Do Catholics Believe God Follows Laws

[sidbrown]

I was using “governed” in the sense of “controlled.” I.e., the truth that God cannot not exist is true not because the law of non-contradiction forces it to be so.

To give a different example, waves take certain shapes that match certain mathematical models. The mathematical models can serve as an expression of the wave shapes, but the models don’t cause waves to take those shapes. Waves would take those shapes whether the models existed or not.

.

Reasoning logically involves quite a bit more than creating a mathematical model for a physical process.

 

[Abu]

Does God follow laws?

God is omnipotent (all-powerful) because He is infinite. He can do all things that are possible – they are possible because He can do them. He cannot contradict His own Will or Truth. He cannot attempt what is absurd – making a four-sided triangle which is a contradiction in terms. This is no limitation on His power, but an affirmation of His consistency and integrity. He cannot act against His nature or the laws of being. God can however alter, suspend or supersede the laws of cause and effect as in miracles.

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

Does God follow laws?

God is omnipotent (all-powerful) because He is infinite. He can do all things that are possible – they are possible because He can do them. He cannot contradict His own Will or Truth. He cannot attempt what is absurd – making a four-sided triangle which is a contradiction in terms. This is no limitation on His power, but an affirmation of His consistency and integrity. He cannot act against His nature or the laws of being. God can however alter, suspend or supersede the laws of cause and effect as in miracles.

My understanding of Catholic Dogma is that God is First Cause, and is not caused. That being true, wouldn’t it seem to lead one to believe that Cause and Effect are God created laws, a subset of the reality that cause and effect does not exist except in the limited existence we call mortality?

 

[spockrates]

I have been following this forum for some time now and would like to get the Catholic perspective regarding the how your this existence and your God interrelate. Specifically, do you believe God works within a frame work of laws. Spinoza’s pantheistic view suggests this to be the case. I refer to Spinoza’s idea that God is limited only by the necessity of HIs Existence. Thomas said, "Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end.". This would seem to correlate to Spinoza’s idea, specifically, that God can only of necessity will something according to Goodness (not capital ‘G’ denoting a specific necessary attribute of God).
-Zeb

Zeb:

Sorry for being slow to comprehend, but is your question essentially this?

Does God’s arbitrarily declaring something to be good make it so, or does God only declare something to be good after His reason reveals it to be so?

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

Zeb:

Sorry for being slow to comprehend, but is your question essentially this?

Does God’s arbitrarily declaring something to be good make it so, or does God only declare something to be good after His reason reveals it to be so?

No. The question is more generic and ultimately deals with a number of issues. Your question could be more accurately worded, is x ‘good’ because there are laws in existence that deem it so; is it good because God is good and what he creates must be good; or is it good, because God is omnipotent and arbitrarily chooses what is good and what is wrong.

This question addresses the discussion of what is the nature of God. Specifically his moral nature; is he Good by definition, or is he Good by Nature. I think it can be argued that God is Good by his Nature. I think it can be proven that God does not act out of an arbitrariness but is Himself compelled to action by the limitations necessitated by His Own Existence.

It also addresses the question of what is Good and what is not-Good. It addresses what is evil, what is the source of evil, or even if there is such a thing as evil.

I have my own ideas but am more interested in hearing sound arguments from the RC community without getting polemic views. I hope if the discussion continues to develop to bounce some of my ideas and get critical feedback. It is my assertion that understanding this concept is vital to my search to faith.

 

[Langdell]

No. The question is more generic and ultimately deals with a number of issues. Your question could be more accurately worded, is x ‘good’ because there are laws in existence that deem it so; is it good because God is good and what he creates must be good; or is it good, because God is omnipotent and arbitrarily chooses what is good and what is wrong.

This question addresses the discussion of what is the nature of God. Specifically his moral nature; is he Good by definition, or is he Good by Nature. I think it can be argued that God is Good by his Nature. I think it can be proven that God does not act out of an arbitrariness but is Himself compelled to action by the limitations necessitated by His Own Existence.

It also addresses the question of what is Good and what is not-Good. It addresses what is evil, what is the source of evil, or even if there is such a thing as evil.

I have my own ideas but am more interested in hearing sound arguments from the RC community without getting polemic views. I hope if the discussion continues to develop to bounce some of my ideas and get critical feedback. It is my assertion that understanding this concept is vital to my search to faith.

I think the medieval theologians established that God is goodness itself, based on scripture and on the idea of God’s “simplicity” as the supreme being. Simplicity means that God does not have attributes the way created things do, but instead is in essence all good, all powerful, and all knowing.

I wish I had a reference for you. I’m recalling this from a lecture, and I’m no expert!

.

 

[spockrates]

No. The question is more generic and ultimately deals with a number of issues. Your question could be more accurately worded, is x ‘good’ because there are laws in existence that deem it so; is it good because God is good and what he creates must be good; or is it good, because God is omnipotent and arbitrarily chooses what is good and what is wrong.

This question addresses the discussion of what is the nature of God. Specifically his moral nature; is he Good by definition, or is he Good by Nature. I think it can be argued that God is Good by his Nature. I think it can be proven that God does not act out of an arbitrariness but is Himself compelled to action by the limitations necessitated by His Own Existence.

It also addresses the question of what is Good and what is not-Good. It addresses what is evil, what is the source of evil, or even if there is such a thing as evil.

I have my own ideas but am more interested in hearing sound arguments from the RC community without getting polemic views. I hope if the discussion continues to develop to bounce some of my ideas and get critical feedback. It is my assertion that understanding this concept is vital to my search to faith.

Thank you, Zeb. I will certainly look forward to your bouncing, though I’m sure I’ll have more questions than critical answers. Like Socrates, I admit I have little wisdom of my own, but am always trying to draw it out of others.

 

[spockrates]

I think the medieval theologians established that God is goodness itself, based on scripture and on the idea of God’s “simplicity” as the supreme being. Simplicity means that God does not have attributes the way created things do, but instead is in essence all good, all powerful, and all knowing.

I wish I had a reference for you. I’m recalling this from a lecture, and I’m no expert!

.

Yes, that makes sense Langdell! Socrates believed much the same of the God he worshiped, whom he called the source of all Wisdom. Since God is Wisdom’s source, He does not have to conform to any truth outside Himself. He would only have to conform to His own nature. He would merely have to be perfect as He alone is perfect. Brilliant!



Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.

–Socrates (Theaetetus, 176)

 

[Langdell]

Yes, that makes sense Langdell! Socrates believed much the same of the God he worshiped, whom he called the source of all Wisdom. Since God is Wisdom’s source, He does not have to conform to any truth outside Himself. He would only have to conform to His own nature. He would merely have to be perfect as He alone is perfect. Brilliant!



Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.

–Socrates (Theaetetus, 176)

Glad you liked it, Mr. Spock!

And now, I just have to say this: I’m a lawyer, Spock, not a theologian!

.

 

[spockrates]

Glad you liked it, Mr. Spock!

And now, I just have to say this: I’m a lawyer, Spock, not a theologian!

.

Well, I won’t hold that against you!



And I don’t care what Socrates said about lawyers, you’re OK.

 

[Abu]

zebbediahdaniel
My understanding of Catholic Dogma is that God is First Cause, and is not caused. That being true, wouldn’t it seem to lead one to believe that Cause and Effect are God created laws, a subset of the reality that cause and effect does not exist except in the limited existence we call mortality?

Yes, since God cannot change, change is in us, not in Him.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, since God cannot change, change is in us, not in Him.

If God cannot change, how would you explain the fact that upon the invocation of the words of consecration by the priest, the bread and wine become the Divine Body and Blood of the Second Person of the Trinity. Before the consecration, it was not so. However after the Consecration, God has become present Sacramentally by means of the transubstantiation, where He was not before present in such a manner. So is this not a change?

 

[didymus]

This question addresses the discussion of what is the nature of God. Specifically his moral nature; is he Good by definition, or is he Good by Nature. I think it can be argued that God is Good by his Nature. I think it can be proven that God does not act out of an arbitrariness but is Himself compelled to action by the limitations necessitated by His Own Existence.

Bingo.
I remember the nuns teaching us that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent – by nature, not by definition. God is not just good (adj.), He is Good (noun).

Btw, Zeb, welcome to the forums! I didn’t notice before that you’re new.
So glad you find us more stimulating than the Baptists.

 

[Abu]

sidbrown
after the Consecration, God has become present Sacramentally by means of the transubstantiation, where He was not before present in such a manner. So is this not a change?

Of course it is a change in the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. God has not changed – just as any miracle does not change God.

 

[sidbrown]

Of course it is a change in the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of Christ. God has not changed – just as any miracle does not change God.

At one point in time God is not present Sacramentally in the bread and wine, but a little bit later He is. So His situation has changed, has it not?

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

I think the medieval theologians established that God is goodness itself, based on scripture and on the idea of God’s “simplicity” as the supreme being. Simplicity means that God does not have attributes the way created things do, but instead is in essence all good, all powerful, and all knowing.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, would not those ‘limitations’ of ‘goodness’ being an essential characteristic of God be another way, almost a synonym for a Limiting ‘law’?

Thank you, Zeb. I will certainly look forward to your bouncing, though I’m sure I’ll have more questions than critical answers. Like Socrates, I admit I have little wisdom of my own, but am always trying to draw it out of others.

Yeah, well, I think Socrates said this with half his tongue in his cheek.

He would only have to conform to His own nature. He would merely have to be perfect as He alone is perfect. Brilliant!

Ditto the previous statement. Many conversations I have had in the past devolved into a simplistic, God does not have to follow any rules because he is omnipotent, and the claim was he even could violate the law of Goodness by doing evil, thus making it Good.

 

[Abu]

sidbrown,
“Situation”?
God has presented Himself to us so that He can feed the faithful spiritually in a way that we can appreciate. Just as He presented Himself to the Jews as a cloud to lead and protect, and appeared to Mary Magdalen after His Resurrection to comfort and console.

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

If God cannot change, how would you explain the fact that upon the invocation of the words of consecration by the priest, the bread and wine become the Divine Body and Blood of the Second Person of the Trinity. Before the consecration, it was not so. However after the Consecration, God has become present Sacramentally by means of the transubstantiation, where He was not before present in such a manner. So is this not a change?

Bingo.
I remember the nuns teaching us that God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent – by nature, not by definition. God is not just good (adj.), He is Good (noun).

Btw, Zeb, welcome to the forums! I didn’t notice before that you’re new.
So glad you find us more stimulating than the Baptists.

We see the formation of the second argument against saying even God must conform to laws. That is by giving examples of where he does change. IMO, I can easily confuse myself by suggesting that because I see the ‘appearance’ of God changing, I understand the underlying law by which such is possible.

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

Btw, Zeb, welcome to the forums! I didn’t notice before that you’re new.
So glad you find us more stimulating than the Baptists.

The pleasure is mine to be sure. trying to converse with that ilk is like talking to a brick wall, except the brick wall will probably give a more intelligent conversation. I attended Dallas Baptist University many years ago and was rebuked for challenging the doctrine in the required New Testament and Old Testament courses. The instructor would say x was a teaching and I would ask for references I may need on the test. When the references were vague I stated such and gave alternative interpretations (Greek Orth., RC, JW, Mormon, etc.) and he went ballistic. The NT prof was particularly sensitive.

 

[spockrates]

… Yeah, well, I think Socrates said this with half his tongue in his cheek.

Would this be due to an oral birth defect, or would there be a reason for his tongue’s odd behavior?



That is, are you saying he actually believed he was wise, or are you saying he really had no intention of drawing the truth out of others?

Ditto the previous statement. Many conversations I have had in the past devolved into a simplistic, God does not have to follow any rules because he is omnipotent, and the claim was he even could violate the law of Goodness by doing evil, thus making it Good.

Yes, the author of the comment deserves our congratulations and our hope that he will share more of the wisdom God gave him.