wasn’t even the other top choice, it was Barsabbas. Even when the Apostles move out to the rest of the world and start spreading the Gospel in a culture that welcomed and accepted priestesses, there was never a woman ordained, only those who aided in the mission of the Church as lay ministers.

Next time, we’ll take a more in-depth look at some of the history after the apostles of this teaching, as well as some theology about it. 

The Woman Who Wasn't

Last time, we discussed the myth of the Pope Joan, the mythical female who suddenly became pope in 855. This time, let’s take a look through some of the claims made in the story and try to understand the actual history behind the time.

First off, let’s take a look at the town of Mainz. There was indeed a monastery in the town in 800. St. Alban’s Abbey was built in 798 and consecrated as a church in 805, though there are gravestones from a monastic community in the area that go back to the 600s. It would eventually be destroyed in 1552, but that’s a bit outside our timeline. St. Alban’s also excelled as a school, and even inspired the court schools of Charlemagne.

Now, let’s take a look at that papal election in 855. First, let’s take a peek at some of the major players.

Pope Leo IV. He had been pope from 847-855, when he died at the age of 65(ish). His main claim to fame was repairing churches in Rome that had been damaged by Turkish invaders.

 Anastasius. He was a priest in the middle of the 800s, and would later in life become the chief librarian of the Roman Church. He became known for being an incredibly brilliant man, one of the smartest priests at the time, and had done work translating writings from Greek to Latin. In 847, he fled the church he had been placed at. In 850, he was excommunicated, and he was again excommunicated in 853.

 Benedict. Pretty much unanimously elected pope in 855.

Okay, let’s take a step by step through what happened.

Leo IV died. He’s out of the picture. Anastasius was upset with the Roman church for excommunicating him. Benedict was very popular with the Roman people. Benedict was proclaimed the Pope in 855. However, at the time, there were two emperors of the Holy Roman Empire, Lothaire and Louis II. Anastasius intercepted the legates on their way bringing the news to the emperors. He bribed them to tell the emperors that he, Anastasius, had been chosen, not Benedict. The legates bought it and told the emperors Anastasius was pope. He returned to Rome with a small army and arrested Benedict.

Now, this is where the story gets interesting. While Benedict was in prison, the people of Rome literally revolted to the point of throwing Anastasius out of town. After being restored to the position he was rightfully elected to, Benedict actually forgave Anastasius and lifted the excommunication. Anastasius repented and would eventually (in 867) be made librarian, a very important job.

The election of 855 was VERY highly contested. It’s not exactly one where we don’t quite know what happened, and we’re just guessing. There’s absolutely no way a woman could become elected pope, reign for two years, and then cover up the entire thing, while at the same time having this (rather well documented) controversy between the emperors, the Romans, and the pope.

Given that it’s so easy to prove the 855 date entirely false, where did this story come from?

Well, it first showed up in 1250 in a writing by a Dominican monk. It got continually copied over time, because the monks who were copying simply wrote down what they saw without thinking about it. (Fun fact, that’s where Protestants got the “for thine is the kingdom, and the glory, and the power forever” bit at the end of the Our Father, a copying mistake on a version of the English Bible that eventually became the King James Version). It was actually discounted by the 1640s by, unusually, a Protestant looking to find the truth behind the story, trying to figure out how best to discredit the Papacy.

But this brings out a new question, which we’ll discuss next time. Why would do we even need a male pope in the first place?

Popess?

The next step in the series is going to take some considerable research, so while I'm doing that, I'll be doing posts on various other random topics. Once I'm done with my research, I'll go back to the series.

Anyways, today, we're going to take a look at a very popular Catholic urban legend. Well, when I say Catholic... It's a popular legend about Catholics. It's been around since the 1300s and for some reason it just won't go away... In fact, ABC ran a special about it in 2005, around the time Pope Benedict XVI was elected. For the sake of clarity, I'll use the timeline that ABC presented.

So what is this legend? Well, it's the story of a woman who became pope. 

NOTE: The following is the legend and is not actually substantiated by facts of any kind.

Around 800 AD, in the German town of Mainz, a girl was born. The English had been building monasteries in the region to educate the boys of the town, but there was absolutely no chance of a girl getting any sort of education. Near Mainz, the monastery of Fulda was built, to educate the boys of the town.

It was to Fulda where Joan first went, wearing the robes of the monks and able to disguise her feminine figure. There, she proved to be a naturally gifted student, excelling in her studies of Greek and Latin, among all the other subjects.

From there, she lived in the monastery for several years, making lovers of some of the more important monks and eventually being moved to Athens. From Athens, she began to acquire a reputation as a learned scholar and an intelligent monk. She became a secretary in a curia (a system of governance), then an archbishop, and eventually, she was made a Cardinal.

In 855, after the death of Pope Leo IV, she was almost unanimously elected to be pope, under the name "John Anglicus," or "John the Englishman." Upon her election, she reigned for about two and a half years, until, one fateful day, during a Papal procession.

During the procession, Joan went into labor. She gave birth on a street that became known as the "Via Vicus Papissa," the street of the woman pope. Here, accounts differ. They all agree on one point, though, that it was that day, after giving birth, that Joan died. 

After the great scandal of having a female pope, the Church officials did everything in their power to cover up the event. The records of Pope Joan were officially destroyed. She'd had a bust made and put in the Sienna Cathedral that was eventually erased and the bust of Zacharias II replaced. Pope John XXI actually changed his numbering from XX to XXI in recognition of the female pope in 1276, after thoroughly checking the records of the popes.

This is where the legend ends

What a wonderful story. Thursday, we'll take a look at some of the details and examine just how much (if any) of this story is actually true.

Sidebar: Logical Reasoning

After a few different posts, and some interesting comments, I think it’s time for a sidebar before we proceed forward with our investigation. There have been many different accusations of logical fallacies in discussions over the last few posts, and I think it’s time to discuss this for a little bit.

First, what is a fallacy? A logical fallacy is a flaw or gap in reasoning, something that involves a missing step in logic. They’re typically used by politicians or others who are more focused on impressing or convincing than on honest philosophical investigation or solid truth.Here, we’re going to list a few of the most common fallacies used and a description of what they are.

First, the most common one is the “ad hominem” fallacy. This is when, instead of answering a claim, the response becomes a statement about the person themselves. For example, claiming that because someone has been arrested, they’re unable to tell the truth at all.

Second, the “genetic” fallacy, saying that a position isn’t true because of its history. For example, because a German politician had been a member of the Hitler Youth in the 1930s, anything they do must be some sort of Nazi propaganda.

Third, the “strawman” fallacy, intentionally misrepresenting a person’s belief to make it easier to argue against. For example, claiming that someone who opposes abortion wants to turn women into baby-making machines.

Fourth, “special pleading.” This is one that I’d like to address in depth for a moment, because it’s one that’s levelled quite frequently and has been levelled against me a few times. Special pleading means trying to cite something as an exception to the rule without explaining the exception. It usually implies some version of a double standard. For example, saying that all thieves should go to jail, except this one, because he only stole $80.

Now, why has this one been used so many times in the discussion about the existence of God? Well, for a very simple reason. When most Christians try to prove that God exists, they will prove the necessity of some form of deity, and then assume that because a god must exist, the Christian God must exist.

How is this different from what I’ve been doing? Well, in the beginning, when I said to start from scratch, I meant to start from absolute scratch. This means no preconceived notions of God or assumptions about what he would be like. Any preconceived notions or arguments that the Christian God hasn’t been proven yet would be true. I haven’t proven the Christian God yet.

There is one final fallacy I would like to discuss. This last one is the “fallacy” fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is when someone assumes that because something was decided upon by bad reasoning, it automatically isn’t true. Just because the steps to get somewhere aren’t the most solid doesn’t make it less true.

Next time, we’ll actually continue with our journey forward.

9. Redemptive Suffering

Alright, so last time, we discussed how there is a disconnect between those westerners who look at the third world nations and call on God’s unfairness and those saints who willingly gave up their luxurious lifestyle willingly. This time, we’re going to discuss it, and ultimately, look at why the problem of evil isn’t actually a problem for Christians.

As we discussed earlier, any four year old child could tell you that something about the world isn’t fair, though they may not be able to say what it is or how big it is. The lack of fairness and justice in life seems to be the most clearly evident proof available that there is no God up there, there is no supreme judge trying to hold the world together, or anything like that. The thief gets away, the innocent man takes the fall, and nobody is able to right the wrong.

There’s just one problem with approaching it from that perspective. See, to the Christian, this life isn’t all there is. To the Christian, when life becomes rough, it’s okay, because there’s a promise of an eternal reward. To a Christian, when injustice happens, it’s okay, because in the end, all will be held accountable for their actions.

However, beyond just this simple idea of justice is a distinctly Catholic idea. The problem of pain, evil, and suffering in the world shouldn’t be a challenge, especially to Catholics, because of the idea of redemptive suffering. What does this mean?

We’re going to skip a few steps here. Don’t worry, we’ll be going back and coming all the way to this point in the future (eventually). Meanwhile, bear with me while we jump ahead.

Redemptive suffering is the idea of uniting your sufferings to the suffering of Christ on the Cross. There’s a very old phrase that has sort of faded out of use, but is still sometimes heard in Catholic circles, “offer it up.” What does this mean?

It means to offer the suffering up as penance for our sins. It means to use the suffering and bear it patiently as a way of showing God repentance and sorrow for past sins. It means to acknowledge that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient to repay the debt that Original Sin created in the world, but we can still play a role in that suffering by saying, “Hey, I’m sorry for my sins. Here’s my proof and what I could do.”

Now before some of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters get up in arms saying that there’s nothing we can do that can possibly earn our salvation, I’d like to say that’s entirely true. Here’s an analogy that may help: Imagine a man mowing his lawn with a riding mower while his child rides on his lap. The child will naturally want to take a turn driving the mower, so the father will let him put his hands on the wheel and pretend he’s driving. Is the child actually really doing anything to direct the mower? Probably not. What matters, though, is that the child has an interest in doing it and the father recognizes that.

So the problem of evil does indeed pose a problem in today’s world. However, that problem is not proving that God doesn’t exist. Instead, it proves a very different problem. It proves that there are millions of Christians in the world who believe themselves to be justified in calling themselves Christians while at the same time being unwilling to either help others through their suffering or to bear suffering of their own.

This concludes the little tangent on the Problem of Evil. Next time, we’ll get back into the series proper and resume working forward from the knowledge that One, Omnipresent being, existence itself, exists.

8. Standards of Living

So last time we discussed the real root of the problem of evil- a perceived injustice. We discussed why it would even be possible for humans to have free will. Now, it’s time to turn to things on a slightly larger scale.

Natural disasters are generally regarded as tragedies. Whether it be a tornado through Missouri, an earthquake in Haiti, or a tsunami in the Philippines, natural disasters happen and bring about massive loss of life as well as tremendous suffering for those who survive and have to watch everything they had become washed away.

There are two ways of looking at these things. First, there is the general human way, which is to look at the disaster and say “how could God possibly allow something this terrible to happen?” But there’s another way to look at it. There’s the Christian way, which is to look at it and say “How is God going to bring good out of this?”

See, ultimately, that’s where the very root of this problem lies. A majority of people unwilling to look past the present moment, only thinking about things in terms of material wealth. Why was the earthquake in Haiti so devastating? Because the already-poor were left with even less than they already had. Cities were destroyed, houses lay in rubble, infrastructure collapsed, and the isolated became more isolated.

To the average Westerner, this great loss of material wealth is a tragedy. Ask your average boy scout, and (given that they’re actually mature enough to see this), and he’ll tell you that life is actually much more fun without all the luxuries and conveniences we’ve come to depend on.

It’s hard to imagine that God is loving the poor in Pakistan or the orphan in Uganda. Why? Because they don’t have stuff. Because what stuff they do have gets taken away from them so easily. Nepal learned a valuable lesson recently, one that the rest of the world still doesn’t understand. Life is not dependent upon luxury.

The average American can’t imagine life without tv, the internet, a car, air conditioning, clean water, a grocery store, and more. Meanwhile, in Haiti, for example, people are walking miles to find clean water, there is no thought of air conditioning in the middle of the Caribbean, electricity is a rare commodity (had legitimately by 1/8 of the population), and people are willing to eat mud for lack of better food. Then a monstrous earthquake comes and takes away what little they had, and the worldly man is left watching and asking “why?”

It doesn’t seem fair, does it? Why would a universe supposedly ruled by some great just judge be so wildly unfair? Well, let’s take a different look at it. Let’s look at it through the eyes of some of history’s greatest saints.

Let’s look through the eyes of Anthony the Great, who left everything he had (a large family farm) and moved to the desert, bringing nothing with him, and living for the next 80 years in the wilderness, making his own bread. Let’s look through the eyes of Francis of Assisi, renouncing everything of his father’s, including the clothes on his back, to respond to his call to holiness. Let’s look at the great Jesuit saints, Isaac Jogues, John de Brebeuf, Noel Chabanel, Rene Goupil, and more, who left everything, including their home country, for the love of God, going to places where they didn’t even know the language. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of saints, men and women of incredible virtue, who left everything.

All of these holy men and women would probably even go so far as to denounce the materialism and wealth-based society of the west (and some did, like Mother Theresa and Josemaria Escriva). They lived their lives on a level with those in the world’s poor nations, if not even below that level, and they did it willingly and joyfully, giving all they had.

So what, then, is the disconnect? There’s some sort of difference between these great saints who willingly live in the grip of poverty and those Western observers who watch the poverty in other parts of the world with pity and judgment of God for his “unfairness.” Well, we’ll discuss it next time.

7: Defining Justice

Alright, so last time we ended off with discussing whether evil actually exists. Regardless of how we define evil, though, arguments about why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people abound.

It seems as though a perfectly just God wouldn’t allow such things to happen. Let’s take a moment to examine justice, though, shall we? This was a very interesting question in ancient Greece. In fact, Plato wrote an entire book devoted to the subject. Plato’s Republic eventually became the epitome of pre-Aristotelean philosophy, and is still considered one of the greatest and most essential works of philosophy ever written.

Within that book, justice is first defined as everyone getting what they deserve. This is the definition most people operate off of. By this definition, the problem of pain and injustice becomes very problematic. A just, powerful God would not allow good people to be dealt injustice and bad people to receive good things.

However, the book goes on for a considerably longer time. Throughout the argument, Plato, speaking through Socrates, brings about a new definition of justice. After another eight books of debate, the new definition is decided. The new definition of justice, given by Plato, is each man living as he should, “going about his own business.”

Now, this is a slightly unusual definition, but it makes more sense when compared to the other three major virtues of Plato, wisdom, temperance, and courage. In the individual man, justice is the virtue that unifies the other three.

This is not the avenue to debate that definition of justice (for those interested, feel free to read the Republic. It’s a very enlightening read and a fantastic introduction to the world of philosophy.), so we’re going to move on.

Now, let’s take a minute and discuss this principle of divine justice. Do bad things happen to good people? Yes. Do good things happen to bad people? Also yes. Now, if we discuss things on a purely mortal level, it doesn’t make sense. There seems to be no standard of cosmic justice. Things seem to be random. People die, others live, people prosper, others fall flat, and it all seems completely arbitrary, right?

Well, let’s take a step back. To the Christian, there’s a bit more to the justice system. It’s not just these 60-90 years on earth. While life doesn’t seem to be completely fair, and things really don’t make sense, things tend to fall together better when considering the possibility that this may not be all there is.

First, let’s look at one thing. Crime. Crime happens, good people get murdered, bad people get out of being prosecuted. This doesn’t seem fair at all. But the idea that a just God would prevent it completely removes the possibility of human free will. Now, the fact that humans have the freedom to choose is pretty much undeniable. I can choose what I want to have for breakfast, or I can choose what time I want to go to bed, and so on.

The next question, then, is obvious. Why would a just God give free will if he knew that humans would abuse it (part of the all-knowing part)? Well, it comes from the definition of love (which will be elaborated upon later, or can be introduced here). Basically, though, the Christian idea of love is an act of the will. A robot cannot love. God gave humans free will to give them the capacity to love (again, this is a topic that will be covered in depth later).

Okay, so that explains the human element of why it’s possible. But what about things that humans don’t control? Things such as natural disasters and disease? And what about the justice after the humans make their choices? These topics will be discussed next time.

6. Defining Evil

I know last time I said it would be the last time we discuss the existence of God for a while, but I had a bit of inspiration and decided to tackle this piece sooner. This time around, we’ll be talking about the most-used argument for why God doesn’t exist, the problem of evil.

The problem of evil goes like this:

1.       If God exists, he is all powerful, all knowing, and all good.

2.       If God is all knowing, he knows where evil comes from and how to prevent it.

3.       If God is all good, he desires to prevent evil.

4.       If God is all powerful, he is able to prevent evil.

5.       Evil exists.

6.       Therefore, an all powerful, all knowing, all good God does not exist.

At first glance, this seems to be a very powerful argument against the existence of God. But let’s break it down into pieces.

First, let’s define the terms.

                All-powerful: Able to do anything (except logical contradictions… A story for a different day)

                All- knowing: Knows everything

                All-good: In his essence, good, and desiring the good of his creation

                Evil: Ah… The tricky one. Evil is not merely pain and suffering. These are symptoms of evil. Although many today would say that evil can be found in suffering, it’s not always the case. For example, the pain of chemotherapy brings about a good thing, namely, treating cancer. If we define evil as only things which cause pain, chemotherapy and many other medical procedures would be evil, making doctors… well, basically evil. But that’s not the case. I’m going to propose a new definition for evil- the absence of the good.

Our entire system of language, and even philosophy, reflects this definition. Good things are always gained. Wisdom, knowledge, understanding, they are all seen as being gained. Ignorance is not something gained, but the absence of knowledge. Likewise, when discussing moral systems, those with stricter morals are often seen as being “above” the “common people,” as though they have gained more morals.

Similarly, there are examples in other fields, such as physics. Cold is not in itself a positive quantity. It is actually just the absence of heat. Darkness is not on its own a positive thing. Darkness is merely the absence of light. Death is not a positive thing. A thing does not gain the quality of not being alive. It loses the quality of being alive.

Now, to solidify this position, let’s take a look at an example of something pretty much everyone would agree to be evil: murder.

At first glance, murder seems like an actual thing. It’s an act that is carried out. However, let’s boil that down a bit.

The actual act of the murder is merely the end result of a chain of many things and is not in itself the only part of evil being done.

Where does murder come from? It comes, from the very beginning, for a lack of respect for human life. How do we know this? Because the murderer, to some degree, believes that he is somehow greater than or above his victim. The root cause is a deficiency of respect, a missing virtue.

Now, I do realize that we haven’t actually answered the argument yet. There will be more discussion of it next time.

5. The End of the Proof

After a few posts, it’s time to finish out this argument for God’s existence. First, let’s recap where we’ve been.

1.       We established that everything that exists does so only in relation to everything else that exists. Nothing in the universe exists completely independently.

2.       In each instant, everything is depending upon everything else for its existence, because of the very nature of existing in relation to everything else. We called this the network of coexistence.

3.       Everything is equally dependent upon everything else to exist.

4.       Nothing in the universe possesses existence by its own nature.

5.       Because nothing can give what it doesn’t have, nothing in the universe can give existence to anything else in the network its own existence in each moment. Remember, this is not cause and effect. This is in a single instant.

6.       There must be something outside the network that possesses existence and can give it to everything else in the network.

7.       This source of existence, we call God.

Alright, there’s a step by step look at what this proof is all about. Now, there are a few characteristics of God that we already established were necessary in order for this source of existence, God, to, well, give existence.

1.       It must be one and simple, because any sort of division within this source of existence would require a secondary network of coexistence. One part would ultimately be responsible for holding the rest in existence.

2.       It must be present to all things at all times in order for things to exist. If it wasn’t present to something, that thing would have no way to participate in existence. In order for anything to exist at all, it must receive its existence from this source. Note that this does not mean that those things that exist must know that it is present, simply that it gives existence to all things.

3.       It must also be present in its entirety to all things. Because there are no parts in it, and it must be present to all things, its entirety must be present. 

4.       It must be unchanging. The fancy word for this is “immutable.” It’s already been established that it can’t have parts and that it must be present to all things in its entirety. Because it has no parts and must in its entirety be present, it cannot change. Why? Because if its presence within something were to change, its presence in all things would have to change, again, because it has no parts and must be present in its entirety.

Now, with all of this, there is only one conclusion left to be drawn about this source of existence. It must possess existence by its very nature. Why? Because a thing cannot give what it does not have. This source of existence, which we are calling God, must by its very nature exist. Its nature literally is existence itself. And that is the God we worship. The idea of some magical butler in the sky catering to our every wish is a distinctly non-Catholic idea of God. It’s also a distinctly false idea of God. The God of the Church is existence itself, at all times and in all places fully present within everything that exists, holding everything in existence in every instant.

Now, one final word. This will probably be the last post about the existence of God I do for a while. I do want to make one thing clear. Science will never be able to state through an experiment whether or not God exists. The very idea of God prevents that. Any God that exists must be, by nature, supernatural, or above nature. Humans are natural beings. We live within nature. We are literally not capable of measuring anything outside of nature. Why? Because we do not possess the ability, and never will, because we can only work with the laws of nature. Any being above nature will not be bound by these. The existence of God is a question for philosophy, not science.

4: Clearing the Air

     Alright, before we can continue, I think it’s necessary to clear up a few of the more ambiguous things that have come up over the last two posts (here and here). This will just be a short little thing, anybody with any more questions, feel free to add them in the comments, I’ll check them and update this periodically.

1.       This proof has nothing to do with cause and effect.

The proof is not one of the origins of anything or anything like that. Instead, it focuses on how things are at any single instant.

2.       We are not dealing with what could be.

The only thing we’re dealing with here is what actually is. While there is a nearly infinite number of possibilities for what could possibly be, the only thing we have to talk about honestly existing is what actually is. The moment is as it is and cannot be otherwise. It could have been otherwise, but once the moment comes into existence, it cannot be otherwise, similar to quantum uncertainty, where something could be both a particle and a wave, but once it is measured, it cannot become the other.

3.       We’re not done with this proof yet.

There are certain parts that need to be flushed out a bit more, and some more defining needs to be done. This will be coming out on Sunday.

4.       A vacuum is not nothing.

A perfect vacuum would, in theory, be nothing, but those are impossible in reality. Any vacuum that exists in the real universe, even space, contains particles and energy, both of which are considered a part of the network of coexistence previously discussed.

5.       This argument relies upon the network of coexistence

In order for the argument to continue, the network of coexistence must first be established. Without it, I will grant, the entire thing falls apart.

6.       What is meant by a moment

In this case, a moment does not mean an hour, a minute, or a second. A moment means a single instant, a span of time measured by a derivative. It is also being used to describe the very nature of the relationship between all things within that network of coexistence.

7.       What is meant by coexistence

In this argument, coexistence refers to the relationship between all things existing. At any instant, they are all codependent upon each other for their existence. This is not to say that the puzzle sitting on the table in Calgary caused the car accident in Calcutta. Instead, it is to say that in that specific instant, the puzzle on the table only exists as 7,000+ miles away from the car, which is also about a foot and a half away from the other car. Sure, the things can be described independently, but it cannot truthfully be said that they exist independently. This does not mean that everything in the network has an effect on anything else at any instant. Instead, it is to say that the universe we live in is purely relational- things within it only exist in relation to other things.

Finally, one more note of policy on my part. Due to a few recent… incidents, comments will now be moderated. Only constructive comments that actually lend to an open discussion will be allowed through. Profanities will be removed, and any comments that do nothing but criticize any parties will be deleted. I want a polite and open atmosphere. Alright, that’s all for now.

3: The Source of All that Is

Last time, we discovered the network of necessary coexistence that makes up the universe. Basically, everything exists together, completely intertwined with each other, such that if ANYTHING changed, the entire universe would change.

Now, this network must have a source. All these things in this network cannot be the source of their own existence, holding each other in existence, because they cannot exist without each other. In our picture of the dog, the water does not exist except with the ball, and the ball does not exist except with the water. They are completely dependent upon each other. In reality, you cannot take the ball away from the water and call it the same moment. It only exists as it is, the ball on the water, depending completely upon each other for their mutual existence.

Everything in this network is equally dependent upon each other. If anything is taken out, it all falls apart. It must have its source, somewhere, though. There must be something, somewhere, holding the entire network together, lending it existence. That source of existence must be outside of that network. Why? Because if it was within the network of coexistence, its existence would be entirely dependent upon the rest of the network. This mutual dependence in the network is much like an arch.

The way an arch is built, two columns are leaned toward each other, leaning on each other and holding each other up. However, they do not simply begin that way. At the top of the arch is a critically important point. This is called the keystone. If the keystone comes out, the entire arch crumbles. Likewise, without some sort of keystone to hold the universe in existence at every instant, it would simply vanish into nothingness, because nothing within that network is capable of supporting its own existence independent of the rest.

Now, this source of existence must have a few very distinct characteristics. We’ll take a look at them one by one.

First off, this source of existence must be simple. Alright, term defining time. What does simple mean? It doesn’t mean small or easy to understand. Instead, here, it is being used to mean not consisting of parts. It’s only one thing, one piece. Why is this necessary? Well, because if this source of existence were made of multiple different parts, in the end, there would be one part lending existence to the others. It is both one and simple.

It must also be present to all things. This source of all existence is the reason any thing exists at any given instant. To it, all moments are present, as each thing that exists receives its existence from this source. However, at the same time, the entirety of this source of existence must be present in all things. Why? Because we have already demonstrated that it is one and simple. It is impossible to divide something that is one with no parts. It is fully present in all things, completely and entirely.

It must be completely and totally present to everything in existence at every instant. Why? Because we’ve already demonstrated previously that in each instant, a new network of coexistence is created. Each instant, everything that exists is radically dependent upon each other, and if it were not receiving its existence from outside the network.

There is one last quality that this source of coexistence must have. It must be immutable, or unchanging. Why? Because if the source of that existence were to change at all, it would be present in different ways at different times. However, we have already demonstrated that this source of existence must be fully present in its entirety at every moment for anything to exist. If it were to change, things would suddenly pop in and out of existence.

I think this is far enough to take this today, we’ll continue to draw these ideas out in the next post.

2: The Network of Coexistence

It's time to begin the series. I ask for only one thing. We begin this series with only one assumption- That the Universe (or something) exists. From here, it will be purely logic moving forward. No biblical citations will be thrown out until after it's been proven that the Bible can be used. No assumptions based on any sort of religious tendencies will be used. It will be logic moving forward. Here we go.

So, to begin this series, we’re going to start with a blank slate. Basically, we have the Universe. That’s it. Everything in the Universe is existing together simultaneously. Let’s imagine the world as a movie, playing constantly forward (mostly because we don’t know how to rewind it). Everything progresses forward together, one instant becoming the next, moment to moment, forever onward. Now, pause.

We’re going to use this picture of a dog as our example. So, in this image, the dog is in midair after jumping off the pool deck, to get the ball, which is at just that position in the picture, while in the background, another dog is sitting on the deck. Now, all of those things, plus a thousand more, create this specific instant, captured here. Change any single one of those factors, and you’ve created a different moment.

N.B. We're dealing with what is, not what could possibly be. Yes, the dog could possibly be green or orange or a cat. But the fact of the matter is that the dog is not those.

If the dog was black, for example, the moment would change. If the ball was green, it would be a different moment. If the ball were on the right instead of the left, it would change the moment.

So all of these factors must themselves exist in order to create that specific instant. It could be said that they all must coexist, exist together, and that without everything just so, the moment wouldn’t exist. The moment is built by everything existing together, and if anything were to change, the moment would be different. In this instant, the dog only exists as jumping. The ball only exists as floating. They cannot truthfully be described otherwise. The dog cannot be said to be sitting. It is jumping. The ball cannot be described as rolling. It is floating.

N. B. It will become very important moving forward to deal with things honestly and objectively. Simply because something sounds nice will not be a good enough reason for it to be considered true. Just because something will hurt someone’s feelings is not a good enough reason for it to be false. It must actually be proven to be false. (Definitions for these terms will be coming in the future.)

Now, the dog is jumping, with the ball floating in the water. If the ball were still in midair, the moment would change. If the dog’s tail were on the right instead of the left, the moment would change. If even one tiny hair on that dog’s back were in a different place, it wouldn’t be the same instant. To create this instant, everything in the picture needs to be exactly where it is. That’s true of every moment everywhere in the universe. If any one thing were to change, such as a butterfly flapping its wings, the entire universe would be thrown into a different instant.

Everything must exist together, including energy. Everything is so radically bound together that they actually depend on each other for their very existence in each moment. The ball does not exist except in relation to the water and the dog, in every instant. And this extends to every corner of the universe. Everything in the universe coexists, exists together, and is dependent upon everything else to exist in that moment. If literally anything in the universe changes, if a single electron spins in the opposite direction, suddenly a new moment is created. This is the network of coexistence. And, to visualize, it would look something like this.

And this is where we’ll stop this time. We’ll pick up this network again next time.