Do Catholics Believe God Follows Laws

[Langdell]

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’?

Yes, I suppose we could say that that is a law – i.e., God is bound by the law that He cannot be other than what He is. (Although query whether something that can apply to only one set of facts is appropriately termed a “law.”)

This line of reasoning also seems to come into tension with the doctrine of the Incarnation. I don’t know enough theology to straighten that issue out.



.

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

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?

I think he was very clever, but generally when someone claims to not be something very loudly, it has been my experience he protesteth to much…

Yes, I suppose we could say that that is a law – i.e., God is bound by the law that He cannot be other than what He is. (Although query whether something that can apply to only one set of facts is appropriately termed a “law.”)

This line of reasoning also seems to come into tension with the doctrine of the Incarnation. I don’t know enough theology to straighten that issue out.



.

A law is a principle that applies to a given situation where such a violation of the law is not possible. Given that God has laws that he must conform to, he is good, he cannot do evil, etc… What is your concern re Incarnation and a God of Laws?

Conversations with calvinists etc in the past were fruitless. There typical response is that God is not bound by laws, he can do no evil because by definition anything he does is good, so if he were to arbitrarily choose to inflect a miraculous disease on a child that even in a utilitarian way creates no good, this act would be good. This is in my mind so irrational as to make any future conversation fruitless.

Generally, in religion it is frowned upon (to put it mildly) to suggest God has limits. That he cannot do anything he wants, but functions within his laws. There are, imo, practical considerations. God functions within these laws so perfectly that they are not limitations. He does not say, If I could only do this than I could accomplish that. It is my opinion God does not even consider an act other than inconsideration of His Laws. I do not think what we would term ‘limits’ or ‘constrained to laws’ God would consider in such a light.

There are obvious theological ramifications to worshiping a God who functions within Laws. One being as you pointed out a being that is limited by the same necessities of his existence as God would be a God. This may seem sacrilegious, but in a sense the savior is the same. In the triune God, each personality would be able to function and constrained only by the same necessities of His existence, and these would be the same for each person of the Godhead. Would this be heretical in RC doctrine?

 

[Langdell]

I think he was very clever, but generally when someone claims to not be something very loudly, it has been my experience he protesteth to much…

A law is a principle that applies to a given situation where such a violation of the law is not possible. Given that God has laws that he must conform to, he is good, he cannot do evil, etc… What is your concern re Incarnation and a God of Laws?

Conversations with calvinists etc in the past were fruitless. There typical response is that God is not bound by laws, he can do no evil because by definition anything he does is good, so if he were to arbitrarily choose to inflect a miraculous disease on a child that even in a utilitarian way creates no good, this act would be good. This is in my mind so irrational as to make any future conversation fruitless.

Generally, in religion it is frowned upon (to put it mildly) to suggest God has limits. That he cannot do anything he wants, but functions within his laws. There are, imo, practical considerations. God functions within these laws so perfectly that they are not limitations. He does not say, If I could only do this than I could accomplish that. It is my opinion God does not even consider an act other than inconsideration of His Laws. I do not think what we would term ‘limits’ or ‘constrained to laws’ God would consider in such a light.

There are obvious theological ramifications to worshiping a God who functions within Laws. One being as you pointed out a being that is limited by the same necessities of his existence as God would be a God. This may seem sacrilegious, but in a sense the savior is the same. In the triune God, each personality would be able to function and constrained only by the same necessities of His existence, and these would be the same for each person of the Godhead. Would this be heretical in RC doctrine?

Maybe the terminology of “laws” is what throws people off?

Anyway, it’s hard for me to imagine a Catholic disagreeing with propositions such as God cannot lie, God cannot do evil, etc. And I agree with you that God cannot do those things because He is all good. He can’t not be God.

I think medieval philosophers discussed these issues quite a bit. Last year, I listened to a set of lectures from the Teaching Company on medieval philosophy dealing with God and Christian doctrines. As I recall, the medieval view was that God’s being only what He is, and not what He is not, does not take away from His being God because whatever it is His nature to be, He is infinitely so. For example, God is infinitely good. Therefore, He can’t also be bad, because being infinitely good requires a total inability to be bad.

FWIW, I also remember his brief discussion of the old “Can God create a rock so big He can’t lift it?” problem. He explained that, as the medievals viewed it, this question cannot take a yes or no answer. God has both unlimited rock-creating power and unlimited rock-lifting power. So what the question posits is actually an infinite regression that would never be resolved

 

[adriancombe]

Well, a lot of people agree with that. There is a contrary view, however, (to which I subscribe) that the truths of logic are definitional or linguistic truths, like those of math. The law of non-contradiction, for example, is a rule about what constitutes permissible use of language and permissible construction of arguments. IOW, it’s a rule that came to be accepted because it helps us simplify reality in our own thoughts and in communications with others. But the conventions exemplified by the law of non-contradiction do not limit what can exist in reality.

.

Not sure I see how you get to this conclusion. The principle of non-contradiction specifically applies to things in themselves, not to the words or thoughts we have about them.

 

[adriancombe]

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?

No. He doesn’t have a ‘situation’. He’s omnipresent. What has changed is the material world.

 

[adriancombe]

However, according to Avicenna:“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”

ROTFLOL I won’t ‘contradict’ him! Hehehe.

 

[adriancombe]

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.

.

Of course, one could counter-argue that you are trying to ‘govern’ the ‘real’ principle of contradiction by ‘limiting’ it to something merely verbal or conceptual as opposed to being part of the fabric of reality.

Put another way: if the principle of contradiction is merely human and not transcendent, you have no reason to reply to this post, as any ‘apparent’ contradiction between your position and mine is not ‘real’ and merely an artifact and both our positions are both Incontrovertibly correct and incorrect without any ‘real’ contradiction.

Finally: Jesus is the Truth - which must mean God is the personified principle of non-contradiction (unless He is not lol).

 

[asmrbd]

The Bible says “My ways ar not your ways, and my thought sare not your thoughts”
God is a Spirit and should be worshipped as a Spirit. He is perfect in wisdom and judment. Don’t worry about that. A cow cannot understand a computer, nor shall you understand God. Stop the non sense comments and just focus on Jesus.
For eye hath not seen, nor has it entered into the mind what heaven will be like. Don’t reason who God is, know him by his actions…cross, blood, love, patience. If you want a God of flesh and bone, join the LDS.

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

The Bible says “My ways ar not your ways, and my thought sare not your thoughts”
God is a Spirit and should be worshipped as a Spirit. He is perfect in wisdom and judment. Don’t worry about that. A cow cannot understand a computer, nor shall you understand God. Stop the non sense comments and just focus on Jesus.
For eye hath not seen, nor has it entered into the mind what heaven will be like. Don’t reason who God is, know him by his actions…cross, blood, love, patience. If you want a God of flesh and bone, join the LDS.

Gosh. Hardcore. Let’s see how you standup to logic. Do you worship Jesus? Who are you to critic what I conceive? I do not wish to ‘understand’ a god, but I do wish to utilize the brains He gave me. What I want is a God of reason and order. Or rather, I believe a God worth worshipping is a God of Reason, Order, and Faith. That is not unreasonable.

 

[sidbrown]

No. He doesn’t have a ‘situation’. He’s omnipresent. What has changed is the material world.

that is not easy to understand. Jesus, being the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, was not present in the world 3000 years ago. However, things changed for Him as He became present in the world 2000 years ago. Is that a change for Jesus or not?

 

[Abu]

zebbediahdaniel
I believe a God worth worshipping is a God of Reason, Order, and Faith.

Well said.

In the triune God, each personality would be able to function and constrained only by the same necessities of His existence, and these would be the same for each person of the Godhead. Would this be heretical in RC doctrine?

Not at all. None of the Persons of the Trinity can act against Their nature or the laws of being. God can however alter, suspend or supersede the physical laws as in miracles.

In his exclusive interview with Antony Flew Dr Benjamin Wiker uncovers why the world’s leading former atheist has rejected atheism:tothesource.org/10_30_2007/10_30_2007.htm

Anthony Flew: “There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.
“The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.
“It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.”

Do you see in Jesus of Nazareth a God of Reason, Order and Faith?

 

[adriancombe]

The Bible says “My ways ar not your ways, and my thought sare not your thoughts”
God is a Spirit and should be worshipped as a Spirit. He is perfect in wisdom and judment. Don’t worry about that. A cow cannot understand a computer, nor shall you understand God. Stop the non sense comments and just focus on Jesus.
For eye hath not seen, nor has it entered into the mind what heaven will be like. Don’t reason who God is, know him by his actions…cross, blood, love, patience. If you want a God of flesh and bone, join the LDS.

???
Theologia = Fides quaerens intellectum!
Philosophia ancilla theologia.
Pax tibi.

 

[adriancombe]

that is not easy to understand. Jesus, being the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, was not present in the world 3000 years ago. However, things changed for Him as He became present in the world 2000 years ago. Is that a change for Jesus or not?

The Body, Blood and Soul of the God Man came about as the result of a change.

The Body and Blood were separated in Death and miraculously revivified.

The Divinity is immutable.

What you and I perceive as time and space is not “the reality”. God’s eternity is the reality. The time and space and matter we perceive as functions thereof can and do change. God does not have a beginning or end. There is no past present or future for the timeless Being. Nor is there a ‘here or there’.

To speak of change in God is meaningless. Since all time is present to Him, it would be like saying He both is and isn’t at the same time.

 

[zalo]

What about moral laws though? I’m thinking of the 10 Commandments specifically: God commands the Israelites “Do not kill” and then orders them to kill their neighbours by the thousands, women and infants not sparing. What are we to make of this?

 

[Langdell]

Not sure I see how you get to this conclusion. The principle of non-contradiction specifically applies to things in themselves, not to the words or thoughts we have about them.

I would say the principle applies to things but does not control things. It’s a principle we use for enabling us to better comprehend reality. But it’s only a simplified representation of reality, not something that inheres in reality.

Sorry for not explaining it better. Gotta get to work now.

.

 

[adriancombe]

I would say the principle applies to things but does not control things. It’s a principle we use for enabling us to better comprehend reality. But it’s only a simplified representation of reality, not something that inheres in reality.

Sorry for not explaining it better. Gotta get to work now.

.

I hope you read all my responses. It has been sufficiently show that the principle of non-contradiction does inhere in reality.

 

[Langdell]

Of course, one could counter-argue that you are trying to ‘govern’ the ‘real’ principle of contradiction by ‘limiting’ it to something merely verbal or conceptual as opposed to being part of the fabric of reality.

Put another way: if the principle of contradiction is merely human and not transcendent, you have no reason to reply to this post, as any ‘apparent’ contradiction between your position and mine is not ‘real’ and merely an artifact and both our positions are both Incontrovertibly correct and incorrect without any ‘real’ contradiction.

Finally: Jesus is the Truth - which must mean God is the personified principle of non-contradiction (unless He is not lol).

Sorry, I didn’t see the follow-on responses after the first one.

I agree that there are absolute truths, some of which we are able to know through God’s revelation, and I also believe that, since God gave us our senses and the power to reason, the data from our senses and the results of our (proper) reasoning will generally come close to reality.

However, we’re not God. We’re not capable of knowing reality the way He does. The best we can do in this life (aside from the blessed few who have been granted visions directly by God) is try to approximate reality with our feeble minds and the clumsy tools at our disposal (including language and logic).

.

 

[sidbrown]

The Body, Blood and Soul of the God Man came about as the result of a change.

The Body and Blood were separated in Death and miraculously revivified.

The Divinity is immutable.

What you and I perceive as time and space is not “the reality”. God’s eternity is the reality. The time and space and matter we perceive as functions thereof can and do change. God does not have a beginning or end. There is no past present or future for the timeless Being. Nor is there a ‘here or there’.

To speak of change in God is meaningless. Since all time is present to Him, it would be like saying He both is and isn’t at the same time.

But at one time God was united with the Body of Christ and at another time not. So there is a change, is there not?

 

[spockrates]

I think he was very clever, but generally when someone claims to not be something very loudly, it has been my experience he protesteth to much…

Perhaps you are correct, but I’d need some more convincing!



One thing I like about Socrates, and something that has helped me immensely, is his way of avoiding deception. When it comes to partisan politics, or partisan religion, or partisan ________ (fill in the blank), the surest way to be deceived, he said, was to say, “My political party, right or wrong!” or “My religion, right or wrong!” or “My _________ (fill in the blank) right or wrong.” Socrates said:

Now, the partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. And the difference between him and me at the present moment is merely this—that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me.

(Phaedo)

 

[adriancombe]

But at one time God was united with the Body of Christ and at another time not. So there is a change, is there not?

A change to the matter and the soul, not to God Himself.

You may want to read the book ‘Flatland’. See here for a summary:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

Once you understand the basic concept behind the book, you can understand God as being roughly analogous to an ‘immovable sphere’. Just because th inhabitants of flatland see a circle increasing in size doesn’t mean the sphere is changing or even moving. The sphere can remained fixed while flatland moves around it. It is the limited nature of flatland’s inhabitants that causes them to invalidly conclude the sphere is shrinking or growing.