Gnostic Atheism

[JapaneseKappa]

:ehh:

If you’d like to claim something as heretical, then you need a citation that’s substantially better than someone’s blog; no matter how educated they may appear to be.

I suggest you reflect on the fact that a non-Catholic is the one teaching Catholic theology to a Catholic on a Catholic forum. You could have avoided this by doing the research yourself.

Is the “Catholic Encyclopedia” reliable enough for you?
newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

God is a simple being or substance excluding every kind of composition, physical or metaphysical.

Thomas Aquinas?
newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm

Objection 2. Further, whatever is best must be attributed to God. But with us that which is composite is better than that which is simple; thus, chemical compounds are better than simple elements, and animals than the parts that compose them. Therefore it cannot be said that God is altogether simple.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. iv, 6,7): “God is truly and absolutely simple.”

I answer that, The absolute simplicity of God may be shown in many ways… because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown above

I did. The trinity contains three members. Your argument does not. On pure technicality, your argument involves the binity of Father and Son as it lacks the third, requisite term. This is not the trinity shrug. Your argument is, therefore, incomplete; other obvious issues notwithstanding.

So lets say you propose some road trip vacation. You say: “It’s gonna be great, we’ll start by driving from California to Japan and visit Tokyo, then we’ll drive to Beijing and see the great wall, and finally we’ll take a drive from China to the beaches of Hawaii.”

And I respond: Your road trip is impossible because you can’t drive from California to Japan.

And you say: What!?!? You’re not talking about the right road trip! Mine had four destinations (Cali, Nihon, China, and Hawaii) but you only mentioned two! In order to be sure you’re criticizing the right road trip, you’ll need to mention every stop!

Me: Is having a hard time telling if you are serious.

 

[Vonsalza]

I suggest you reflect on the fact that a non-Catholic is the one teaching Catholic theology to a Catholic on a Catholic forum. You could have avoided this by doing the research yourself.

I smiled at this.

You may want to take a gander at the “Scratch an atheist, find a skeptic!” thread.

I think you horse and cart may be switched.

Is the “Catholic Encyclopedia” reliable enough for you?

Thomas Aquinas?

The CE is a secondary source and Aquinas, while utterly brilliant, did not speak for the Church. “Because Aquinas said it” is an insufficient basis for Catholic theology. If you did more research on Catholicism, you’d know this.

I recommend the Catechism.

So lets say you propose some road trip vacation…

You’ve expressed a desire to proof the contradiction of the trinity using philosophy; specifically Aristotelian logic. I’ve actually had some formal schooling on this.:

If you were tasked to craft an argument as analyzing a trio of interrelated claims and left out one of the terms for absolutely whatever reason, Dr. H wouldn’t have bothered reading your syllogisms. He’d let you know your argument was incomplete and then would probably mock you in front of the class because he enjoyed that (and you’d be ok with it because everyone was treated that way).

Fact is, your argument factually does not describe the trinity. “But the rhetoric implicitly applies to the missing term.”

Dr. H would let you know “Implicit rhetoric gets an ‘F’”. If you’d like to use philosophy and/or logic to craft an argument, then do so correctly.

Incomplete structure aside, you appear to have some soundness issues that require address.
-CCC 254 seems to reject your axiomatic equalities within your premise in lines #4 & #6.
-“Within R” is vague and ambiguous. It is also rather non-standard language for syllogisms, as it seems to bear some element of conclusion - which is confusing when found mid-premise. Could you re-write the argument using Boolean operators so I can figure out what it is you’re trying to say here if you can’t express it very well with prose?

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve expressed a desire to proof the contradiction of the trinity using philosophy; specifically Aristotelian logic. I’ve actually had some formal schooling on this.:

If you were tasked to craft an argument as analyzing a trio of interrelated claims and left out one of the terms for absolutely whatever reason, Dr. H wouldn’t have bothered reading your syllogisms. He’d let you know your argument was incomplete and then would probably mock you in front of the class because he enjoyed that (and you’d be ok with it because everyone was treated that way).

Fact is, your argument factually does not describe the trinity. “But the rhetoric implicitly applies to the missing term.”

Dr. H would let you know “Implicit rhetoric gets an ‘F’”. If you’d like to use philosophy and/or logic to craft an argument, then do so correctly.

Incomplete structure aside, you appear to have some soundness issues that require address.
-CCC 254 seems to reject your axiomatic equalities within your premise in lines #4 & #6.
-“Within R” is vague and ambiguous. It is also rather non-standard language for syllogisms, as it seems to bear some element of conclusion - which is confusing when found mid-premise. Could you re-write the argument using Boolean operators so I can figure out what it is you’re trying to say here if you can’t express it very well with prose?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I smiled at this.

You may want to take a gander at the “Scratch an atheist, find a skeptic!” thread.

I think you horse and cart may be switched.

The CE is a secondary source and Aquinas, while utterly brilliant, did not speak for the Church. “Because Aquinas said it” is an insufficient basis for Catholic theology. If you did more research on Catholicism, you’d know this.

I recommend the Catechism.

So this is quite rich. In this very thread where Catholics have chastised non-catholics for using “straw-man” descriptions of church teaching, you assert that the combined attestation of:

1. a professional contemporary Catholic philosopher
2. a nihil obstat + imprimatur document specifically endorsing the teaching
3. a Catholic saint whose philosophy has basically been the bedrock of Catholic philosophy for over 800 years

is insufficient to establish whether or not the church actually believes in divine simplicity. Given such a ridiculous standard of evidence would let you call virtually any description of catholic teaching a straw-man. Since you are so interested in the catechism (which is itself a not-infallible document,) I wonder why you have failed to quote to me the section of the catechism that directly endorses divine simplicity?

CCC #202
ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html#54

We firmly believe and confess without reservation that there is only one true God, eternal, infinite (immensus) and unchangeable, incomprehensible, almighty, and ineffable, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; three persons indeed, but one essence, substance or nature entirely simple.

Now, given that you persisted in this heresy despite being contradicted so utterly by every reliable Catholic source I thought to check, I can only conclude that you were deliberately wasting my time by demanding unreasonable evidence for what is clearly a church teaching; stonewalling in the face of overwhelming evidence.

If you want to continue defending the “God has parts” heresy, I suggest you remove the “Catholic” label from your profile, and acknowledge that a non-catholic description of god is irrelevant when I am criticizing the catholic description of God specifically.

You’ve expressed a desire to proof the contradiction of the trinity using philosophy; specifically Aristotelian logic. I’ve actually had some formal schooling on this.:

If you were tasked to craft an argument as analyzing a trio of interrelated claims and left out one of the terms for absolutely whatever reason, Dr. H wouldn’t have bothered reading your syllogisms. He’d let you know your argument was incomplete and then would probably mock you in front of the class because he enjoyed that (and you’d be ok with it because everyone was treated that way).

Fact is, your argument factually does not describe the trinity. “But the rhetoric implicitly applies to the missing term.” Dr. H would let you know “Implicit rhetoric gets an ‘F’”. If you’d like to use philosophy and/or logic to craft an argument, then do so correctly.

The “road trip” was a trio of interrelated claims too, and you can knock the whole thing down without addressing all of them.

Second, you say you have formal training, so you should be familiar with the phrase “Without loss of generality.” What I have done in my syllogism is, without loss of generality, restricted my reasoning to the propositions specifically addressing the father and the son.

Incomplete structure aside, you appear to have some soundness issues that require address.
-CCC 254 seems to reject your axiomatic equalities within your premise in lines #4 & #6.
-“Within R” is vague and ambiguous. It is also rather non-standard language for syllogisms, as it seems to bear some element of conclusion - which is confusing when found mid-premise. Could you re-write the argument using Boolean operators so I can figure out what it is you’re trying to say here if you can’t express it very well with prose?

I will not reformulate my position at this time. Since you have previously demonstrated a desire to waste my time by denying my arguments in the face of overwhelming evidence, I will instead assert that if you want me to take your objection seriously, you will quote the CCC passages side-by-side with the line from my syllogism that you think they contradict, and explain exactly what it is about the CCC assertion that you think contradicts mine; in case it turns out you have yet another heretical interpretation of the CCC in mind.

I have explained “respect” elsewhere. If you still have questions, quote my explanation and clearly state what about the explanation still confuses you.

 

[PRmerger]

1. a nihil obstat + imprimatur document specifically endorsing the teaching

Could you explain more about what you mean here?

Specifically, who is doing the endorsing of what?

Frankly, I’m thinking that you may be confused about what the nihil obstat and imprimatur mean…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Could you explain more about what you mean here?

Specifically, who is doing the endorsing of what?

Frankly, I’m thinking that you may be confused about what the nihil obstat and imprimatur mean…

The nihil obstat and imprimatur means that someone endorsed by the Catholic church as knowledgeable about church teaching has reviewed the article and found that it does not contain any blatant errors regarding church teaching.

 

[reggieM]

Which is fine, since my goal isn’t to prove the trinity in an a-priori sense, it is to investigate logical consistency of the trinitarian teachings.

Perhaps you should take this up with… Pope John Paul II
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html

So it is clear that the Catholic church teaches that there can be no contradiction between revealed truths and reason. I am asserting that in the trinity there is such a contradiction, and have already provided a sketch of my reasoning.

JK,
Thanks for posting this quote from St. John Paul II and his encyclical on Faith and Reason.
I haven’t taken the time to read following posts yet, so I apologize if I repeat something.
The issue seems clear from the way you present it.

1. The Pope, in an official Catholic document states that there is no contradiction between Faith and Reason.
2. Ed Feser, a layman but noted Catholic philosopher, attempts to show that the Trinity can be understood through logical syllogisms. In that process, he also attacked materialism, which as you pointed out - would seem an irrelevant dodge.
3. You used logical syllogisms to show that the doctrine of the Trinity does not conform to a logical formula.

So - the Pope is obviously wrong as is Feser.
Actually, it doesn’t take much complex analysis to see that a doctrine that states:

1. God is one unity, indivisible
2. And God is three unique persons

Obviously, that’s illogical.
So, there’s a contradiction. QED.

However … (and you knew I was going to say that) …

There is a difference between “fully accessible and conformable to logic” And
“no contradiction between what the Faith statements of the Church are and Logic”.

Agreed?

I thought not.

Ok, we must then explain. Next post.

 

[Vonsalza]

So this is quite rich.

The Catholic Encyclopedia being a secondary source and Aquinas (brilliant though he was) not infallibly speaking for the Church are both “quite rich”?

You haven’t performed your due diligence on “Catholicism” in general, then.

CCC #202

Excellent reference. Now if you wish to proceed with establishing premises that are thoroughly “Catholic”, they must also “pass muster” with other parts of the catechism that address the topic as a matter of elementary consistency.

This is a problem your argument is currently facing.

Now, given that you persisted in this heresy despite being contradicted so utterly by every reliable Catholic source I thought to check…

The best Catholic treatment I can find on Divine Simplicity is from Lateran 4 and states:

“We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple …”

Vatican 1 pithily states:
“(God) is one, singular, completely simple …”

I’ve yet to see where I run afoul of council and catechism.

If you want to continue defending the “God has parts” heresy…

Again, CCC 254: The divine persons are really distinct from one another.

Your premises are inconsistent with this.

I will not reformulate my position at this time.

If by “position” you mean “my typed argument” then fair enough. But you’re missing a critical third term, you use vague language in your syllogisms (whatever “in respect” objectively means - using Boolean would more concretely define it), two premises are indubitably unsound per the catechism and your overall syllogistic structure is pretty non-standard.

But do as you wish. It’s your baby.

 

[reggieM]

There is a difference between “fully accessible and conformable to logic” And
“no contradiction between what the Faith statements of the Church are and Logic”.

Your concern is that the teaching on the Trinity does not conform to logic.
But the Pope said “there is not contradiction between Catholic Faith and logic”.

How is that possible?

Well, a contradiction between the Faith statements of a religion and Logic would be like this.

Let’s say I propose a new religion.
My religion states “Everything we say about God is 100% accessible and conformable to logical understanding” (a person cannot derive a false syllogism from our belief).
I then give My Religion’s belief:
“We believe there are 2 gods. But they are actually one. And, they are in 5 persons.”

It doesn’t take much effort to see there is a logical contradiction.
I claimed that everything was conformable to logic. But then my doctrine is illogical.
The religion is false on that basis. This is what you’ve done with Catholicism.

However, Catholicism does not say “every Catholic doctrine is accessible and reducible to logic”. Clearly, the doctrine of the Trinity is not.
So, how can the Pope say “there is no contradiction between the Catholic Faith and Logic”.

Easy. The Catholic Faith provides premises that must be accepted in order to use logic for understanding. I pointed this out already.
One premise is: “The Doctrine of the Trinity is not accessible (conformable, reducible) to Logic Alone”.
If you don’t accept the premise, you can’t analyse the religion.
If you insist, “The Trinity must be fully understood by logical syllogisms and there can be no contradictions or logical paradoxes” – well, that is not accepting the premise.

I already showed that the Catechism states that the trinity is not fully accessible to logic alone. So, if a person says “It’s a logical contradiction to say that Trinity does not conform to logic” – no, that is not correct.

For example:

Premise: For the sake of argument assume: The universe is all known time, space, matter and energy (many scientists and atheists accept this).
Premise: For the sake of argument assume God created the universe (Catholic teaching)
Conclusion: God exists outside of time, space, matter and energy.

No logical contradiction.

From that conclusion, God exists outside of time, space, etc.

Premise: Human beings and their reasoning processes about bound by and require a sequential experience and understanding of time. (Logic is a sequence of before and after)
From previous argument: God exists in a state not bound by time and therefore not bound by sequence of before and after
Conclusion: An understanding of God’s nature would require an analysis of timelessness, something different than what logic can do

Again, no contradiction.
Alll it is saying that there is no logical contradiction in stating that God, by His nature, is not conformable to logic.

 

[Vonsalza]

And with Reggie,

I personally think that the trinity isn’t completely logical either by western standards as it contains dualisms and western philo generally hates dualisms (things that are both true and false).

The argument proposed is just flawed by academic standards. I’m just having a little fun with that.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The Catholic Encyclopedia being a secondary source and Aquinas (brilliant though he was) not infallibly speaking for the Church are both “quite rich”?

You haven’t performed your due diligence on “Catholicism” in general, then.

Excellent reference. Now if you wish to proceed with establishing premises that are thoroughly “Catholic”, they must also “pass muster” with other parts of the catechism that address the topic as a matter of elementary consistency.

This is a problem your argument is currently facing.

The best Catholic treatment I can find on Divine Simplicity is from Lateran 4 and states:
“We firmly believe and openly confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immense, omnipotent, unchangeable, incomprehensible, and ineffable, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; three Persons indeed but one essense, substance, or nature absolutely simple …”
Vatican 1 pithily states:
“(God) is one, singular, completely simple …”
I’ve yet to see where I run afoul of council and catechism.

You “ran afoul” right here:

Is the Father the same as the Godhead? No. He’s part of it. Like my engine is not the same as my car. It’s part of it.

Now, I have produced FOUR high quality catholic sources that all explicitly say that you are wrong and in heresy, and all you have said in defense is “well I don’t see it.” So how about this, you provide one single Imprimatur/nihil obstat document that explicitly endorses your “God has parts like a car” view of the trinity, and I will admit that I have never known a single thing the Catholic church teaches, and everything I have ever said about the Catholic Church ever has been a straw man.

Again, CCC 254: The divine persons are really distinct from one another.

Your premises are inconsistent with this.

My premises come straight out of CCC 253. Did you not actually read all the relevant CCC sections, or were you just trying to hide the actual teaching of the Catholic Church from me so I couldn’t criticize it?
CCC 253:

The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity.” The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

Finally, the fact that there is a contradiction between the correctly understood doctrines defining the Catholic God is a problem for the Catholic God, not me.

If by “position” you mean “my typed argument” then fair enough. But you’re missing a critical third term, you use vague language in your syllogisms (whatever “in respect” objectively means - using Boolean would more concretely define it), two premises are indubitably unsound per the catechism and your overall syllogistic structure is pretty non-standard.

But do as you wish. It’s your baby.

As I said. I have previously clarified my use of “respect” and proofs which assume certain features without loss of generality are standard practice. If you have specific criticisms, I will ask you to make them by explicitly quoting my arguments and explanations so that I know you’re not just trying to waste my time by casting aspersions.

 

[reggieM]

The CE is a secondary source and Aquinas, while utterly brilliant, did not speak for the Church. “Because Aquinas said it” is an insufficient basis for Catholic theology.

This is true and it’s where guys like Mr. Feser and other contemporary Thomists can get into trouble, and it’s also why the Church has moved to include other philosophical views.

Nobody - not Feser, not St. Thomas – not even the Pope or Magisterium of the Church (!) can fully explain the Trinity.

The doctrine comes to us from Christ. We don’t believe it because it is the product of a logical syllogism. We believe it, because we believe that Christ has and had the authority to speak for God. Because we believe Christ is God.

We don’t start with the doctrine of the Trinity in order to prove God exists.
Instead, we start from observations and human reason (logic) to show that God is the most reasonable explanation for the existence of everything.

1. Using reason and logic alone, God is the most reasonable explanation.
2. Reason and logic alone are limited in understanding or knowing the inner nature of God
3. Only someone who has been told what God’s nature is, or has experienced it, or actually only God Himself can tell us what His nature is
4. To know more about God than what logic alone can tell - we need Revelation.
5. Since anybody can claim a “Revelation from God”, we have to judge various Revelations mainly on “the authority of the person giving the Revelation”
6. If a person says he is “The Son of God” – logic helps to evaluate that claim, but logic alone cannot determine if the claim is true. It requires Faith.
7. Logically - if a person heals the sick, has a high moral excellence, can raise people from the dead, can miraculously make things appear that did not appear before, has power over natural processes, and can fulfill his own prediction that he will rise from the dead – by Logic, these are significant indicators of a divine presence of some kind.
8. Once a person Has Faith, in the authority of the Revealer of the Revelation - what is taught about God may or may not conform to logic.
9. But conforming to logic is not a requirement - in fact,** it is impossible for the full nature of God to be reduced to the capability of human understanding**. Logic can show that, as I did previously. That’s what the Catholic Catechism says.

If Mr. Feser gives the impression that that point I raised in #9 is wrong, then he is in error. His teaching would conflict with the Catechism. Not speaking for Feser, but I’m sure he would not reject the bold part I stated in #9, in spite of making it appear that he had a logical formula that could fully explain the Trinity.
The fact that Feser attacked materialism and it’s own illogic, in the very article cited, indicates that he knows the Trinity cannot be successfully mapped via a logical syllogism alone. This is not a contradiction between the Catholic Faith and Logic. In fact, it is 100% logical given the premises.

 

[reggieM]

Premise: Human beings and their reasoning processes about bound by and require a sequential experience and understanding of time. (Logic is a sequence of before and after)
From previous argument: God exists in a state not bound by time and therefore not bound by sequence of before and after
Conclusion: An understanding of God’s nature would require an analysis of timelessness, something different than what logic can do

Again, no contradiction…

That should be (fixing a typo):

P Human beings and their reasoning processes **are **bound by and require a sequential experience and understanding of time.

 

[Vonsalza]

My premises come straight out of CCC 253.

Great! Now make them jive with the rest of the catechism and you’re off to the races.

I have previously clarified my use of “respect” and proofs which assume certain features without loss of generality are standard practice.

From one philosopher to another, could you then express it in a language other than prose? Good logic rather demands the ability to do this. Your prosaic explanations by proxy are manifesting the very same problems inherent to the use of proxy.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Nobody - not Feser, not St. Thomas – not even the Pope or Magisterium of the Church (!) can fully explain the Trinity.

The doctrine comes to us from Christ. We don’t believe it because it is the product of a logical syllogism. We believe it, because we believe that Christ has and had the authority to speak for God. Because we believe Christ is God.

The fact that Feser attacked materialism and it’s own illogic, in the very article cited, indicates that he knows the Trinity cannot be successfully mapped via a logical syllogism alone. This is not a contradiction between the Catholic Faith and Logic. In fact, it is 100% logical given the premises.

Are you familiar with Godel’s incompleteness theorem? It says that in certain kinds of mathematical systems (a system of axioms and logic) there can exist true statements that are unprovable. Unprovable means that you cannot use the axioms and logic to derive them. A statement is True if it never contradicts logic+the axioms.

Now I don’t know for sure if Godel’s proof applies to the philosophy we’re doing, but we’ll assume for the time being that there can exist analogous “unprovably true” philosophical statements.

It is my reading of “faith and reason” that the church teachings on revealed truths belong to the “unprovable” class of statements. That is to say, we cannot prove God is a trinity given normal philosophical axioms and logic. I am perfectly fine with the church saying this. However, we can still ask if a statement is true, even if it is claimed to be unprovable. Specifically, if it can be shown that the statement does actually contradict the axioms and logic, then we know that the church’s statement cannot be “unprovably true” because it is “provably false.”

I attempted to do so in a very general way, by invoking “respects.” What this lets me do is say that there is no possible reading of the doctrine of the trinity that is logically consistent. God can’t have some higher-than-human interpretation of the doctrine of the trinity that makes sense, because no such interpretation exists (according to my proof.)

So, now you are saying that it is impossible for the church’s statements on revealed truths to be put into syllogistic form at all, by anyone including God. I would argue that it is tantamount to asserting that revealed truths are inherently irrational (which contradicts fides et ratio.) It is just another way of saying that logic doesn’t apply to them.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Great! Now make them jive with the rest of the catechism and you’re off to the races.

As I have said, my proof shows that it is not possible to make the two passages of the catechism (253 and 254) “jive.” Please try to keep track of what we are talking about.

From one philosopher to another, could you then express it in a language other than prose? Good logic rather demands the ability to do this. Your prosaic explanations by proxy are manifesting the very same problems inherent to the use of proxy.

Specific quotations to show you’re serious, please. You are, after all, the one with “schooling” here

 

[reggieM]

A
It is my reading of “faith and reason” that the church teachings on revealed truths belong to the “unprovable” class of statements. That is to say, we cannot prove God is a trinity given normal philosophical axioms and logic. I am perfectly fine with the church saying this. However, we can still ask if a statement is true, even if it is claimed to be unprovable. Specifically, if it can be shown that the statement does actually contradict the axioms and logic, then we know that the church’s statement cannot be “unprovably true” because it is “provably false.”

I followed you throughout and yes. What we mean by “axioms” are the principles about God that we derive by logic (there are some aspects that are understood with reason alone) – but also, the axioms are “data or knowledge about God that comes from God Himself”. That is the “Revealed Teaching”. There is no way to use human reasoning to prove the Revealed Doctrine false. A person would have to know God directly, or receive direct, true teaching from God, or actually be God Himself – to know if a claimed Revelation is true or not. Logic has limited and sometimes no value in this.

I explained already – We can conclude that a “Timeless Being” necessarily exists. That is the result of a valid logical deduction. No faith is required with that.
However, we cannot analyze “how a Being that is not bound by Time actually does things in a Timeless, Spaceless and Immaterial state”.
No analysis is possible of that – Unless – some True, Revealed Statements about that particular condition (timelessness, spacelessness, immaterial) are given.
But … we have to believe those statements are true.

So, God exists outside of Time. There is no past, no future – no succession of events. God created Time. We can’t logically evaluate how that works. “God did something yesterday which didn’t occur until next year but it has happened every day since the beginning of the world”. What??? That is illogical. But there is simply no way to evaluate the truth of a timeless condition.

God can’t have some higher-than-human interpretation of the doctrine of the trinity that makes sense, because no such interpretation exists (according to my proof.)

How do you know a higher-than-human interpretation does not exist?
Which higher-than-human interpretation have you evaluated?

So, now you are saying that it is impossible for the church’s statements on revealed truths to be put into syllogistic form at all, by anyone including God.

First, Some. It is impossible for Some Catholic teachings received by God through His revelation, to conform to logical syllogisms. I explained one already – The Timelessnes of God. Logically, it cannot work.

P Time is a succession of events
P All things must pass through the success of past, present and future
P God does not pass through a succession of Time
C Therefore, God exists

Can you see why that is illogical?

P The past is a sequence of unique historical events
P No being can exist simultaneously in the past, present and future
P God exists in the past, present and future
C Premise 1 fails - this is an illogical syllogism

I would argue that it is tantamount to asserting that revealed truths are inherently irrational (which contradicts fides et ratio.) .

I showed how it does not contradict fides et ratio. Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it state that all revealed truths are reducible to rational formulae. In fact, I quoted the Catechism where it explicitly states the opposite.

However, let’s imagine the opposite, or even a fake religion like the one I gave (or even Aristotle’s view of God, or what Muslims claim about Allah - falsely - but they claim it) …

In my new, fake religion, all of our beliefs are 100% reducible to logical formulas. That’s what Aristotle attempted to show. He ran into major problems, just as anybody who attempts this will do.

But let’s forget the actual problems - let’s just pretend it actually worked. We have a new religion where all beliefs are 100% accessible and conformable to logic.

If true - why would you call those “beliefs”? No faith is required to accept that 2+2=4.
So, a religion that is 100% reducible to logical formulae requires no faith at all. It merely requires a rational process to follow the logical formula.

If Aristotle could have achieved that, he would have loved it.

But for reasons I gave already, and many more (I’m arguing with a Muslim about the exact thing where he is concerned because the Trinity conflicts with Greek philosophy on the nature of God) – it is not possible to reduce a transcendent, immaterial, uncaused, infinite, creator God, completely to human reason.

By definition, as logic shows - a God like that Transcends reason.

If you can find a way to show me an argument using some method of thought that is Transcendent to Reason, I would like to see it.

I already asked for your higher-than-human arguments.
But obviously, it’s simply impossible by definition.

 

[reggieM]

Also, a note on axioms …
What is axiomatic is the first principles. Those are premises as given.
In an ultimate sense … (obviously, many premises are proven).
Math cannot prove its first principles.
Philosophy cannot prove them either.
We accept axioms based on intuition - the starting point for reasoning. But the intuition is not a product of reasoning. It is inbuilt in human nature, given by God. There’s no way to prove it.

 

[minkymurph]

Isn’t the devil an integral part of Catholic belief? Again, I am referring to your specific definition of God. And believing in talking trees is not compulsory. But again, using some definitions of God from this forum, if you believe in God then you believe in, for example, dancing suns. If suns can dance, then why can’t trees talk? Is there a limit on what God can do?

Yes the devil is an integral part of Catholic belief.

It is not an integral part of Judaism. To my knowledge In Judaism Satan is not God’s opposite number and evil. The Satan is an angel whose role is God’s prosecutor, and angels do not have free will.

Sun’s do not have a human body and human feet, so they cannot ‘dance’ as a human would, but sunbeams are said to ‘dance’ in terms of the patterns they make.

Talking is a form of communication. We know animals can communicate - they just don’t use human language. Interestingly, one of my former lecturer’s once said animals can understand our language. The more in intelligent in quite a complex way. Yet we do not understand their language yet be claim we are more intelligent. He suggested this is may be because we don’t listen to them.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I followed you throughout and yes. What we mean by “axioms” are the principles about God that we derive by logic (there are some aspects that are understood with reason alone) – but also, the axioms are “data or knowledge about God that comes from God Himself”. That is the “Revealed Teaching”. There is no way to use human reasoning to prove the Revealed Doctrine false. A person would have to know God directly, or receive direct, true teaching from God, or actually be God Himself – to know if a claimed Revelation is true or not. Logic has limited and sometimes no value in this.

Godel’s theorem has something to say about this as well. The alternative to having “unprovably true” statements is having inconsistent axioms. That is to say, if your axioms themselves violate the law of non-contradiction, then your can prove any statement at all, even contradictory statements. So even if you want to set up “revealed teachings” as axioms, we can still ask if they are consistent with the law of non-contradiction.

I explained already – We can conclude that a “Timeless Being” necessarily exists. That is the result of a valid logical deduction. No faith is required with that.
However, we cannot analyze “how a Being that is not bound by Time actually does things in a Timeless, Spaceless and Immaterial state”.
No analysis is possible of that – Unless – some True, Revealed Statements about that particular condition (timelessness, spacelessness, immaterial) are given.
But … we have to believe those statements are true.

So, God exists outside of Time. There is no past, no future – no succession of events. God created Time. We can’t logically evaluate how that works. “God did something yesterday which didn’t occur until next year but it has happened every day since the beginning of the world”. What??? That is illogical. But there is simply no way to evaluate the truth of a timeless condition.

I strongly reject your “logic can’t apply outside of time” thesis. Most introductory geometry classes don’t invoke time in any any way, and logic works just fine. I agree that it can be harder to think clearly about outside-of-time things, but it is definitely not impossible.

How do you know a higher-than-human interpretation does not exist?
Which higher-than-human interpretation have you evaluated?

Because “respect” in my theorem IS essentially the interpretation. Its like saying “the car is hot.” Asking the question “in what respect is the car hot?” is the same as asking “how should I interpret the statement ‘the car is hot?’”

Since my proof works for any respect, there is no possible respect that resolves the contradiction. There can be no divine “hey guys, when I said The Father is God I meant “is” in the sense…” because there is no respect that is consistent.

First, Some. It is impossible for Some Catholic teachings received by God through His revelation, to conform to logical syllogisms. I explained one already – The Timelessnes of God. Logically, it cannot work.

I can see why your syllogism fails, i.e. the assertion that all things pass through a succession of time is not something that is widely accepted by anyone, Catholic or otherwise.)

I showed how it does not contradict fides et ratio. Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it state that all revealed truths are reducible to rational formulae. In fact, I quoted the Catechism where it explicitly states the opposite.

But the fact that the church says anything at all about the revealed truths denies this. What is language if not a rational exercise?

However, let’s imagine the opposite, or even a fake religion like the one I gave (or even Aristotle’s view of God, or what Muslims claim about Allah - falsely - but they claim it) …

In my new, fake religion, all of our beliefs are 100% reducible to logical formulas. That’s what Aristotle attempted to show. He ran into major problems, just as anybody who attempts this will do.

But let’s forget the actual problems - let’s just pretend it actually worked. We have a new religion where all beliefs are 100% accessible and conformable to logic.

If true - why would you call those “beliefs”? No faith is required to accept that 2+2=4.

You’re still tilting at windmills here. I have already said I have no issue whatsoever with Catholicism teaching that their revealed truths are “unprovably true.” In your “100% logic” religion, there could still be faith-requiring “unprovably true” statements. They require faith because you wouldn’t be able to prove them true or false.

All I’m saying is that in order to make the claim that beliefs are “unprovably true” they can’t be easily shown to be false. I’m not demanding a proof of the trinity, I’m demanding that the trinity not be provably-false.