The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-03-11
POPULAR APOLOGIES.
Adapted from the German of Rev.
Peter Mikes, S. j., by Rev.
James Watcher.
XxXV. Infinite Series.

objection: AS now one being de-
scends from another, as one motion is
caused by another, SO it can have been
from eternity. If imagine series OF
successive motions backward to infin-
ity, need no God.
Answer: First of all it is scientlh-
cally certain that living beings have
not always existed, not even as mere
germs could they have existed from
eternity. (Cf. No 20 ff).
Concerning the mechanical motion
we must say, that according to your
supposition there would be an actual
infinite number, and still this number
can be increased and is actually in
creased, which, according to the opln-
ion of many, is contradiction. Mark
well. I do not speak here of mathe-
NAUTICAL numbers or quantities, that is,
of distractions, imaginary numbers,
out of concrete motions, which exist
in reality and in infinite numbers and
still are increased. (Cf. Braun, Kos
monogie, p. 259).
But il we waive this somewhat diff
cult question, you can not get along
without God in any case. For no be-
ing mot even any Of the motions OF
your infinite series), has the reason
of it's existence in itself. (Cf. No. 20
and 34). Hence, taken all together,
they have not the reason of their be-
ing or existence in themselves. AS
every single being proclaims: The
reason of my being is outside of me,
so in grand chorus do all things in
this world proclaim: The reason of
our being is outside Of US" And if
this chorus were infinite, an infinite
number of voices would proclaim the
same truth. But this reason, existing
outside the world and independent OF
il, we call God.
XXXVI. Not Conclusive.
Objections: David Strauss (f1S74, a
Protestant theologian; it is uncertain
whether at the end of his life he was
a pantheist or materialis), denies the
conclusiveness of all proofs for the eX-
istence of God, because we can not go
beyond the world in an orderly and
logical argument. If everything in
this world has the reason of it's eX-
istence in another and SO backward
infinity, this is true Of all things, we
can never argue beyond the things
of this to an eXtra-mundane (outside
the world cause.
Answer: A long train of cars is
passing in front of my window. | see
neither the beginning nor the end of
the train. | see that every car is
pulled blythe one ahead of it, Since
none of these cars has it's own motive
power, conclude that there is loco
motive in front of that train. l con-
Guided beyond the train of cars. But
David Strauss declares: This cOnclu-
sion is not conclusive, because we are
not allowed to argue that there is a
locomotive beyond the row of cars.
Every car is pulled by another, and
whence a locomotive is not necessary.
DO you believe this?
Some infdels think in their child
like precociousness that we do a great
wrong to the law of causaity if we
do not go beyond God as with all
things, we should also ask for the
cause of the existence of God.
Do these precocious children not no.
tice the contradiction in which they
get tangled up? The law of causality
is: Every effect must have a cause,
or to be more exact: Whatever has
not the reason or cause of its existence
in itself, must have this reason or
cause in something else. (Cf. No. "a,
q.
Does it not follow clearly from this
that there must finally be a being, be-
ing the cause of all others, which must
have the reason of its existence in it.
self? To demand a cause of existence
for this primeval being Good, which
has the reason of it's existence in it.
self and can not descend from an
other, is no longer thinking, but to be-
come involved in glazing contradic-
tion.