Quote:
Matter does not contain within itself a sufficient reason to exist.
This can be put in many ways such as: Why is there something instead of nothing? We now have compelling scientific evidence that most of the elementary particles now in existence were also around 10 billion years ago. On the other hand there is no shred of evidence that any of these seemingly stable particles were in existence 20 billion years ago. Some time in the finite past, approximately 15 billion years ago, there was, according to data, a cataclysmic explosion in which the seemingly stable elementary particles we see around us were produced. Of course, even if we lived in an oscillating universe which now seems scientifically disfavored or in a steady state universe which is contrary to an overwhelming amount of astrophysical data, the fact would be no less clear that the universe does not explain its own existence.
Similarly the forces observed in nature do not have a sufficient reason for their existence or their form. A free field theory of non-interacting particles is just as mathematically self consistent as the Standard Model of modern physics and perhaps more so. Even if one eminently unique string theory could be discovered incorporating all physical observations , there would be no explanation why this theory were realized in nature.
In fact, the Thomistic argument has been greatly strengthened by quantum theory. It is now known (Bell's theorem) that the elementary particles do not have within themselves hidden variables that locally determine their subsequent behavior except on a statistical basis.
As an example, It seems quite likely from grand unification theory that the proton is unstable with a lifetime many orders of magnitude longer than the current age of the universe. (If current grand unification theory is wrong and the proton is absolutely stable, the same point can be made from other radioactive elements). There is nothing in the proton (or in the radioactive element) that determines whether it will exist one second from now if it exists now.* Thus, if the proton is unstable no matter how long its natural lifetime is, there is no guarantee from physical law that any one of us will still be living one second from now. The cause of our continued existence from one second to the next lies outside the laws of physics. We can, of course, take comfort in the statistical knowledge that the probability of any macroscopic object disappearing in the next instant is extremely small. The statistical nature of physics theory seems designed so that we can make sense of physical processes without appearing to restrict the freedom of the Author.
The basic choice that each individual must make is whether to believe that everything has a sufficient cause or to believe that things happen with no sufficient cause. To not believe in an infinite external designer and an uncaused-cause is to believe in meaninglessness and in the absence of ultimate explanations. Since the human brain is hard-wired to require causes, this stance leads rapidly to mental problems unless accompanied by a psychological state suspending fundamental questioning. Many well known scientists have succeeded in functioning in such a state through their entire lives.
tralalala-