Catholic Answers has parroted one of Fr. Spitzer’s bad arguments for God’s existence, and I would like to share my frustrations with it with the hope that you can clarify the matter for me and exonerate Spitzer’s argument.
First, if the cat is dependent on a finite number of conditions, there is going to be a most fundamental condition (a last or terminal condition) in the series of conditions that the cat depends upon for its existence.
Rather, conditions could be dependent on each other rather than proceed in a linear fashion. There is no reason to suppose that the cat’s particles cannot depend on conditions external to the cat, those conditions themselves being influenced by the cat, and that the system containing the cat exists as a unified, interdependent whole.
But this conditioned reality [namely, the cat’s quarks] could not have its conditions fulfilled, since it is the most fundamental condition (remember, hypothesis ~UR doesn’t allow for unconditioned realities).
We see the argument failing to consider the possibility I’ve pointed out. For example, if quarks depend for their existence on a sufficient amount of energy surrounding them, and the energy surrounding them in turn depends on the arrangement of surrounding objects, and these objects’ arrangement in turn depend on their quarks, we see that the system is interdependent. (Trying to give a simpler analogy here now, consider how a tied balloon requires surface tension provided by the air inside it to remain tied: The “conditioned reality” of the air inside the balloon requires the “conditioned reality” of the balloon knot’s surface tension, and this surface tension itself relies on the air inside the balloon. Hence the assumption that conditioned realities are always linearly dependent is false.)
Or, if my rebuttals here fail, then all Spitzer (Broussard?) has done is show that quarks exist as unconditioned realities, not that God exists.
The first thing we notice about unconditioned reality considered in and of itself is that it must be unrestricted being—pure being or pure existence itself.
No, we do not notice this. Quarks for example may be unconditioned realities and they are not “unrestricted being itself”.
Fr Spitzer (Karlo Broussard?) then continues to argue that even quarks must be ‘conditioned realities’, and hence the cat must be dependent on God, but claiming that the cat['s quarks] exist here on the floor and not there on the table clearly does not lead to God’s existence, especially when one conceives of an interdependent system such as our reality appears to be. (In other words, Spitzer here has a narrow-minded conception of reality, namely one that fails to consider interconnected conditions, instead assuming they must always be strictly linear.)
Hence this article’s disjunctions fail to prove the desired conclusion because their analysis fails to consider all of the possible options. Catholic Answers should remove that webpage (and stop promoting Spitzer’s bad book!) or else correct it into a sound argument.