Tag Archives: argument

Response to Mary’s Immaculate Conception

Reader Scottie has forwarded me this response he received via email from one Pope Michael, no affiliation with the original monks emailed.  We are pleased to receive critique and feedback on our posts here.  It is a bit late now, and the points raised in this response require deeper evaluation.  For now, I will simply post it here.  Please feel free to comment on this or the original post.

Dear Scottie,

This one is interesting.  First of all, four people were born without Original Sin.  Jesus, being God did not have Original Sin, obviously.  Secondly, the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without original Sin as a special privilege from God.  However, she did have to cooperate with these graces, and objectively speaking could have sinned.  What if she had said no to the Angel at the Annunciation?  Mary cooperated most perfectly with Almighty God in her salvation.  She simply got a benefit most of us do not have, which God may do.  Two others were born without Original Sin.  Saint John the Baptist was purified at the time of the Visitation, and thus born without Original Sin.  For this reason we celebrate the Birthdays of Jesus, Mary and John the Baptist and no other Birthdays in the Church.  I believe the Prophet Jeremias was also sanctified in this manner.
We all must cooperate with God in our salvation, because God will not save us without our cooperation.  This would deny free will, as the Calvinists apparently do.  I wish I had a copy of the special I saw on the History Channel about two years ago on how Protestant thought has influenced the modern world.  Calvin’s doctrine of justification had some surprising results.  He taught that we were either saved or not no matter what we do.  One group, and I forget the name, that spun off from this sinned like mad, because it simply does not matter under Calvinism.  This reaction is logical and dangerous and proves the falsehood of the the Calvinistic proposition of justification.  Remember also that Adam and Eve were not conceived in sin, but they sinned anyway, so being free from Original Sin is not a guarantee of salvation.
Yes it is well written, but it is what they do not say.
I hope this helps.

Pope Michael

1 Comment

Filed under Christian Arguments, Doctrine, Inter-Christian Apologetics, Opinion

Mary’s Immaculate Conception?

This is a letter I’ve written to Most Holy Family Monastery, a sede vacantist group who’s tracts on the popes and protestantism are really fascinating.  However, in reading their tract on Mary, I had to respond to it.  I hope to receive a reply from them- if I do, I will post it.

Dear Brothers,

My biggest stumbling block in accepting Roman Catholicism has always been Marian doctrine, but in light of your other tracts addressing Protestantism, I was very much looking forward to reading your tract on her.  However, it has left me with even bigger doubts than I had to begin with, particularly regarding her immaculate conception.

In the tract, you state “God saved Mary by preventing her from contracting original sin. Suppose that a man falls into a deep hole in the forest, but is pulled out by his friend. It is true to say that the friend saved the man. Now suppose a man sees a woman walking toward the deep hole, and catches her just before she falls in. He stops her from falling into the hole in the first place, so that she doesn’t get injured or dirty at all. Did he save the woman? Certainly he did. He saved her in a greater way, by preventing her from falling into the hole and suffering any of the harmful consequences.”  Now, when I first read this passage, I accepted it.  “Well, I guess that makes sense.”  But upon reflection, it really didn’t, because it completely cheapens Christ’s redemptive death!

It has been established from the Garden of Eden that “the wages of sin are death.”  God performed the first sin sacrifice when He clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins.  The entire Old Testament is based on the concept that People Cannot Save Themselves; even when God tells them what needs to be done, they forget, or don’t care, or don’t do it right, etc.  God does not preserve His prophets, or even David, whom He loved.  Each of them screws up, and then has to make an atonement for it.  There are entire books of the New Testament dedicated to explaining that without Christ dying for us, we die.  It is a scriptural fact that Sin has to be equaled out for with Death.

Therefore, how would Mary get out of sin if Jesus did not die for her?  Mary was born of Adam (Luke 3 is nearly always cited as Mary’s geneology; some say that it is Joseph’s actual geneological line, whereas Matt 1 is his legal line, but regardless, it is common sense that Mary (a human) was born of 2 other humans, who were descended from the first 2 humans.)  She would then be expected to be born under Adam’s curse like every one else.  Now, if you maintain that Jesus’ death reached back and retroactively saved her, then what was the point of all of those animal sacrifices?  Why didn’t God save all of His chosen people, rather than letting them get smote over and over ad nauseum for not keeping up on their sacrifices?  Under that logic, no one should have been born under original sin, if Jesus’ death was able to wipe it away before they were even concieved.  The thought of this makes me sick, because it changes God from selflessly giving Himself to resolve the metaphysical quandry that has prevented Him from being with His creations, to God randomly deciding that He was tired of dead goats, preserving one backwater Judean girl, knocking her up, trashing her and her fiancees reputations, then murdering their offspring (which is actually Him) for no good reason at all because He clearly could’ve saved anyone He wanted to at any time.  This basically validates all of those stupid “If God really was omnibenevolent and omnipotent no one would ever go to hell!” arguments, because it means that rather than original sin being an insurmountable gap between us and God, it becomes something that can be crossed at any time, with no action at all on the saved persons part, based entirely upon the whim of God.

What are we, Calvinists?



Filed under Christian Arguments, Doctrine, Inter-Christian Apologetics, Opinion

Cosmological Argument

2723284090_b1fa3a8521THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT is an attempt to prove that the universe must have been caused by something which, among other things, was not itself caused.  The obvious upside to this lies in the attributes of the Uncaused-Cause one may derive from the Cosmological Arguments. There are several known variations of the Cosmological Argument.  They are; the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Contingency, Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, and my Expanded Cosmological Argument.

Obviously, to begin with, one must count up his options, right?  In this question, there are only the two main options of believing the universe to be caused, or not.  Very well.  How much can be said about the two? Either:

a.) The Universe was not caused (does not actually exist now)

b.) The Universe was not caused (came from nothing)

c.) The Universe was not caused (has always been here)

d.) The Universe was caused (finite, has not always been, nor will always be)

To begin, the first option contradicts observation.  The observation in question being that the universe exists.  We can see it, touch it, taste it, hear it, and smell it even.  So, it seems logical to suppose that it exists, right?  Quite so, at first glance.  However, certain famous nuisances have come up with the idea that we could very well be just like brains-in-vats.  This concept is called solipsism, and is the notion that nothing is real but yourself; that the universe is illusory.  People have tried, and tried, and tried to push this idea through the population at large with little success over that last few centuries, and most every other time it pops up under a new name.  Now for the sake of coherence within this blog, I shall call these illusion doctrines, the Matrix Theory.  A key thing to note is that the Matrix Theories, though having different names, always fall prey to the same refutations.   The only one you’ll need to use however, with regard to the Cosmological Argument, is a double-weapon composed of Leibniz’ Principle of Sufficient Reason, and the notion of Self-Consciousness.  Simply put; everything requires an explanation, yourself incuded.  If you’re just in the matrix, and you say that nothing really exists, YOU are forgetting the fact that YOU are in the matrix, and YOU say that nothing exists.  You yourself require a reason for your existence.

The next option, which dictates that the universe came from nothing and by nothing, is implausible.  We see things in the universe which have reasons for their existence and/or state of being.  Indeed, everything we see in the universe has sufficient reason for its existence.  The universe is merely an expansion of space, time, and matter.  These are things, in fact.  However, since time and space are a bit more difficult to quantify and conceive than matter, I will ask you to understand that the three together behave in the much same way with regard to causality as matter alone.  So we see that all the material objects (plants, animals, planets etc…) in the universe requires sufficient reason for its existence, but what exactly is meant by all matter?  The universe is matter.  It is things:

All things require sufficient reason for their existence = The universe requires sufficient reason for its existence.

So, if it cannot have come from nothing, by nothing, does it still need a cause for it’s existence? Could it not have simply always existed?  Well, if by always, one means “at all times” then you would be absolutely right.  As with matter above, the universe is time and/or time is the universe.  However, if by always one means infinite, then you would be absolutely wrong.  If the universe never had a cause for its existence, if it never began to exist, but it exists now, then it is infinite.  Given infinite time, every possibility is allowed to be actualized, including the possibility for everything to cease to exist.  If then, the universe has already existed for an infinite time, then why hasn’t everything ceased to exist?  Follow that out.

Now the last option is that the universe was caused: that it has not forever been, nor will forever be.  Seeing as how the universe obviously exists, and this is our last option, it is either right, or I have overlooked a possible option.  Try me.

So, according to the third refutation, it is impossible to have an infinite regress of causes. For more reasons behind this notion, see the links at the bottom.  However, there are the actual presentations of the Cosmological Arguments themselves to be shown.  Very well, then.:

I have already presented an explanatory version of the Argument from Contingency above, and my extended Cosmological Argument is an expansion of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I shall present my Expanded Argument, and then paste the Five Ways.


1 Everything which begins to exist must have a cause for its existence.

1.2 The universe began to exist

1.3 Therefore the universe had a cause for its existence

2 The universe is primarily the expansion of time, space and matter

2.1 Therefore time, space and matter were caused.

3 An effect may be no greater than its proper cause

3.1 A thing may not cause itself to exist

3.2 Therefore the cause of the universe is eternal and immaterial.

4 Only a free-agent is able to produce real change (greater change) either through time, space and matter, in its creation, or in its annihilation.  All other changes are merely natural and deterministic processes (lesser change)

4.1 In the absence of the universe (time, space and matter) there could be no change of the lesser sort

4.2 Therefore the immaterial, and eternal cause of the universe was not an inanimate thing, but a free-agent, a mind.

5 The difference between nonbeing “in reality” and being “in reality”, is an infinite difference

5.1 The difference between nonbeing “in the mind” and being “in the mind” is an infinite difference

5.2 The free-agent in question created something from nothing, and it follows that it conceived something from nothing

5.3 To create something from nothing is an infinite power, and to conceive something from nothing is an infinite act of conception or knowledge.

5.4 Therefore the cause of the universe is an eternal, transcendent, omniscient, omnipotent mind, which can properly be called God.

Obviously, there are many objections to be raised against my argument.  Several may be valid, indeed I wouldn’t be surprised if they were.  But I’m confident enough with my argument to bet that I can refute every objection raised.  And I shall do so on another page.


THE FIVE WAYS OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS were the first official Christian formulations of the Cosmological Argument.  The first four are indeed Cosmological Arguments, but the fifth is a Teleological Argument.  Nowadays, more modern versions of the Cosmological Argument are used, but the Five remain the foundation of First-Cause Theistic argumentation.




Below is a quote from the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas, Second and Revised Edition, translated by The Fathers of the English Dominican Province, 1920.


“The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.

The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.”

Of all things, do NOT send me objections to the Five Ways.  They’re rather archaically worded, and thus if you think you’ve refuted them it is more likely that you have misunderstood the text, than actually made a valid counter-argument.  All the same, if you are yet unconvinced of your counter-argument’s fallacy, post it as a comment, and I shall answer it on an objections page.

More often than not, the atheists who are well-enough informed such that they know what a Cosmological Argument is, are prone to scoffing away its simplicity with the claim that it’s meaningless.  This claim is almost valid, and really when you think about it, they make sense.  What good is a first-cause alone?  It’s no good at all, I say.  What must be done after the presentation of the 1st three premises is an elaboration on what exactly the Cause must have been.  I make the argument that it has all the classical attributes associated with God (sans omnibenevolence, Trinity, and love to name a few) and usually, this is enough to make any atheist stop in their tracks.  Most self-dubbed atheists will not react to this argument by converting.  This is because of the Wall of Incredulity, the most formidable obstacle to evangelism, which shall be discussed later. 

The crucial thing to know, then, is that even though this is a valid proof, it will only change the toughest of minds


Filed under Exterior Subcategory, Theistic Arguments, Theoretical Category

Aesthetic Argument

A presentation of my own Aesthetic Argument will be here shortly.


Leave a comment

Filed under Exterior Subcategory, Theistic Arguments, Theoretical Category