Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:01 Let's start this morning with a brief poll from Pope Leo the 13th the moment man ceases to be in fear of God. He is deprived of the most necessary basis of justice. Without which society cannot exist. The authority of rulers will lose its way. The laws of the land will lose their for the integrity of reits will be threatened. Those who rule will easily be led, take a the proper limits of their authority, moral over every human society which judges utmost exclude God from its laws. Its constitution rejects the help of this divine goodness and deserves also that helps, should be dyed it rich and powerful as it appears that society bears within itself the seeds of death and cannot hope for a lengthy existence. Hopefully the 13th February, 1884 rich and as powerful as it appears that society which does its utmost to exclude God from its laws and constitution bears within itself the seeds of death you cannot hope for lengthy existence. Well in that regard, a little news update.
Speaker 1 01:27 Cool.
Speaker 0 01:29 With back to school season in full swing across the nation. Parents in Oregon have more to worry about than shopping for sweaters and purchase purchasing pencils in the state of Oregon. The Obamacare mandate, which went into effect on August 1st provides free sterilizations to students as young as 15 now, your high school freshmen can choose without your consent to be permanently sterilized.
Speaker 1 02:00 Close quote
Speaker 0 02:06 in the eighties I taught in a public high school in Oregon. The moral climate was shocking. Then don't think for even a moment there won't be any pressure on young people to get free sterilizations. At least in the public schools, there'll be plenty of pressure. No, it come from both their peers as well. Some of their teachers and counselors might be a good time to start the practice of the family rosary if you don't have it yet. We shouldn't be under any illusions as to the direction our country's headed. Now, we'll consider one of the latest attacks coming from one of the intellectual pygmies and Richard Dawkins Lodge of the new atheists. The philosophical part of my response, <inaudible> relied principally upon the work of Alice Nelson, Dr Don Bolan, Tom Tommy's Pharez, and Andrew Nema. They're all to mystic philosophers in the school of the lake. Great Australian priest, Father Austin, Woodberry. For the sake of time and clarity, I won't point out their quotes. The real credit must go to them and any mistakes of course in mind. So before we turn to the problem itself, well can to spend a few minutes talking about something which is commonly denied by many folks these days. And that is truth.
Speaker 1 03:38 Truth.
Speaker 0 03:39 There are two common usages for the word truth. Truth commonly refers to either truth and understanding that is to say truth in our judgment or truth in speech. Now, this morning will only consider truth. No judgment. Truth in our judgment means the agreement of our mind with a thing like this is my thumb and that's a microphone and that's a picture of our lady. What did we just do? We made judgments, which either do or do not correspond reality. For example, if I make this judgement, this my hand, and indeed it is a, then the judgment agrees with reality. And so we say it's true. If I look over here and say, well, there's a picture of Saint Maria Goretti, uh, that, that's not a picture of Saint Maria Goretti. Obviously that's our ladies and my judgment doesn't agree with reality. So we say it's false. The mind does not agree with it.
Speaker 0 04:33 So judgment, which agrees with reality is true. It's my hand. Air Falsity is, it just means a judgment who doesn't agree with reality? That's a picture of Saint Maria. Goretti truth is a correspondence between the mind and the thing. It's a judgment which agrees with reality of correspondence between the mind and the thing. So let's ask ourselves a question. When we're speaking of this kind of truth, that truth and understanding, is there an objective standard? Does an objective standard of truth and understanding truth and Judgment Exist? The answer is, of course it does. The objective standards reality, the facts, the things we're dealing with, you know, this is my hand or it isn't.
Speaker 0 05:16 So it's how do we know it's my hand bike. It's connected to me. It's just by inspection. Okay, so that's truth and judgment. We're looking at the Adria. Let's take a little closer at that. Look at this. Notice these truths are expressed in the form of a statement or declarative sentence. This my hand, that's the microphone. That's a picture of our lady. There are two possible kinds of such statements. Number one, self evident proposition and two conclusions so we can have self evident propositions or we can have conclusions today we're only going to concern ourselves with self evident propositions, conclusions or reason to, but the truth of self evident is immediately known. There are not reason to, they are subtle. Call them understandings. They're not reason to but like physical vision. They're just seeing what would give a few examples. A whole is greater than it's par.
Speaker 0 06:13 Well, as soon as we know the meaning of the Word Hall without the Median Park, we can see immediately the truth in that. Okay? That's that's a fundamental self evident proposition. The whole is greater in the park. It's important to notice too that unlike conclusions which have to be reason to, you can't actually prove self evident. Truth proof means a movement of the mind from what is known to what is unknown. But if something is already known, which is self evident, proposition is by definition, no proof is possible. Okay? We already see the truth itself evidence, so here's a few self evident propositions. The whole is greater than this part. No one can give what he does not have or nothing can give what it hasn't got, you can't get more out of less. Now, some self effort and propositions are so important. They have names like the principal of identity asa.
Speaker 0 07:08 This thumb is this thumb or this thumb is this thumb. By the way, that's a really easy answer to somebody that says, is there no such thing as absolute truth? You just stop and say, wait a minute. This thumb is this thumb and this does that time. I mean it may not be very profound, but that's absolutely true and will always be true that this dumb is this dumb and that that phone is that. I mean when people say this kind of stuff and they deny there's apps that truth. One of the first things I think of is can I borrow your credit card for a little while and put your money where your mouth is. Dennis said, okay. Anyway, that's a principle identity. This thumb is this dump. The principle of noncontradiction a is not non so a tree is not a non tree so nothing can be both true and not true at the same time in the same respect to cert.
Speaker 0 07:57 The thing is both what it is and not what it is is clearly absurd. So that's the principle of noncontradiction and thirdly the principle of the excluded middle between a and non a, there's nothing, there's no middle. So thing is either living or not living. There's nothing in between. The thing is either living or nonliving, there's nothing between a living thing is either a no or a non unknown. That's the dividing point. Point between plants would have no knowledge and things higher than clans. If the thing has sense knowledge then it's an animal. There's no third thing between plant animal because there's no middle between knower and non nor between a B and a B. Not a woman is either pregnant or not praying. There's nothing in between. Okay, so principal identity. The stump is this thump principle of noncontradiction. A tree is not a non tree principle of the excluded middle, a woman either pregnant or not pregnant.
Speaker 0 08:57 There's no middle term. Now, it's important for us to recognize that it is not possible to contradict these principles. In fact, and attempt to do so in thought is to make the act of thinking impossible. For example, or deny. The principle of noncontradiction is nuts. Since you have to use the principles in order to deny it in our clueless age, this is done every time someone denies. There isn't such a thing as objective truth. Why? Because the man claiming that there is no truth is asserting that his statement is true. But if the statement there is no truth is true, that means the statement is false. So if the statement is true, then it's false. You can see where this lines you up. No one can deny fundamental self evident principles. If he does, he's a madman and you can't reason with him. The whole is greater than it's par.
Speaker 0 09:54 No one can get what he does not have nothing gives what it hasn't got. He can't get more out of less. Principle identity is a this dumbass, this thumb, the principle of non-contradiction is not, not a nothing. You'd be both true and false at the same time in the same year Spec the principle of the excluded middle between a and non a, there is nothing a woman is either pregnant or not pregnant. There's nothing in between. A thing is either living or nonliving. There's nothing in between. No one can deny fundamental self evident principles. If he does, he's a mad man and can't be reasoned with all that. By way of background, let's turn to the problem in a program on the discovery channel entitled how the Universe Works. Episode one, the Big Fan, one of the new atheists, a physicist named Lawrence Cross makes the ridiculous statement and I quo the philosophers in ancient times used to say, how could something arise from nothing?
Speaker 0 11:02 And what's amazing to me is it laws of physics allow that to happen and it means that our whole universe, everything we see, everything that matters to us today could have arisen out of precisely nothing close quote. The narrator then goes on to make the ridiculous understatement quote. It's one of the biggest hurdles to understanding the big bang. First you have to buy into the premise that something was created out of nothing. Understanding how nothing turned into something, maybe the greatest mystery of the universe. But if you understand that, you start to understand the big bang close quotes, understanding how nothing turned into something may be the greatest mystery of the universe. But if you start to understand that, you start to understand the big thing. Well No. If you start to understand how nothing turned into something, you are either on a serious drug trip or completely out of your mind.
Speaker 0 11:59 Although to be fair, either one of those conditions undoubtedly help you to understand that big thing. So Lawrence class claims that the whole university come from nothing but nothing gives what it hasn't got. You can't get more out of less. After doing this, I bought crosses book. It's entitled a universe from nothing. Why there is something rather than nothing. New York Times bestseller. No, I'm not a fan of charity in the slightest to stage. This book is filled. It's just brimming over with blasphemies in the first place. It's, he's got all kinds of unbelievable errors. It's really ignorant. I am not, he's really ignorant. The guy doesn't do his homework when he's making strange comments on various things and besides those things, he's really arrogant anyway. At a minimum we can say it's a seething mass of philosophical and theological errors. That's at a minimum. Let's just touch a few points to get the flavor and the dust jacket or this brilliant work of best sellers. I say we read our universe from nothing. Is it provocative game changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists. Forget Jesus. Krause's argued the stars died so you could be born.
Speaker 0 13:21 Gee, that sounds scientific to me. Opening it up to the very first printed words, praise for universe from nothing, very first words. Nothing is not nothing.
Speaker 1 13:35 Okay,
Speaker 0 13:40 I'm not making this up. Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how cosmos can be spawned from the boy. A profound idea conveyed in a universe from nothing that unsettle some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Cross, Neil degrasse Tyson, astrophysicist American Museum of natural history.
Speaker 0 14:11 Nothing is not nothing, nothing is something. Remember the principle of noncontradiction a is not <inaudible> to cert. The thing both is what it is and not what it is is clearly absurd. Evidently this passes for great scientific thought in certain circles. Let's turn to cross his own words and the phone call. We find out that indeed what he means by nothing is actually something, and I quote from cross what drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of nothing had changed, that we've discovered that nothing is almost everything and that it has properties. That to me is an amazing discovery. It is to me too. So how do I frame that? I frame it in terms of his question about something coming from nothing. And part of that is a reaction to these really papas theologians who say out of nothing, nothing comes because those are just empty words. Close quote. Okay, so according to cross, nothing has an nature. The nature of that I think in change, nothing has properties and nothing is almost everything. And when we flipped through the book, we see like a chapter nine point self. Chapter nine is nothing is something and chapter 10 is nothing is unstable. So nothing is something, nothing is unstable, nothing has a nature. The nature of nothing can change, nothing have PR has properties and nothing does almost everything.
Speaker 0 15:48 Now the whole discussion of this running through the book, the discussion of nothing that runs the whole book reminds me of a brief dialogue that Alice had with Humpty dumpty and through the looking glass. I will rate it with slight changes in apologies to Lewis Carroll through looking glass. There's nothing for you. Sit Humpty dumpty. I don't know what you mean by nothing. Ellis said Humpty dumpty smiled. Contemptuously of course you don't till I tell you I meant there's almost everything but nothing doesn't mean almost everything else objected. When I use the word Humpty dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to me neither more nor less.
Speaker 0 16:34 Well Kraus, it's really hard not to call him Humpty dumpty cross titled this book a Universe from nothing. Why there is something rather than nothing but more properly. I suggest this should be entitled our universe from almost everything with lots of digs that believers sprinkled liberally throughout. He certainly didn't answer his own questions as to why there is something rather than nothing and the afterward or what we might call the backward is written by the current head of the lodge of the new atheist, Richard Dawkins, the infamous Oxford evolutionist who claims that this could potentially be the most important book with implications for supernaturalism since Darwin Cross comments quote Richard Dawkins wrote the afterword for the book and I thought it was pretentious at the time and it is, but I just decided to go along with it where he compares the book to the origin of <inaudible> species. There is one similarity between my book and Darwin's. What Darwin showed was that simple laws could in principle plausibly explain incredible diversity of life. It's plausible that at some point chemistry became biology. What's amazing to me is that we're now at a point where we can possibly argue that universe full of stuff came from a very simple beginning. The simplest of all beginnings, nothing close foot and cross closes book with the suggestion that quote God is unnecessary or at best redundant close quo. Well that doesn't sound shit to me either.
Speaker 0 18:02 Let's close them with a quick look at these types of planes, evolutionary clams and a light of self evident principles keeping in mind. And no one can deny this. And if he does, he's a mad man and can't be reasonably. Step one from nothing came something at least according to Lawrence crux, but nothing gives what it hasn't got and you can't get more out of less. Step two from non-life came life inanimate matter became living matter, but nothing gives but it hasn't got, you can't get more out of less. No matter how much electricity, radiation, et Cetera, zaps nonliving matter life cannot arise. Who non-life step three from so-called primitive life forms that have vegetative powers only now organisms and vegetative powers are organisms like bacteria, mushrooms, uh, plants and so forth. They can grow. Vegetative power means you can grow and nourish yourself and reproduce.
Speaker 0 19:01 You don't have sensory power. You don't have eyes. For example, from so called primitive life forms that vegetative powers only came more complex animals. Now with sense powers. Most basic senses touch, you know, touch, taste, smell, see, see and here. So for that step three from primitive life forms of vegetated powers can complex animal, but nothing gives what it hasn't got. You can't get more out of less. Step four from the non intellect of brute animals, not brewed animals only have sensitive powers, horses, dogs, cats, mice, apes, earthworms, et cetera. Evolved man, man has a rational soul with an intellect and free will, but nothing gives what it hasn't got and you can't get more out of less. The whole process of atheistic evolution from start to finish is not only false, but it's absurd and simply not possible. The whole process consists of more coming from less of things of themselves, giving what themselves, what they simply do not have to give.
Speaker 0 20:10 It's a joke. It's a real joke. Now, what about the fact that in certain ecclesiastical documents, the position of theistic evolution has given some credibility where it is held that God might have assisted the process outline above in order to be made possible? The fact that matters, God could theoretically make anything possible. God could theoretically make any batch to three work, even one worse than the current model. Propose. Perhaps the idea of theistic evolution might be entertained if the science were solid, but it's not. Today. We had the slightest peak behind the curtain when considered Lawrence Cross's war. Unfortunately, many in the church, they naive. We treat evolution as a matter of fact and therefore seeking explanations and God's role in the process. But the science isn't solid. It's a joke. It's just another failed 19th century materialistic theory like Marxism. The reason evolution is so strongly defended in the academy is because it functions as a material myth to explain creation without God and as the only reason. The reason evolution is so strong defendant academies because it the function as a materialist myth to explain creation without God. It's an agenda driven fairy tale for adults, rich and powerful as it appears that society, which does its utmost exclude God, bears within itself that seeds of death and cannot hope for lengthy existence.
