Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[jonathan_hili]

Okay, Tyrion, let’s just agree to disagree for the time being. I’ve got things to do too!

 

[Tyrion]

Okay, Tyrion, let’s just agree to disagree for the time being. I’ve got things to do too!

Thanks for the conversation.

As parting gift, I will give you another logical absurdity about God. Maybe some other time we can discuss it. Until then you can ponder it. Here comes:

1. Catholic teaching is that God is sovereign, God does not depend of anyone, God is immutable, God is absolute (not contingent).
2. Another catholic teaching is that God is not just the primary cause, but also the sustaining cause. In other words, God is not a deistic God, who “set the ball rolling” and from that onwards, he is just an observer.
3. It is stated in the cathecism and the dogmas that God actively sustains the ohysical world, and God actively participates in every action (Yes, the Holocaust, too!).
4. It is also stated that God has no “parts”, in other word, God is “simple”.
5. Therefore God’s essence is not separable from his knowledge and actions.
6. Another catholic teaching is that humans have free will, their actions are NOT “directed” by God.

Now, here is the problem.

1. We humans, do all sorts of activities.
2. During these activities we make all sorts of changes to the physical world.
3. Those changes need God’s “sustaining hand”. (A killer cannot shoot someone without God maintaining that bullet on its course).
4. Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.
5. As such some of God’s activities are CONTINGENT upon our actions.
6. But since God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence (God is simple), therefore God’s essence is not absolute, it is CONTINGENT upon our actions.

Therefore, the catholic church teaches that God is both ABSOLUTE and God is also CONTINGENT.

As beautiful a contradiction as it comes. Observe, I simply quoted catholic teachings from the catechism and the dogmas. Have fun with it.

See you, when I see you. Wishing you happy trails.

 

[Gricken]

Wow. You say you’re leaving. Then walk off with a bunch of accusastions. That doesn’t seem very nice to me.

 

[Linux]

Now, here is the problem.

…sorry I can’t see it.

1. We humans, do all sorts of activities.

True

1. During these activities we make all sorts of changes to the physical world.

True

1. Those changes need God’s “sustaining hand”.

True

(A killer cannot shoot someone without God maintaining that bullet on its course).

It is not true that God maintains a bullet on its course; at least not in an artisan puppeteer sense. Rather God sustains the reality of the bullet, and the bullet itself proceeds according to the laws of physics which God also sustains.

1. Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.

No, God creates and chooses to sustain the reality of all physical events, including your choices and the consequences thereof. He is not forced to manifest the reality of those acts, but rather he **chooses **to; and thus it cannot be true that we cause God to act, since a thing is only real because God chooses it to be and a thing can only act if it is real.

1. As such some of God’s activities are CONTINGENT upon our actions.

Nope. A thing cannot act without being **real.
**

(6) But since God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence (God is simple), therefore God’s essence is not absolute, it is CONTINGENT upon our actions.

false.

Therefore, the catholic church teaches that God is both ABSOLUTE and God is also CONTINGENT.

false.

As beautiful a contradiction as it comes.

There is no contradiction. Its all in your head.

Observe, I simply quoted catholic teachings from the catechism and the dogmas. Have fun with it.

You quoted them out of context. All you have produced is a straw-man.

See you, when I see you. Wishing you happy trails.

Good luck with the pseudo-science.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thanks for the conversation.

As parting gift, I will give you another logical absurdity about God. Maybe some other time we can discuss it. Until then you can ponder it. Here comes:

1. Catholic teaching is that God is sovereign, God does not depend of anyone, God is immutable, God is absolute (not contingent).
2. Another catholic teaching is that God is not just the primary cause, but also the sustaining cause. In other words, God is not a deistic God, who “set the ball rolling” and from that onwards, he is just an observer.
3. It is stated in the cathecism and the dogmas that God actively sustains the ohysical world, and God actively participates in every action (Yes, the Holocaust, too!).
4. It is also stated that God has no “parts”, in other word, God is “simple”.
5. Therefore God’s essence is not separable from his knowledge and actions.
6. Another catholic teaching is that humans have free will, their actions are NOT “directed” by God.

Now, here is the problem.

1. We humans, do all sorts of activities.
2. During these activities we make all sorts of changes to the physical world.
3. Those changes need God’s “sustaining hand”. (A killer cannot shoot someone without God maintaining that bullet on its course).
4. Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.
5. As such some of God’s activities are CONTINGENT upon our actions.
6. But since God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence (God is simple), therefore God’s essence is not absolute, it is CONTINGENT upon our actions.

Therefore, the catholic church teaches that God is both ABSOLUTE and God is also CONTINGENT.

As beautiful a contradiction as it comes. Observe, I simply quoted catholic teachings from the catechism and the dogmas. Have fun with it.

See you, when I see you. Wishing you happy trails.

What is absurd is your baseless assertions. Watch the door on your way out. Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

What is absurd is your baseless assertions. Watch the door on your way out. Linus2nd

As if God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence! It is impossible to refute such self-evident nonsense. I wonder why… :whackadoo:

 

[Ismael]

Murder is NOT an act. The act would be to grab a gun, point it, and pull the trigger. “Murder” is loaded term. It includes the intent, and the circumstances - and their lawfulness.

Murder is an act, but not a simple action, like ‘grabbing the gun’. Murder is not only a simple involuntary act, like stratching your butt, but it’s an intentional act, since there is intention to deprive a person of his life.

If the person is not reached by the bullet, it’s “attempted murder”, as the act was attempted but one of more actions resulted to failure.

The church has two contradictory assertions (why am I not surprised?). One is that to decide the morality of an action it is required to take all the circumstances into consideration, the “intent”, the “ways and means” (the action itself) and the “outcome”. Now this is a very well formulated rule. Then there is the other one, declaring that some acts are “evil” in and of themselves. A beautiful piece of contradiction!

?!

You are plainly wrong.

First of all there are different kinds of ‘evil’ (at least recognized by the Church). Metaphysical, physical (or material) and moral.

The church teaches that the intention to commit a certain act is at the base of morality.

A murderer is, morally, just as bad as someone who attempred murder. The fact that the murdered succeed only aggravates his position, because to the evil intent is added the damage and the grave consequences to the other person.

There are too points into declaring that “some acts are “evil” in and of themselves”:

• Some actions are always evil because they lead to material evil and suffering, even if the person performing them might not be morally responsible.
• When it comes to morality, intentionality is implied, of course.

For example, killing of an innocent child by hitting him with a car is always wrong. Now Mr. X is driving and a child suddenly appears on the street and he cannot avoid him (even if he desperately try to) and kills him.
Mr. Y sees a child on the sidewalks and intentionally hits him with his car.

In BOTH cases the ‘veicular slaughter’ act is evil, but in case of Mr. X there is no ‘moral evil’, only material evil.

In the case of Mr. Y there is also a component for moral evil.

Regarding abortion (if that was the point): Miscarriage and ‘natural’ abortions are still evil, material evils, but intnetional abortion adds moral evil.

So: Perhaps you should stop stabbing straw men.

---

It can be PROVEN, mathematically, that there is a possible world with unlimited number of moral agents, all of whom have perfectly free will, and NONE of them will commit any “evil” act, no matter how nonsensical the definition of “evil” might be.

I strongly doubt that. Actually I think the opposite is true.

---

Originally Posted by Tyrion

It all hinges upon the concept of “necessary” existence. Those who advocate that there is “necessary existence” face a very, very hard task. They need to examine ALL the possible worlds, and prove that there is “something” that exists in ALL of them. On the other hand the task of the skeptics is very easy. All he needs to do is find TWO possible worlds, which are distinct, which have NONTHING in common, and voila! - necessary existence is proven to be bogus! Can you find an example? If not, let me know.

Well… existence would exist in all possible worlds.

Perhaps this is true in some modern philosophers, but necessity does not necessarely mean ‘present in all possible worlds’.

Aquinas for example would see ‘possible’ and ‘necessary’ in very different light.

As Ed Feser puts it:
By “possible not to be,” then, what Aquinas means is something like “having a tendency to stop existing,” “inherently transitory,” or “impermanent”; and by “necessary” he just means something that is not like this, something that is everlasting, permanent, or non-transitory.

In other words ‘necessary’ is the opposite of ‘contingent’.

Everything that is contingent, i.e. that can come and go out of existence (you, your mom, an electron) is not therefore necessary.

An object is contingent he is a mix of actuality (otherwise it would not exist) and potentiality (something that can be actual but is not).

God is pure act, pure actuality. There is no contingence in Him, Therefore he’s necessary.

---

Except that they do not exist. We do not examine is a certain proposition is true or not, we must find out if they exist or not. And propositions are NOT ontological entites.

Here you mean ‘they are not material entities’. There’s a difference.

---

In a possible world without any sentient beings those “mathematical equations” simply do not exist. Those philosophers assert that we do not “create” those abstractions, merely discover them. That leads to the crazy idea that Shakespeare did not create Hamlet, he merely “discovered” the “abstract object” of Hamlet

You see equations* ( like e^0=1) are objects that are true and real even if there is no one around to discover them.

Hamlet is a very different case. Hamlet is a work of fiction, something that has not to be true.

Comparing Hamlet to a mathematical theorem is a form of fallacy of equivocation, since you are equivocating the meaning of something being ‘thought’.

On the other hand mathematical theorems and equations, which, if proven true are irrefutably true (unlike physical theores, btw) and indipendent of the physical world itself or a human mind.

*NOTE: I am not speaking here to equations applied to physics that model a certain system but of purely mathematical objects.

 

[Ismael]

The “necessary” existence is not be the opposite of “contingent” existence. Is simply would mean that it exists in all the possible worlds. Even if an object only exists in one possible world, it may not be contingent upon another object.

That’s a different definition of ‘necessary’ and a much weaker one.

Another misunderstanding. If our decisions are “free”, then they cannot be CAUSED. Sure, the existence of the thoughts is contingent upon the physical brain, but the thoughts are not CAUSED by it. As such every free decision starts a new causal chain.

This begs the question big time.

Something free is something not actualized in a deterministic way, it is not something ‘uncaused’.

Again your reasoning is fallacious here or at least you provide no scrap of proof why it should be this way.

Sure, the existence of the thoughts is contingent upon the physical brain, but the thoughts are not CAUSED by it. As such every free decision starts a new causal chain.

This assumes that thought are a purely material thing (a debatable statement)

If you try to argue against God using naturalism and materialism as starting point, then you are just doing one thing: circular reasoning.

 

[Ismael]

Thanks for the conversation.

As parting gift, I will give you another logical absurdity about God. Maybe some other time we can discuss it. Until then you can ponder it.

It’s like getting and reading ‘Richard Carrier’s thoughts’… which is worse than getting dog poop wrapped in tin foil for Christmas.

It is stated in the cathecism and the dogmas that God actively sustains the ohysical world, and God actively participates in every action (Yes, the Holocaust, too!).

This is again a straw man, as God does not ‘participate’ in the sense that people participate to a play or a football game.

1. We humans, do all sorts of activities.
2. During these activities we make all sorts of changes to the physical world.
3. Those changes need God’s “sustaining hand”. (A killer cannot shoot someone without God maintaining that bullet on its course).
4. Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.
5. As such some of God’s activities are CONTINGENT upon our actions.
6. But since God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence (God is simple), therefore God’s essence is not absolute, it is CONTINGENT upon our actions.

Therefore, the catholic church teaches that God is both ABSOLUTE and God is also CONTINGENT.

This borders the ridiculous. Maybe this kind of work might be praised as ‘brilliant’ at the secular web (well if they think Carrier is brilliant, why not haha) but here it fails to impress.

You are attacking at straw man.

The main flaw is here:

1. Those changes need God’s “sustaining hand”. (A killer cannot shoot someone without God maintaining that bullet on its course).
2. Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.
3. As such some of God’s activities are CONTINGENT upon our actions

You make the assumption, yet again, that God is something in the universe acting in it.

That is not how Catholics perceive God, at least not philosophically (emotionally is a different bag all together).

God action is first of all not a temporal one, but an eternal one.

Also he does sustain the world, but not in the sense that you think. He is not a spaghetti monster making all atoms move and vibrate with his spaghetti. That is not how it works.
Rather his causation is ‘per se’ not ‘per accidens’.

Also God is a ‘primary cause’ not a ‘secondary one’. This however does NOT imply that everything that changes is an ‘act of God’ as you see it (you see it rather more like an act of a superman).
There are many secondary causes, like thinking, that depend on God for their fundamental existence but they are independent of God accidentally.

It’s analogous to physics: there are changes, but the laws of physics themselves remain the same
(no, do not complain: the laws of physics are not real, or the laws of physics might change or the laws of physics are just a description… I was making an analogy only, not claiming it’s the same thing, because obviously it’s not)

All the changes in the world are changes in a “Cambridge change” regarding to God.

A Cambridge Change (CC) and Cambridge Property (CP) are a concept by Peter Geach.

A CC is a change opposite to REAL changes and CP to real properties.

For example. X grows a beard. That is a real change and he acquires a real property.

X has a son Y and while X remains 6’1" his son grows in length until he becomes 6’3"

The fact that X is taller, then same height and finally shorter than his sone Y is a CC. X does not change, It’s a Cambridge Change only, in relation to Y.
X acquires a CP not a real property.
All the changes happen in Y, not in X.

Hence your whole argument falls flat on his bum.

 

[Ismael]

1. But since God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence (God is simple), therefore God’s essence is not absolute, it is CONTINGENT upon our actions.

This is just so bad… God is pure act, you cannot speak of ‘activities’ like you are talking about ‘human activities’.

As if God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence! It is impossible to refute such self-evident nonsense. I wonder why…

The sad thing is that you think we are climbing mirrors but you are.

You are just doing a string of fallacies, starting with straw man, then you beg the question, fallacy of equivocation, etc…

As I said, this kind of “thinking” (if it can be called that) might impress in some circles… where they praise people who make arguments based on blue monkeys coming out of their butt… (and think they are brilliant for it)

 

[Ismael]

You see equations* ( like e^0=1) are objects that are true and real even if there is no one around to discover them.

To clarify this statement I made, I present this article (I’m not the author) on the “reality of mathematical entities” (in an Aristotelian rather than Platonic way), which I think it’s very intersting.

To note I did not assert a platonic view (but maybe that was unclear) where sets and theorems exist in a ‘third realm’ on their own, rather I support the moderate realist view, ie. that such things exist, but they are instantiated in the physical world rather then being ‘separate entities’

“Aristotelianism in the Philosophy of Mathematics” by James Franklin - Studia Neoaristotelica 8 (2011) / 1

It is also available online: web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/studianeoaristotelica.pdf

 

[jonathan_hili]

Thanks for the conversation.

As parting gift, I will give you another logical absurdity about God. Maybe some other time we can discuss it. Until then you can ponder it. Here comes:

1. Catholic teaching is that God is sovereign, God does not depend of anyone, God is immutable, God is absolute (not contingent).
2. Another catholic teaching is that God is not just the primary cause, but also the sustaining cause. In other words, God is not a deistic God, who “set the ball rolling” and from that onwards, he is just an observer.
3. It is stated in the cathecism and the dogmas that God actively sustains the ohysical world, and God actively participates in every action (Yes, the Holocaust, too!).
4. It is also stated that God has no “parts”, in other word, God is “simple”.
5. Therefore God’s essence is not separable from his knowledge and actions.
6. Another catholic teaching is that humans have free will, their actions are NOT “directed” by God.

Now, here is the problem.

1. We humans, do all sorts of activities.
2. During these activities we make all sorts of changes to the physical world.
3. Those changes need God’s “sustaining hand”. (A killer cannot shoot someone without God maintaining that bullet on its course).
4. Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.
5. As such some of God’s activities are CONTINGENT upon our actions.
6. But since God’s activities cannot be separated from God’s essence (God is simple), therefore God’s essence is not absolute, it is CONTINGENT upon our actions.

Therefore, the catholic church teaches that God is both ABSOLUTE and God is also CONTINGENT.

As beautiful a contradiction as it comes. Observe, I simply quoted catholic teachings from the catechism and the dogmas. Have fun with it.

See you, when I see you. Wishing you happy trails.

Gee, thanks for the gift, dude!

I think, though you’ve summed up the points well on the whole, the problem is with no. 4:

**4) Therefore we CAUSE God to act in a certain way, whether he likes it or not.
**

I think you misunderstand God’s permissive will. God sustains the universe and everything it, even evil, because He permits them to be. However, this doesn’t cause anything in God - He is immutable. Just because we act and our actions have consequences for ourselves and the physical world, this doesn’t cause God to act in any way, other than to sustain and permit what is happening, which He always does regardless. I’m honestly not sure where you get the idea that our actions or anything in fact causes God to act in a certain way.

 

[Tyrion]

I’m honestly not sure where you get the idea that our actions or anything in fact causes God to act in a certain way.

What is there not to understand? Let’s say I have a gun and contemplate shooting somone. If I decide against this act, then God WILL maintain the person’s “normal” existence, the beating of his heart, etc… If I decide to go ahead and commit the shooting, then God WILL maintain the bullet on its trajectory. The bullet will disrupt the beating of the heart, guide the blood through the puncture… etc. all according to God’s maintaining action.

It is MY action (as long as I have free will) which decides WHICH course God WILL take. There is a simple causal chain here: I act, I influence the physical reality - which NEEDS to be maintained by God - according to the catholic teaching.

Of course the same applies to God’s knowledge. According (again) to the catholic church, it is NOT God’s knowledge which decides our actions. On the other hand, God knows our actions, because we DO them. Again the causative chains is the same: “we do something, and God knows it”.

In both cases we are in the driver’s seat: God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions. And since God’s essence cannot be separated from God’s knowledge and actions (another catholic teaching about God’s simple nature), and since God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions, therefore God’s essence is contingent - which is contradicted by another catholic teaching about God being “immutable” and “absolute”.

What is there not to understand? Two mutually contradictory teachings.

Now to add one more thing. All those zillions of believers who utter bazillions of intercessory (supplicative) prayers day in and day out - strongly believe that their prayer MIGHT influence God. They do not believe that God is immutable. And every time their prayer “seems” to have had a positive result, they will proudly proclaim: “God answered my prayer!”.

As Ambrose Bierce said so beautifully in the Devil’s Dictionary:

*To pray *(v.): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.

 

[ivebeenshown]

It is MY action (as long as I have free will) which decides WHICH course God WILL take. There is a simple causal chain here: I act, I influence the physical reality - which NEEDS to be maintained by God - according to the catholic teaching.

If an ice cube is being held in my hand, and another person then uses a hair dryer to melt it, a small pool of water is then being held in my hand. The substance has changed, but my holding has remained constant. It is the same way with God. That substances change does not mean that his sustenance in any way changes.

Now to add one more thing. All those zillions of believers who utter bazillions of intercessory (supplicative) prayers day in and day out - strongly believe that their prayer MIGHT influence God. They do not believe that God is immutable. And every time their prayer “seems” to have had a positive result, they will proudly proclaim: “God answered my prayer!”.

Prayer is man’s response to the call of God. It is more of a gift to man from God. And as Jesus prayed: “thy will be done.”

Perhaps not everyone understands prayer in the same way, but the Church teaching is definitive.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What is there not to understand? Let’s say I have a gun and contemplate shooting somone. If I decide against this act, then God WILL maintain the person’s “normal” existence, the beating of his heart, etc… If I decide to go ahead and commit the shooting, then God WILL maintain the bullet on its trajectory. The bullet will disrupt the beating of the heart, guide the blood through the puncture… etc. all according to God’s maintaining action.

It is MY action (as long as I have free will) which decides WHICH course God WILL take. There is a simple causal chain here: I act, I influence the physical reality - which NEEDS to be maintained by God - according to the catholic teaching.

Of course the same applies to God’s knowledge. According (again) to the catholic church, it is NOT God’s knowledge which decides our actions. On the other hand, God knows our actions, because we DO them. Again the causative chains is the same: “we do something, and God knows it”.

In both cases we are in the driver’s seat: God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions. And since God’s essence cannot be separated from God’s knowledge and actions (another catholic teaching about God’s simple nature), and since God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions, therefore God’s essence is contingent - which is contradicted by another catholic teaching about God being “immutable” and “absolute”.

What is there not to understand? Two mutually contradictory teachings.

Now to add one more thing. All those zillions of believers who utter bazillions of intercessory (supplicative) prayers day in and day out - strongly believe that their prayer MIGHT influence God. They do not believe that God is immutable. And every time their prayer “seems” to have had a positive result, they will proudly proclaim: “God answered my prayer!”.

As Ambrose Bierce said so beautifully in the Devil’s Dictionary:

*To pray *(v.): To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy.

Well of course, we would not expect you to have a proper understanding of God and His nature. Men and women of Faith have no regard for your speech because they know there is no truth in the thought and speech of the biased. The Wisdom of God is accessible only to the simple and humble. From the proud and haughty He hides His Wisdom, lest they see and be converted. Linus2nd

 

[ivebeenshown]

Well of course, we would not expect you to have a proper understanding of God and His nature. Men and women of Faith have no regard for your speech because they know there is no truth in the thought and speech of the biased. The Wisdom of God is accessible only to the simple and humble. From the proud and haughty He hides His Wisdom, lest they see and be converted. Linus2nd

In this day and age I find this rhetoric unacceptable. Would it not be more simple and humble to forgo statements such as these? Is this how you would bring the light of God to the darkened soul?

 

[Love4All]

In this day and age I find this rhetoric unacceptable. Would it not be more simple and humble to forgo statements such as these? Is this how you would bring the light of God to the darkened soul?

There is a very great difference between ignorance of God and willful rejection. I have seen some on this forum who seem quite sincere in their seeking of the truth. The one Linus2nd was addressing is not one of them, by a long shot.

There comes a time when they only thing left is to shake the dust from your feet and be on your way. Sad, but true. Nevertheless, I wish you the best in your perseverance. I myself appear to be on this person’s ignore list, in the thread that I started. That is what you are dealing with.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What is there not to understand? Let’s say I have a gun and contemplate shooting somone. If I decide against this act, then God WILL maintain the person’s “normal” existence, the beating of his heart, etc… If I decide to go ahead and commit the shooting, then God WILL maintain the bullet on its trajectory. The bullet will disrupt the beating of the heart, guide the blood through the puncture… etc. all according to God’s maintaining action.

It is MY action (as long as I have free will) which decides WHICH course God WILL take. There is a simple causal chain here: I act, I influence the physical reality - which NEEDS to be maintained by God - according to the catholic teaching.

Of course the same applies to God’s knowledge. According (again) to the catholic church, it is NOT God’s knowledge which decides our actions. On the other hand, God knows our actions, because we DO them. Again the causative chains is the same: “we do something, and God knows it”.

In both cases we are in the driver’s seat: God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions. And since God’s essence cannot be separated from God’s knowledge and actions (another catholic teaching about God’s simple nature), and since God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions, therefore God’s essence is contingent - which is contradicted by another catholic teaching about God being “immutable” and “absolute”.

What is there not to understand? Two mutually contradictory teachings.

I find this argument rather peculiar because it presumes that God’s actions are nothing more than those of the causal order as if you fully understood the meaning of causes. Obviously, you don’t. Why specific effects follow certain causes has not ben explained by science nor by you. We have no idea why the causal order is the way it is. We explain it with reference to certain “laws” that describe the consistency but we have no inkling why those seemingly determined cause-effect relationships exist.

To reverse engineer the causal order and claim what is behind that order, i.e., God, must be dependent upon the contingent actions of human is not even tenable as an inductive step, let alone a logically deduced one. You cannot make a logically necessary claim based upon an observation of connections that are not logically necessary, but merely observed with some consistency.

Even allowing you your assumptions, we have no reason for thinking that God allowing certain things to occur is contingent upon human agency in anything like a causal way any more than thinking the meowing or barking of a cat or dog causes the owner to feed it. This presumes that divine agency, or even that of humans, has been reduced or constrained to the causal order, and nothing more, as soon as that agency participates in the causal order. You are presuming what you are failing to demonstrate logically.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Gee, and I thought you were off - hard to resist, ain’t it?

It is MY action (as long as I have free will) which decides WHICH course God WILL take. There is a simple causal chain here: I act, I influence the physical reality - which NEEDS to be maintained by God - according to the catholic teaching.

God will maintain the world regardless of what actions occur within it. In fact, He stands under the world, I guess you could say, is its substance, as a concrete foundation. Now if you have a foundation for a building holding up the structure, what people are doing inside the building, whether they paint the walls, put up paintings and awful modern lighting fixtures, doesn’t matter at all to the foundation: it continues maintaining the structure. That’s what God is like in a sense.

The only way I could understand God being caused to change was if God was actually involved in every instance of universal motion: God moves this bullet, God keeps my heart pumping blood, etc. but this is not how God’s maintaining the universe is understood.

Of course the same applies to God’s knowledge. According (again) to the catholic church, it is NOT God’s knowledge which decides our actions. On the other hand, God knows our actions, because we DO them. Again the causative chains is the same: “we do something, and God knows it”.

In both cases we are in the driver’s seat: God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions. And since God’s essence cannot be separated from God’s knowledge and actions (another catholic teaching about God’s simple nature), and since God’s actions and God’s knowledge are contingent upon our actions, therefore God’s essence is contingent - which is contradicted by another catholic teaching about God being “immutable” and “absolute”.

This is slightly different from the maintenance issue because it is a matter of contingency, whereas the first is not: whether I choose to do this or that action doesn’t do diddly to God maintaining our actions since He is not involved in them. However, here the criticism is that what I choose is known by God, but my choices are contingent and therefore God’s knowledge must be contingent or else changeable, which it cannot be since He is believed to be immutable.

However, God is outside of time, and therefore God knows what choices an individual would make from eternity (that is, the vantage point outside of time). Moreover, He has middle knowledge of all possible events and choices, and so while God’s knowledge of our actions, and therefore His omniscience, is to some degree dependent upon our actions, His knowledge is not contingent nor changeable, since He has always and will always (outside of time) know.

Now to add one more thing. All those zillions of believers who utter bazillions of intercessory (supplicative) prayers day in and day out - strongly believe that their prayer MIGHT influence God. They do not believe that God is immutable. And every time their prayer “seems” to have had a positive result, they will proudly proclaim: “God answered my prayer!”.

Haven’t you raised this objection before?

God would know from eternity whether the prayer was said or not and would grant it from eternity, and therefore He doesn’t change. If you don’t pray for X, He’s known that for all eternity; if you do pray X, He’s known that too from all eternity and perhaps granted the prayer. Again, God’s knowledge is dependent on us (since it is knowledge of free agents) but it is neither contingent nor changeable.

 

[Tyrion]

Gee, and I thought you were off - hard to resist, ain’t it?

You can only “blame” yourself. You are one of those extremly few catholics whose points are worth to read and contemplate. (A huge percentage of the posters are on my ignore list - permanently. And that list is growing and growing.)

The only way I could understand God being caused to change was if God was actually involved in every instance of universal motion: God moves this bullet, God keeps my heart pumping blood, etc. but this is not how God’s maintaining the universe is understood.

Yes, this is exactly what is taught. The official teaching is that God ACTIVELY cooperates in every act. Without God’s active maintenance the world world simply cease to exist. So God actively participates in every human act, be is an act of goodwill or the most horrible acts of violence. Just read the catechism and the dogmas.

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

II.9: God keeps all created things in existence.

jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

It is so ironic that people keep denying the very dogmas of the church when they are “inconvenient”. Form the dogma above it is crystal clear that God was an active participant (not just a “permissive” bystander) in the gas-chambers in the Nazi Germany.

This is slightly different from the maintenance issue because it is a matter of contingency, whereas the first is not: whether I choose to do this or that action doesn’t do diddly to God maintaining our actions since He is not involved in them. However, here the criticism is that what I choose is known by God, but my choices are contingent and therefore God’s knowledge must be contingent or else changeable, which it cannot be since He is believed to be immutable.

The solution is obvious: “God is NOT immutable”. If God’s knowledge is even partially contingent, then God is contingent.

However, God is outside of time, and therefore God knows what choices an individual would make from eternity (that is, the vantage point outside of time). Moreover, He has middle knowledge of all possible events and choices, and so while God’s knowledge of our actions, and therefore His omniscience, is to some degree dependent upon our actions, His knowledge is not contingent nor changeable, since He has always and will always (outside of time) know.

The idea of being “outside of time” already creates a whole lot of other problems, but we can disregard that for now. The “middle knowledge” you speak of (the Molinist concept) does not hold a lot of water. I know that a tossed coin will be either heads or tails, or maybe it will land on its perimeter, or will fail to land at all, if someone snatches it in mid-flight… not a big deal. If one does not know which one of the possibilities will become actual, there there is no “knowledge” to speak of. As such it is the ACTUAL outcome which makes God’s knowledge contingent, not the plethora of possibilities.

As you can see that “some of this knowledge” is contingent upon our actions - and that makes God contingent.

Let me make sure you get my point. I am not talking about God per se. I am talking about WHAT the believers (catholics) SAY ABOUT God. The difference is huge! I am not interested in proving or disproving God’s existence. I care about to point out that the teachings are inconsistent and irrational. After all there is no direct knowledge of God, and his attributes. It is all wishful thinking. There are some people who say that it is all a huge “mystery”, and one should be content with it. I have no problem with those people. The truth is that pretty much everyone believed in God - UNTIL some people wished to “prove” his existence. That was the point when the proverbial substance first hit the fan… and the fan is still spinning.