The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-03-18
POPULAR APoLoGETIcS.
Adapted from the German of Rev.
Peter Mikes, S. j., by Rev.
James Watcher.
XxxVll. Creation Impossible.

Answer: That means only: Moth
ing can not call itself into being.
Objection u; We see that every
thing that comes into existence pre-
supposes matter and force. Hence
when the world came into existence
matter and force must already have
existed.
Answer; If we creatures want to
produce something, we can with our
limited power certainly only make
changes in things, make only com
binations of the things already exist
ing! But the infinite Power can do
infinitely more than we; it can call
something forth out of nothing. For
If this Power could only change and
not create, it would be only tinitely
greater than we, and hence limited
But it is infinitely greater, and there
fore it can create.
Objection III: The great English
philosopher Herbert Spencer & 1909
says the creation of matter is incom-
prehensible; because it demands a
relation in thought between nothing
and something, relation in which
one term is wanting, hence an impos-
sible relation.
Answer: With the same right l
could hold that Milton could not have
produced Paradise Lost" But since
the poem exists, it must exist from
eternity. Why? Because according to
your great philosopher" the produc-
ton Of that poem demands "a rela-
ton in thought between nothing and
something, hence an impossible rela-
ton"
Paradise Lost was once nothing,
the same as the world before its crea-
ton. If Milton could write Paradise
Lost in spite of it's non-eXistence and
hence could establish the alleged i'm
possible, relation between nothing and
something, then God certainly can
create the world in spite of it's non
existence.
The above philosophy" is, there
fore, nothing but smoke and puff.
Objection ": The above answer is
IAN idle play with analogies of the
AristOtalian Scholastic philosophy.
Whoever does not see through this
logical nonsense is past mending.
But the good everyday person is de-
ceived by this apparently evident
comparison and proudly looks down
from his watch-tower of higher intel
ligence upon the philosophical simple
ton and upon science" Thus writes
the "Koelnische Zeitung" (Nov. IS,
1900 in its review of Schultz und
Trutzwaffen,' the work of which these
articles are a translation.
Answer: 1t would have been more
to the point, instead of the above
phrases, to have tried to expose the
alleged logical nonsense"
Apt analogies and comparisons are
considered excellent means Of instruc-
ton not only in scholastic philosophy
but also i'll modern pedagogics and
methodics. To explain the fitness,
the logic Of the comparison in No.
III, We will treat the answer more
fully.
Spencer says: How can we imagine
that the relative comes into existence?
We would have to think it as passing
from non-eXistence into existence.
Now if we think thing we can think
it only as existing"
Spencer did not distinguish enough.
1t is true, we can only imagine a
thing as existing. But the magma
ton is not the same as the power of
thinking or reasoning. We can think
existing things, but also only possible
things, e. G.. possible inhabitants of
Mars with feathers and wings, with
out thereby claiming that they really
exist
If Spencer thinks that it is a con
tradiCtiOn in thought to think thing
lin the transition from non-existence
to existence" this contradiction van
. ishes with the above distinction be
tween imagination and thought We
can easily imagine thing as passing
from possible being into actual being.
In this way Paradise Lost" passed
from possible being before being
written into actual being after being
written. The same holds good re-
gardtng the creation of the world.
For Spencer creation is, of course,
impossible, because he does not ad-
nit an extramundanC (outsidc the
world) God; specter-like production
OF the world from absolute nothing is
certainly unthinkable, where neither
God nor anything else exists, which
would be 4 relation in which not only
the orc term, but the very foundation
of this term would be wanting
But Spencer's standpoint, the denial
OF God, is false, as We proved above
(No. 20 fl. There is a foundation OF
creation, namely God, and hence the
transition of the non-existing but pos
sible world to actual existence Ccrea.
tom is just as possible as the prCduc.
ton of Paradise Lost" by John Mil
ton.
1t is true, in the creation. of Para.
disc Lost there is question only OF
an accident, in the case of creation OF
a substance. But this difference is
not the question under discussion, but
what Spencer denies, namely, the want
of term of relation, or better still, q
sufficient reason for this term.
This sufficient term for creation is
the almighty God, the same as the
capable poet for the poem.
Ito be continued)