Scientism and God's Existence: A Commentary by Fr. Barron

Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Father Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit http://www.wordonfire.org/

• Category

  People & Blogs

[Brent Grainger]

Perhaps you should address your comments to Mr. Barron. He would disagree with you.

[TheFutureengineer20]

We are in agreement that "nothing" in the philosophical sense never existed or cannot be. If you need education in quantum physics or Aristotle's philosophy to come to that conclusion then I don't know what to tell you. You are trying to create a conflict where one doesn't exist.

[TheFutureengineer20]

Of course there's no place for absolute nothing in our reality and of course it was never involved in anything b/c it doesn't exist. The quantum-fluctuations and intelligence of God are explanation that address different issues. To pit the two against each other as competing hypothesis is making a category mistake.

[TheFutureengineer20]

That's a lot of rhetoric how about a real counter argument. My reasons for arriving at this conclusion are the intelligibility and comprehensibility that makes science even possible. "the eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Albert Einstein. How is it irrational to say that absolute non-being doesn't exist or that it's a state of non-existence? Of course it's impossible for intelligence to to inhabit absolute nothing b/c absolute nothing doesn't exist.

[Brent Grainger]

For sure. What kind of "nothing?" Despite intense discussion in the scientific community, a consensus is arising that "nothing" in this particular philosophical sense simply never "exists" or cannot "be" and is therefore irrelevant. Irrelevancy never stops philosophers from opining about something, however.

[PurePragma]

In fact, I would go even further and claim there is no reason to assume this 'absolute nothing' has any place in the reality we inhabit, and thus also no reason to assume it is needed to explain it (this reality). Whether the Big Bang arose out of quantum-fluctuations in the fabric/energy of reality, or out of the pure intelligence of God(s), it appears 'absolute nothing' was simply never involved in either explanation. Hence the Kalam is a useless argument, as it assumes 'absolute nothingness'.

[PurePragma]

"[..] from nothing but the intellect of God" BTW, i'm being very lenient here, passing by on the fact that logically and rationally, it is not possible for 'something' to present in 'absolute nothing'. Not even for an intelligence. Where would the intelligence be? What place would it take? Every place? Because in true 'nothing', there is no place for the intelligence to be and no time for intelligence to think or make decisions. An intelligent 'nothing' is actually a paradox. But that aside.

[PurePragma]

"this did not happen by or from nothing but the intellect of God hence the reason creation is intelligible or comprehensible" To an irrational mind with a childish level of education, perhaps. In the 'real' word, 'something' does not *poof* into existence merely from a 'nothing' infused with the intelligence of an Imaginary Being. At least, according to all scientific empirical evidence gathered over the past millenia. Your version of 'nothing' appears to be even less rational then Krauss'.