Do Catholics Believe God Follows Laws

[adriancombe]

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).

.

The point, which are conceding implicitly by replying - indicating it matters when our viewpoints seem to contradict each other - is that the principle of contradiction is foundational to all knowledge and existence. As St Augustine stated regarding your proposed state of minimal knowledge: etsi fallor, sum - even if I am deceived, I am. Yet even this would be meaningless if the principle of contradiction weren’t true.

As a side note, you seem to be reducing to principle to the logical form but in reality this is merely a corollary of the ontological principle of non-contradiction, which is foundational to all existence.

 

[Langdell]

The point, which are conceding implicitly by replying - indicating it matters when our viewpoints seem to contradict each other - is that the principle of contradiction is foundational to all knowledge and existence. As St Augustine stated regarding your proposed state of minimal knowledge: etsi fallor, sum - even if I am deceived, I am. Yet even this would be meaningless if the principle of contradiction weren’t true.

As a side note, you seem to be reducing to principle to the logical form but in reality this is merely a corollary of the ontological principle of non-contradiction, which is foundational to all existence.

By replying, I concede (as I always have) that the principle of non-contradiction is a foundational convention in the English language and in logical reasoning.

Regarding the side note, I don’t think we can know what is foundational to all existence, aside from the tenets of our faith. All we can do in this life is make educated guesses.

.

 

[adriancombe]

By replying, I concede (as I always have) that the principle of non-contradiction is a foundational convention in the English language and in logical reasoning.

Regarding the side note, I don’t think we can know what is foundational to all existence, aside from the tenets of our faith. All we can do in this life is make educated guesses.

.

Not sure how you think this is supposed to work. If the PONC is not foundational, how can there be any objective, irrefutable, undeniable truth for God to reveal?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Not sure how you think this is supposed to work. If the PONC is not foundational, how can there be any objective, irrefutable, undeniable truth for God to reveal?

It works through what you theists call faith. Faith is how it can be believed.

 

[Abu]

God’s laws of cause and effect have been discovered in science by the application of reason and the belief that this could be achieved because we were created in a world of law and order – initiated only through Christ’s Catholic Church.

 

[adriancombe]

It works through what you theists call faith. Faith is how it can be believed.

This is not a reply - at best it is a slogan.

Faith is primarily trust in a person. Religious faith means absolute trust in God as all good and all powerful. Doctrinal faith means that trust in God as a person logically leads to the conclusion that everything he teaches is true. But, without a principium contradictionis, there can be no truth (or claim of same).

 

[sidbrown]

God’s laws of cause and effect have been discovered in science by the application of reason and the belief that this could be achieved because we were created in a world of law and order – initiated only through Christ’s Catholic Church.

How was this initiated only through the Catholic Church? Other religions have taught similar.

 

[sidbrown]

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.

At one point in time, God was not a man. At another point in time, God became a man. That is a change.

 

[Abu]

Sidbrown
How was this [God’s laws of cause and effect have been discovered in science] initiated only through the Catholic Church? Other religions have taught similar.

No other religion was equipped to initiate science. “The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was the natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: nature exists because it was created by God. In order to love and honor God, it is necessary to fully appreciate his handiwork. Because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles. By the full use of our God-given powers of reason and observation, it ought to be possible to discover these principles.

“These were the crucial ideas that explain why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.” The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark, Random House, 2005, p 22-23.
These are the reasons that explain the fact that the theology and philosophy of the Catholic Church motivated and enabled the flowering of science. As no other religious society had these crucial ideas, ALL others failed to spark scientific achievement. It is a classic example of cause and effect to produce a watershed in science.

At one point in time, God was not a man. At another point in time, God became a man. That is a change.

Do you expect to understand God? James encourages confidence “In the Father of all light” in whom “there is no such thing as alteration no shadow of a change.” (Jm 1:17). Fr John A Hardon affirms: “Not even the Incarnation effected any change in God.” (The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 57-58). Embracing a human nature does not change God; He presents Himself to us a He chooses, with no change in His divinity. Change is always due to something lacking.
God is said to be infinite, immutable, and eternal. Likewise, since a plurality of infinities, immutabilities, and eternalities cannot exist, God is known to be absolutely one.
St Thomas argues that God exists from the observed fact that things in the world change or “move” (ex motu); that such change or movement requires for its explanation some prior mover; and that ultimately, there is a first mover, itself unmoved; and that this first mover is called God.

 

[adriancombe]

At one point in time, God was not a man. At another point in time, God became a man. That is a change.

At this point, you aren’t discussing, just repeating unfounded assertions. Did you get the point of the flatland analogy?

 

[zebbediahdaniel]

God’s laws of cause and effect have been discovered in science by the application of reason and the belief that this could be achieved because we were created in a world of law and order – initiated only through Christ’s Catholic Church.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘initiated only…’,

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?

Bad example…the word for ‘kill’ is ‘rä·tsakh’’ . According to Strong’s concordance (H7523) this means,

"1) to murder, slay, kill

a) (Qal) to murder, slay

1. premeditated

1. accidental

1. as avenger

1. slayer (intentional) (participle)

b) (Niphal) to be slain

c) (Piel)

1. to murder, assassinate

1. murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)

d) (Pual) to be killed"

To follow this command as ‘thou shalt not kill’ would a) mean we lived a purely vegetarian lifestyle that involved eating only plants that did not die, such as wheat or hay, b) eat ‘a’ aforementioned and cutting the meat off of animals in such a way they did not die, pretty inhumane to me, and c) the other orders of ‘kill all those in the land I give you’, to put to death certain members of the Israeli social group that disobeyed specific commands, and the dietary laws on how to butcher meat, etc., would be in conflict. It is pretty clear that God does not want us to kill other humans without very specific and valid reasons outlined by the commandments.

The base question is a good one though. Are moral laws as eternal as the existence of God, are moral codes part of the Eternal Law of which God Himself conforms…perhaps not a good word…maybe a better word would be embedded. His moral codes are a part of his eternal makeup…an inseparable part of His Being. Another point is there is a difference between ‘moral codes’ and the ‘laws God gives to man’. The Laws of Moses are a prime example. According to Holy Scripture God gave the Israelis the Laws of Moses because they could not follow the higher Laws of God. They were a specific subset of Laws that would lead the Israelis to Christ.

 

[Langdell]

Not sure how you think this is supposed to work. If the PONC is not foundational, how can there be any objective, irrefutable, undeniable truth for God to reveal?

Well, I think there are a multitude of things about the capital-T Truth that we are either incapable of understanding at all or can merely understand in an extremely simplified manner. I think the PONC is a rough tool that helps us, as creatures, appreciate a few aspects of the Truth. But to me it seems presumptuous to believe that God is bound by an idea simply because we cannot conceive how it could be otherwise.

.

 

[adriancombe]

Well, I think there are a multitude of things about the capital-T Truth that we are either incapable of understanding at all or can merely understand in an extremely simplified manner. I think the PONC is a rough tool that helps us, as creatures, appreciate a few aspects of the Truth. But to me it seems presumptuous to believe that God is bound by an idea simply because we cannot conceive how it could be otherwise.

.

Not really - unless you consider the whole history of philosophy and theology all the way back to Socrates ‘presumptuous’. Paul clearly thought we could arrive at certain knowledge on God’s key attributes by reason alone. Using the gifts God gave us is not ‘presumptuous’. Hoping to reach salvation by a means other than that revealed by God IS the ‘sin of presumption’. God commands us to love Him with our whole mind, which He also revealed can know some things for certain.

Or as C. S. Lewis said, answering the ‘can God make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it?’ puzzler: “Simply stating something inherently contradictory and putting ‘can God’ in front of it doesn’t prove anything”.

 

[Langdell]

Not really - unless you consider the whole history of philosophy and theology all the way back to Socrates ‘presumptuous’. Paul clearly thought we could arrive at certain knowledge on God’s key attributes by reason alone. Using the gifts God gave us is not ‘presumptuous’. Hoping to reach salvation by a means other than that revealed by God IS the ‘sin of presumption’. God commands us to love Him with our whole mind, which He also revealed can know some things for certain.

Or as C. S. Lewis said, answering the ‘can God make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it?’ puzzler: “Simply stating something inherently contradictory and putting ‘can God’ in front of it doesn’t prove anything”.

It looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

.

 

[sidbrown]

At this point, you aren’t discussing, just repeating unfounded assertions. Did you get the point of the flatland analogy?

So you have to go to flatland to explain that there was no change when God became man? if that is the case, then anyone can argue that there is no change at all in anything. We all could be living in a different dimension, but in some kind of a sphere encompassing a multiuniverse there is no change. It then becomes a convoluted agrument amounting to a play on words.

 

[adriancombe]

So you have to go to flatland to explain that there was no change when God became man? if that is the case, then anyone can argue that there is no change at all in anything. We all could be living in a different dimension, but in some kind of a sphere encompassing a multiuniverse there is no change. It then becomes a convoluted agrument amounting to a play on words.

You don’t have to do anything. Flatland may or may not help you. It was just a suggestion. However, your attempt at a reductio ad absurdum is flawed. By definition, God is beyond our full grasp. Material realities may of may not be. Thus, an analogy that invokes the theory of higher than three or four dimensions seems ideally suited to helping understand higher realities. It doesn’t seem prudent to try to apply it to the visible world - especially not if your main aim is to debunk the concept - as it seems to be.

 

[adriancombe]

It looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree. God bless.

.

Back at you . Not sure we disagree in practice - probably more semantics.

BTW there are some fields of philosophy that deny - at least partially - the PONC. You may want to look into them. I’m not certain you would like where they lead, but maybe that is ok. Sometimes we see a truth by studying what happens when we deny it.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Not really - unless you consider the whole history of philosophy and theology all the way back to Socrates ‘presumptuous’. Paul clearly thought we could arrive at certain knowledge on God’s key attributes by reason alone. Using the gifts God gave us is not ‘presumptuous’. Hoping to reach salvation by a means other than that revealed by God IS the ‘sin of presumption’. God commands us to love Him with our whole mind, which He also revealed can know some things for certain.

Or as C. S. Lewis said, answering the ‘can God make a rock so heavy He can’t lift it?’ puzzler: “Simply stating something inherently contradictory and putting ‘can God’ in front of it doesn’t prove anything”.

When you say “Paul clearly thought we could arrive at certain knowledge on …”

Have you ever asked yourself how he could speak for others like that, when he himself had a mystical vision to accept Jesus into his heart?

 

[Abu]

zebbediahdaniel
God’s laws of cause and effect have been discovered in science by the application of reason and the belief that this could be achieved because we were created in a world of law and order – initiated only (I’m not sure what that means) through Christ’s Catholic Church.

“initiated only” = the rise of science came about only through the reason and faith of Catholic doctrine.

 

[adriancombe]

When you say “Paul clearly thought we could arrive at certain knowledge on …”

Have you ever asked yourself how he could speak for others like that, when he himself had a mystical vision to accept Jesus into his heart?

For that matter he was ‘hebraios ex hebraion’ (a Hebrew among Hebrews) and immersed in the Sacred Traditions from childhood.

However, to answer your question, I never considered it in depth because it is an inspired text and God who is the true author knows what knowledge He created us with.