Can God do this:

[Neil_Anthony]

This is a bit like those “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it” questions:

Can God create something that can exist without Him? Or that can exist independently of Him? Or does everything that God creates continue in existence and act and change only through the power of God?

 

[BlaineTog]

Hmm. I’m torn. On the one hand, it certainly makes sense from a practical standpoint. After all, the watch continues to tick after the watchmaker dies. On the other hand, God is the ultimate, the place which gives everything life. But on the other hand, Catholicism is decidedly not pantheistic; we are all separate from God. Additionally, isn’t that what Hell is: separation from God?

So I’m tempted to say yes, but I’m not sure what wiser philosophers than myself have said on this topic.

 

[crowonsnow]

Why not just pose the question of whether a god can kill itself? If a god cannot kill itself a god is not very powerful.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Hmm. I’m torn. On the one hand, it certainly makes sense from a practical standpoint. After all, the watch continues to tick after the watchmaker dies. On the other hand, God is the ultimate, the place which gives everything life. But on the other hand, Catholicism is decidedly not pantheistic; we are all separate from God. Additionally, isn’t that what Hell is: separation from God?

So I’m tempted to say yes, but I’m not sure what wiser philosophers than myself have said on this topic.

In the watchmaker analogy, I believe that pantheism would say that the watch is part of the watchmaker, or that the watchmaker is the watch. I’m definitely not asking that. I assume creation is distinct from creator.

If we use a rock as an example of something God creates, we expect the rock to continue to exist from one instant to the next, as long as something else doesn’t come along to obliterate it. But does God have to keep giving that rock existence from one instant to the next? If so, then the natural laws that behave on the rock, for example the law of conservation of matter, are more like God’s habits in how he chooses to hold nature in existence from one instant to the next. So when the rock appears to obey physical laws, it is really God who is behaving predictably in how He chooses to re-create the rock from instant to instant.

Most people seem to find that absurd. They reject the notion that God makes a rock fall, instead they say that it’s gravity. But is there really a difference?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Why not just pose the question of whether a god can kill itself? If a god cannot kill itself a god is not very powerful.

Hmm, that is an interesting question. You should start a thread about it…

 

[Sarpedon]

But does God have to keep giving that rock existence from one instant to the next?

I’ve heard that since God is outside of time, His single act of creation is the same as His maintence of Creation. Thus, God would have created/maintaned the rock’s existence in a single action outside of time.

 

[teadough]

It’s like asking the question: What happens when you put an imovable object in front of an unstoppable force?

 

[spauline]

Dogma already condemns deism.

From Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p 87

God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide)

Against Deism, according to which, God, the Creator, having created it, leaves the world to run itself, the Church declares that God continuously preserves in existence created things. The Vatican Council teaches, “God, by His Providence, protects all things that He has created,” that is, He preserves it from relapsing into nothingness.

Roman Catechism:

“If His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning, they would fall back into nothingness immediately.”

God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

Undecided by the Church, but held by theologians in general.

See Ott for more details, with Scripture quotes and Fathers.

 

[kliner]

This is a bit like those “Can God make a rock so big that He can’t lift it” questions:

Can God create something that can exist without Him? Or that can exist independently of Him? Or does everything that God creates continue in existence and act and change only through the power of God?

No, not because God can’t do it, but because God is being (“I am who am” Exodus 3:14), so that anything that does have its existence, has it through God alone and is participating in the existence which God freely shares with it, whether it be a speck of dust or a blue whale. On this level, the only thing other than Being is not-being - which doesn’t exist, prima facie.

As to its continuance in existence, there needs to be a distinction made. God made it (shared His being with it, according to the nature that it is, whether it is a speck of dust, or a blue whale, etc.), but once created, it acts on its own power (from the nature which it received - so that a speck of dust acts like a speck of dust and a blue whale like a blue whale) and all the while, God is still sustaining it and all in existence (but not micromanaging the movements of each creature) because without His sharing His being, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.

Also, because you mentioned change, how this works in the big picture of the theory of evolution is a pretty complex, but very interesting topic. I believe Cardinal Schonborn has written a new book on the subject and, from personal reading, I would recommend The One and the Many by W. Norris Clarke, S.J. He gives a wonderful “integration”, if you will, of the theory of evolution. This book can be a little tough to read at points, but it is a wonderful look at Thomistic thought from one of the brightest Thomists of the last century.

 

[Contarini]

Hmm. I’m torn. On the one hand, it certainly makes sense from a practical standpoint. After all, the watch continues to tick after the watchmaker dies.

This reveals how radically inadequate, indeed heretical the watchmaker analogy is.

On the other hand, God is the ultimate, the place which gives everything life. But on the other hand, Catholicism is decidedly not pantheistic; we are all separate from God.

No, we aren’t. I am quite confident that your Church agrees with me on this. Certainly Aquinas does. Things exist because God is present in them. You are creating a false dichotomy between “pantheism” (which you do not define, but which certainly is not an orthodox Christian view if it is defined as the complete negation of any distinction between God and the creature) and the view that we are completely separate from God. We are neither identical with God nor completely separate from God. We are created by Him and radically dependent on Him. We exist only because He is moving in us. If He were to stop doing this for an instant we would fall back into the nothingness from which we were created (and that is the real difference between the Christian view and, say, the Hindu understanding of creation/emanation).

Additionally, isn’t that what Hell is: separation from God?

Moral separation. If Hell were complete ontological separation from God, the damned would cease to exist. Maybe they do. It would be nice to think so, but it’s not the traditional, orthodox Christian view.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Why not just pose the question of whether a god can kill itself? If a god cannot kill itself a god is not very powerful.

God is not a god.

Edwin

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thanks to everyone for the great answers and references.

The following paragraph is giving me some difficulties:

As to its continuance in existence, there needs to be a distinction made. God made it (shared His being with it, according to the nature that it is, whether it is a speck of dust, or a blue whale, etc.), but once created, it acts on its own power (from the nature which it received - so that a speck of dust acts like a speck of dust and a blue whale like a blue whale) and all the while, God is still sustaining it and all in existence (but not micromanaging the movements of each creature) because without His sharing His being, it wouldn’t exist in the first place.

If God sustains objects in their existence, what is the difference between the objects acting on their own power “a speck of dust acts like a speck of dust” and God making them behave as God chooses?

Take the speck’s location as a property. God is omniscient, so he knows the location of each speck of dust and its past and future locations, and God created the laws which govern its location. Can God give existence to the speck without giving it a location? And by what means does the speck ‘set’ its location if not by the power of God? And how does the speck remember its previous location and calculate its new location, if not by the power of God?

 

[mschrank]

God cannot make a square circle, just as He cannot be bad, since by definition God is Good. It’s our own reason or lack thereof that says he should be able to make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it.

Also, there is a difference between the power to act or change and the power to exist in as of itself. Matter as we know it is produced by non-material causes (or as a materialist would say, “uncaused” ).

 

[Johndigger]

God can do all things.

A rock so heavy that God cannot lift it is not a thing - it is a contradiction.

A square circle is also a contradiction.

Something that exists without God is also a contradiction because God as the creator is not just limited to a single moment in time but a constant sustaining of its existence.

This, I believe, would be the traditional, logical response.

JD

 

[ateista]

Something that exists without God is also a contradiction because God as the creator is not just limited to a single moment in time but a constant sustaining of its existence.

It is certainly not a logical contradiction.

But, let’s analyze what you said: “God thinks and therefore we are”.

You say that this constant “activity” of God applies to everything. It is the real reason for gravity, the underlying cause for electricity, the rays of the Sun. It is needed for every drop of rain, every gust of wind. But it does not end here. It is the sustaining cause for every act of kindness, love, etc. Naturally, it is also the sustaining cause for every rape, every act of murder. If God would not “sustain” these acts, they would not happen.

Do you want to go any further and draw the conclusion?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You say that this constant “activity” of God applies to everything. It is the real reason for gravity, the underlying cause for electricity, the rays of the Sun. It is needed for every drop of rain, every gust of wind. But it does not end here. It is the sustaining cause for every act of kindness, love, etc. Naturally, it is also the sustaining cause for every rape, every act of murder. If God would not “sustain” these acts, they would not happen.

Do you want to go any further and draw the conclusion?

Hi Ateista,

Does your nickname mean you’re an athiest? No offense intended if you aren’t.

Of course you must realize that Christians aren’t a bunch of dolts and we’ve struggled with this question. I agree with you that God sustains these evil acts as well as the good ones. The conclusion I draw from it is that God wanted to create beings with free will to choose between right and wrong even though that meant sustaining them in their evil actions as well as their good actions.

Do you find that difficult to accept? Do you think the universe would be better if God just refused to let us do evil? I find it hard to imagine what it would be like if every time I tried to do something less-than-good, God would physically stop me. The more I think about it, it seems like life would become rather meaningless. What do you think?

Sorry for answering the question you posed for someone else, I don’t mean to interrupt.

 

[BlaineTog]

It is certainly not a logical contradiction.

But, let’s analyze what you said: “God thinks and therefore we are”.

You say that this constant “activity” of God applies to everything. It is the real reason for gravity, the underlying cause for electricity, the rays of the Sun. It is needed for every drop of rain, every gust of wind. But it does not end here. It is the sustaining cause for every act of kindness, love, etc. Naturally, it is also the sustaining cause for every rape, every act of murder. If God would not “sustain” these acts, they would not happen.

Actions are not things. God sustains the possibility for actions, the mechanisms by which all things happen (including time), and he allows the creations to make bad choices so that they will not be robots, but he does not will the bad actions.

 

[ateista]

Does your nickname mean you’re an athiest? No offense intended if you aren’t.

Of course there is offense. And yes, I am an atheist.

Of course you must realize that Christians aren’t a bunch of dolts and we’ve struggled with this question. I agree with you that God sustains these evil acts as well as the good ones. The conclusion I draw from it is that God wanted to create beings with free will to choose between right and wrong even though that meant sustaining them in their evil actions as well as their good actions.

I would never think that someone who is a Christian would automatically render them as “dolts”. I have met many bright, smart, logical Christians. Though I admit, that their line of thinking is quite inexplicable to me.

Do you find that difficult to accept? Do you think the universe would be better if God just refused to let us do evil? I find it hard to imagine what it would be like if every time I tried to do something less-than-good, God would physically stop me. The more I think about it, it seems like life would become rather meaningless. What do you think?

I think such a world would be immensely better.

It is not even necessary that God would physically interfere and prevent evil deeds. It would be sufficient to have people who have a theoretical concept of evil, but are disinclined to do it.

I bet you can imagine murdering someone, but you would never act on it. Yet, you have free will, you could commit a murder, if you wanted to, but you would never do it. Not because there is a physical limitation imposed on you, rather, because you freely choose not to do it.

Such a world would be much better, don’t you agree?

Sorry for answering the question you posed for someone else, I don’t mean to interrupt.

You are most welcome. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views.

 

[ateista]

Actions are not things. God sustains the possibility for actions, the mechanisms by which all things happen (including time), and he allows the creations to make bad choices so that they will not be robots, but he does not will the bad actions.

Please read what I posted to Neil Anthony. It is not necessary to turn people into robots to erase the actual occurrence of “evil” acts, while leaving the opportunity there.

 

[BlaineTog]

It is not even necessary that God would physically interfere and prevent evil deeds. It would be sufficient to have people who have a theoretical concept of evil, but are disinclined to do it.

We had that. Then we Fell.