Logical absurdity and self-contradiction in the concept of God

[PRmerger]

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.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.)

He was heard at a distance muttering to himself.

Reminds me of greytown in The Great Divorce (Chapter 2):

“It seems the deuce of a town,” I volunteered, “and that’s what I can’t understand. The parts of it that I saw were so empty. Was there once a much larger population?”

“Not at all,” said my neighbour . “The trouble is that they’re so quarrelsome. As soon as anyone arrives he settles in some street. Before he’s been there twenty-four hours he quarrels with his neighbour . Before the week is over he’s quarrelled so badly that he decides to move. Very like he finds the next street empty because all the people there have quarrelled with their neighbours -and moved. So he settles in. If by any chance the street is full, he goes further. But even if he stays, it makes no odds. He’s sure to have another quarrel pretty soon and then he’ll move on again. Finally he’ll move right out to the edge of the town and build a new house. You see, it’s easy here. You’ve only got to think a house and there it is. That’s how the town keeps on growing.” “Leaving more and more empty streets?” “That’s right. And time’s sort of odd here. That place where we caught the bus is thousands of miles from the Civic Centre where all the newcomers arrive from earth. All the people you’ve met were living near the bus stop: but they’d taken centuries-of our time-to get there, by gradual removals.”

“And what about the earlier arrivals? I mean -there must be people who came from earth to your town even longer ago.”

“That’s right. There are. They’ve been moving on and on. Getting further apart. They’re so far off by now that they could never think of coming to the bus stop at all. Astronomical distances. There’s a bit of rising ground near where I live and a chap has a telescope. You can see the lights of the inhabited houses, where those old ones live, millions of miles away. Millions of miles from us and from one another. Every now and then they move further still. That’s one of the disappointments. I thought you’d meet interesting historical characters. But you don’t: they’re too far away.”

“Would they get to the bus stop in time, if they ever set out?”

“Well-theoretically. But it’d be a distance of light-years. And they wouldn’t want to by now: not those old chaps like Tamberlaine and Genghis Khan, or Julius Caesar, or Henry the Fifth.”

“Wouldn’t want to?”

“That’s right. The nearest of those old ones is Napoleon. We know that because two chaps made the journey to see him. They’d started long before I came, of course, but I was there when they came back. About fifteen thousand years of our time it took them. We’ve picked out the house by now. Just a little pin prick of light and nothing else near it for millions of miles.”

“But they got there?”

“That’s right. He’d built himself a huge house all in the Empire style-rows of windows flaming with light, though it only shows as a pin prick from where I live.” “Did they see Napoleon?” “That’s right. They went up and looked through one of the windows. Napoleon was there all right.” “What was he doing?” “Walking up and down-up and down all the time-left-right, left-right-never stopping for a moment. The two chaps watched him for about a year and he never rested. And muttering to himself all the time. ‘It was Soult’s fault. It was Ney’s fault. It was Josephine’s fault. It was the fault of the Russians. It was the fault of the English.’ Like that all the time. Never stopped for a moment. A little, fat man and he looked kind of tired. But he didn’t seem able to stop it.”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You can only “blame” yourself.
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.

…

The truth is that pretty much everyone believed in God - UNTIL some people wished to “prove” his existence.

The problem is that you want to intrepret Catholic Theology according to your personal logic. And an aside - the " problem " is not that almost everyone at one time believed in the existence of God and then " someone " wanted to prove the existence of God. Not everyone believed in God when Christianity began, nor even when Catholic Theologians set about " proving " the existence of God. And of course the problem of evil is that it is the result of human choice and God’s knowledge of this and his allowance of it does not imply that God’s " cooperation " makes him " guilty. " His eternal decision is to safe guard human freedom. In a certain sense this does imply that God’s action is contingent on the human choice but this does not imply a dependence of God’s Essence on man’s choices. This is a question that requires a deeper discussion.
That aside, God has something to say to you in the words of Job.

CHAPTER 38
1Then the LORD* answered Job out of the storm and said:

2Who is this who darkens counsel

with words of ignorance?

3Gird up your loins* now, like a man;

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!a
4Where were you when I founded the earth?

Tell me, if you have understanding.

5Who determined its size? Surely you know?

Who stretched out the measuring line for it?

6Into what were its pedestals sunk,

and who laid its cornerstone,

7While the morning stars sang together

and all the sons of God* shouted for joy?

8Who shut within doors the sea,

when it burst forth from the womb,
9When I made the clouds its garment

and thick darkness its swaddling bands?

10When I set limits for it

and fastened the bar of its door,

11And said: Thus far shall you come but no farther,

and here shall your proud waves stop?

12Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the morning

and shown the dawn its place

13For taking hold of the ends of the earth,

till the wicked are shaken from it?

14The earth is changed as clay by the seal,

and dyed like a garment;

15But from the wicked their light is withheld,

and the arm of pride is shattered.

16Have you entered into the sources of the sea,

or walked about on the bottom of the deep?

17Have the gates of death been shown to you,

or have you seen the gates of darkness?

18Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth?

Tell me, if you know it all.

19What is the way to the dwelling of light,

and darkness—where is its place?

20That you may take it to its territory

and know the paths to its home?

21You know, because you were born then,

and the number of your days is great!*
22Have you entered the storehouses of the snow,

and seen the storehouses of the hail

23Which I have reserved for times of distress,

for a day of war and battle?
24What is the way to the parting of the winds,

where the east wind spreads over the earth?

25Who has laid out a channel for the downpour

and a path for the thunderstorm

26To bring rain to uninhabited land,

the unpeopled wilderness;

27To drench the desolate wasteland

till the desert blooms with verdure?

28Has the rain a father?

Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29Out of whose womb comes the ice,

and who gives the hoarfrost its birth in the skies,

30When the waters lie covered as though with stone

that holds captive the surface of the deep?

31Have you tied cords to the Pleiades,*
or loosened the bonds of Orion?

32Can you bring forth the Mazzaroth in their season,

or guide the Bear with her children?

33Do you know the ordinances of the heavens;

can you put into effect their plan on the earth?

34Can you raise your voice to the clouds,

for them to cover you with a deluge of waters?

35Can you send forth the lightnings on their way,

so that they say to you, “Here we are”?

36Who gives wisdom to the ibis,

and gives the rooster* understanding?

37Who counts the clouds with wisdom?

Who tilts the water jars of heaven

38So that the dust of earth is fused into a mass

and its clods stick together?

39Do you hunt the prey for the lion

or appease the hunger of young lions,

40While they crouch in their dens,

or lie in ambush in the thicket?

41Who provides nourishment for the raven

when its young cry out to God,
wandering about without food?

CHAPTER 40
1The LORD then answered Job and said:

2Will one who argues with the Almighty be corrected?

Let him who would instruct God give answer!
3Then Job answered the LORD and said:

4* Look, I am of little account; what can I answer you?

I put my hand over my mouth.

5I have spoken once, I will not reply;

twice, but I will do so no more.

6Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said:

7Gird up your loins now, like a man.

I will question you, and you tell me the answers!

8* Would you refuse to acknowledge my right?

Would you condemn me that you may be justified?

9Have you an arm like that of God,

or can you thunder with a voice like his?

10Adorn yourself with grandeur and majesty,

and clothe yourself with glory and splendor.

11Let loose the fury of your wrath;

look at everyone who is proud and bring them down.

12Look at everyone who is proud, and humble them.

Tear down the wicked in their place,

13bury them in the dust together;

in the hidden world imprison them.
…

Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

You can only “blame” yourself.

Oh well, I’ll put it on my list for confession.

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…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.

Of course, God actively cooperates with every action, but you’ve got to understand what Catholics mean by this language. Through His permissive will and His nature as the ground of all being, God sustains everything and all action, even, as you rightly say, evil actions and wicked people. However, “cooperation” in a Catholic sense doesn’t mean “approval” or “support” but something like “involvement” (not really, “participate” as you stated, which implies an active involvement, a doing, God rather actively cooperates, which is more of a passive involvement). God is actively involved in every action because without Him: His sustaining things, giving them life and energy, maintaining order, etc. no action could take place.

Yet, going to your original point, this still doesn’t make God contingent and changeable because, unlike what some Calvinists teach, the Church doesn’t hold that God is actually doing the action, that is, that my moving my hand is actually God moving my hand. You could, in a way, say that, “Yes, God does move your hand” but this is in a secondary sense.

As for God as a bystander in the gas-chambers in Nazi Germany… Well, I have no doubt, executed alongside the six million Jews, Catholics, and others who fell under Nazi butchery.

Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.

(Matt 25:45, RSV)

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

Who said God’s knowledge is partially contingent, Tyrion?

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.

It still doesn’t follow that God’s knowledge is contingent; dependent on our choosing, yes, but not contingent. God’s knowledge would only be contingent if the way He knew was after the fact, and I think what you say makes this obvious:

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

This would make God dependent on our actions for knowledge of them, but since He would know eternally what we choose to freely do, His knowledge is necessary. If I choose to do X, but then said, “Nah, I’ll do Y” God’s knowledge of my choices and actions are certainly dependent on these choices and actions, but His knowledge of them is known eternally and necessarily.

As an analogy (and probably not a very good one), let’s take someone who has just finished reading a novel. Now, the actions of the characters in the novel are certainly “free” from the reader - he doesn’t determine what they do or say - and what he knows about their actions is dependent on what they have done and said. But, it is difficult to see how the reader’s knowledge of what the characters have done and said at the time of having finished reading the novelcould be “contingent”: the reader necessarily now knows what the characters are going to do and say. Well, God is like this reader, only He has read the novel from eternity.

Okay, I need a drink!:coffeeread:

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Oh well, I’ll put it on my list for confession.

Of course, God actively cooperates with every action, but you’ve got to understand what Catholics mean by this language. Through His permissive will and His nature as the ground of all being, God sustains everything and all action, even, as you rightly say, evil actions and wicked people. However, “cooperation” in a Catholic sense doesn’t mean “approval” or “support” but something like “involvement” (not really, “participate” as you stated, which implies an active involvement, a doing, God rather actively cooperates, which is more of a passive involvement). God is actively involved in every action because without Him: His sustaining things, giving them life and energy, maintaining order, etc. no action could take place.

Yet, going to your original point, this still doesn’t make God contingent and changeable because, unlike what some Calvinists teach, the Church doesn’t hold that God is actually doing the action, that is, that my moving my hand is actually God moving my hand. You could, in a way, say that, “Yes, God does move your hand” but this is in a secondary sense.

As for God as a bystander in the gas-chambers in Nazi Germany… Well, I have no doubt, executed alongside the six million Jews, Catholics, and others who fell under Nazi butchery.

(Matt 25:45, RSV)

Who said God’s knowledge is partially contingent, Tyrion?

It still doesn’t follow that God’s knowledge is contingent; dependent on our choosing, yes, but not contingent. God’s knowledge would only be contingent if the way He knew was after the fact, and I think what you say makes this obvious:

This would make God dependent on our actions for knowledge of them, but since He would know eternally what we choose to freely do, His knowledge is necessary. If I choose to do X, but then said, “Nah, I’ll do Y” God’s knowledge of my choices and actions are certainly dependent on these choices and actions, but His knowledge of them is known eternally and necessarily.

As an analogy (and probably not a very good one), let’s take someone who has just finished reading a novel. Now, the actions of the characters in the novel are certainly “free” from the reader - he doesn’t determine what they do or say - and what he knows about their actions is dependent on what they have done and said. But, it is difficult to see how the reader’s knowledge of what the characters have done and said at the time of having finished reading the novelcould be “contingent”: the reader necessarily now knows what the characters are going to do and say. Well, God is like this reader, only He has read the novel from eternity.

Okay, I need a drink!:coffeeread:

Very good. I especially liked :

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

This would make God dependent on our actions for knowledge of them, but since He would know eternally what we choose to freely do, His knowledge is necessary. If I choose to do X, but then said, “Nah, I’ll do Y” God’s knowledge of my choices and actions are certainly dependent on these choices and actions, but His knowledge of them is known eternally and necessarily. "

Linus2nd

 

[Tyrion]

As an analogy (and probably not a very good one), let’s take someone who has just finished reading a novel. Now, the actions of the characters in the novel are certainly “free” from the reader - he doesn’t determine what they do or say - and what he knows about their actions is dependent on what they have done and said. But, it is difficult to see how the reader’s knowledge of what the characters have done and said at the time of having finished reading the novelcould be “contingent”: the reader necessarily now knows what the characters are going to do and say. Well, God is like this reader, only He has read the novel from eternity.

Your analogy is good. I preferred the “movie” analogy, but they are essentially the same. The spectator of the movie is “outside” the time of the actors, or performers, yet he cannot know the ending until it actually happens. So the idea that God is outside our time, does not explain how could he know our actions, before we perform them. But this is not important right now.

Let’s say that God can “know” all our actions, without “causing” them - so our free will is intact. Let’s say that God “maintains” the world, without “causing” our actions. I am not going to question how is that possible.

Looking at a purely analytical standpoint, this is the picture:

There are all our actions, and there is God’s knowledge of them. The catholic teaching says that there is a complete and total ONE-to-ONE correspondence (or relationship) between our actions and God’s knowledge. There are only four possible ways this could happen:

1. God knows our actions BECAUSE we do them. (Does not matter, WHEN he knows them, before, during or after we do them - from eternity for all I care). In other words, there is a causative relationship there. “Our actions ==> God’s knowledge”.
2. We do our actions, BECAUSE God “makes” us to do them, so that our actions will conform to his knowledge. The causative relationship is: “God’s knowledge ==> Our actions”.
3. There is absolutely no causative relationship, only a colossal, incredible set of coincidences. We do our actions, and God JUST HAPPENS to have a corresponding knowledge, without either one causing the other. This is a “lottery” of cosmic scale.
4. There is some “outside” causative agent, sort of a “Super God” or “God++”, who causes BOTH our actions and God’s knowledge.

That is it. Logically there are no more options. (I remember that some idiots tried to wiggle out of this problem by stipulating that this is only true according to “our” logic. These are the times when I seriously wish that stupidity would be very painful!)

Obviously number 2, 3 and 4 must be discarded. Number 2 would deny our free will. Number 3 is ridiculous, ir would assume that God is “blind” but extemely lucky. Number 4 I only mentioned for the sake of completeness, no one would seriously suggest it.

Only number 1) remains: God’s knowledge is caused by our actions. If you would simply present this problem, without the logical conclusion, every one would agree that “God knows our actions because we do them”. The only problem comes, when I point out that this makes God’s knowledge contingent upon our actions, and as such it makes God itself contingent. This irrefutable logical conclusion is unacceptable for the believers.

Again, this has nothing to do with God’s existence. It only points out that the concept of God is logically problematic. The believers want to define God to be sooo incredibly “majestic”, that they shot themselves in the foot by trying to make God too “superb”.

(By the way, the same line of reasoning could be applied to God’s “maintaining” the world.)

Now you can take two drinks.

 

[Gricken]

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.

This is probably one of the best answers I’ve heard yet.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Only number 1) remains: God’s knowledge is caused by our actions. If you would simply present this problem, without the logical conclusion, every one would agree that “God knows our actions because we do them”. The only problem comes, when I point out that this makes God’s knowledge contingent upon our actions, and as such it makes God itself contingent. This irrefutable logical conclusion is unacceptable for the believers.

But surely you mean “dependent” and not “contingent”? If God’s knowledge was contingent on our actions, that means His knowledge would not be necessary, that is: He doesn’t necessarily know X, He only knows X if I do it or think it, which makes God’s knowledge possible but not necessary. Yet I don’t think this is correct because, knowing from eternity X, God necessarily knows X. Even if I were to do Y and not X, God would still know that from eternity. It’s tough to explain, but whatever X you factor in as God being dependent on for knowledge, He will always know this X, so it can’t be contingent. I agree, though, that His knowledge is logically dependent on us (even though, this time might only be half-true).

I’m not seeing the logical problem here.

Let’s return to the reader and the novel. The reader’s knowledge of X’s actions is dependent on the character doing Y and Z in the novel. But let’s say X suddenly develops free will in the novel, and can do whatever he likes, affecting everything else in the novel and changing the story. Now, this would make the reader’s knowledge contingent because of the change. But if the reader knew even before reading the novel that the change would take place, what changes would take place, and them having taken place then the reader’s knowledge isn’t contingent, it’s necessary.

 

[Tyrion]

But surely you mean “dependent” and not “contingent”?

There is no difference. The two words are interchangable. The important factor is the causative relationship - not what we call it.

If God’s knowledge was contingent on our actions, that means His knowledge would not be necessary, that is: He doesn’t necessarily know X, He only knows X if I do it or think it, which makes God’s knowledge possible but not necessary.

Exactly.

Yet I don’t think this is correct because, knowing from eternity X, God necessarily knows X.

“Necessary” would mean that it is the same in EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD. If, in another possible world, the same agent would act differently - and this is the corollary of free will - then God would know “that” - and as such his knowledge is not “necessary” - it is contingent upon OR dependent upon what the agent does.

Even if I were to do Y and not X, God would still know that from eternity.

Ok.

It’s tough to explain, but whatever X you factor in as God being dependent on for knowledge, He will always know this X, so it can’t be contingent.

The point is that he would ONLY know X, IF we actually performed “X”.

I agree, though, that His knowledge is logically dependent on us (even though, this time might only be half-true).

Huh? Why “half true?”

I’m not seeing the logical problem here.

The problem may well be your usage of “necessary” and “contingent”. Something is “necessary” if it happens / exists in ALL the possible worlds. Everything else is “contingent”. This is the usage in this context.

Let’s return to the reader and the novel. The reader’s knowledge of X’s actions is dependent on the character doing Y and Z in the novel. But let’s say X suddenly develops free will in the novel, and can do whatever he likes, affecting everything else in the novel and changing the story. Now, this would make the reader’s knowledge contingent because of the change. But if the reader knew even before reading the novel that the change would take place, what changes would take place, and them having taken place then the reader’s knowledge isn’t contingent, it’s necessary.

Of course it is… it would STLL be dependent upon - which is the same as contingent upon the character’s action. There is still the same causative relationship involved… the “character acts” THEREFORE the “reader knows”.

 

[jonathan_hili]

There is no difference. The two words are interchangable. The important factor is the causative relationship - not what we call it.

There is a difference: “dependent” implies causality, whereas “contingent” implies possibility. For example, that a shape is triangular depends on it having three angles and this is a necessary truth, not a contingent one.

“Necessary” would mean that it is the same in EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD. If, in another possible world, the same agent would act differently - and this is the corollary of free will - then God would know “that” - and as such his knowledge is not “necessary” - it is contingent upon OR dependent upon what the agent does.

Yes, His knowledge is dependent on our actions or thoughts but not contingent on. In all possible worlds, God would necessarily know what we are going to do or think from eternity. Not only that, He would know all possible states of acting and thinking by an agent and if or if not these were actualised. God’s knowledge would only be contingent if He could possibly not know, but this is not the case.

The point is that he would ONLY know X, IF we actually performed “X”.

He’d always know X because He’s outside of time. If X was to be, for us, performed 5 billion years in the future, God - in relation to us - would know it now. And yes, He’d know X if it were performed, but again, this is dependency not contingency. Our actions are contingent, but God’s knowledge of them is not, because He could not possibly not know them.

Huh? Why “half true?”

To be honest, I can’t precisely remember what I meant by this, but I’ll hazard a guess. God doesn’t put Himself in a position of absolute dependency because, in a sense, His dependency on our actions and thoughts for His knowledge is a kind of divine surrender to creatures of free will. It’s a risk. Therefore, though He puts Himself in this position of dependency, it is not a fundamental dependency.

The problem may well be your usage of “necessary” and “contingent”. Something is “necessary” if it happens / exists in ALL the possible worlds. Everything else is “contingent”. This is the usage in this context.

That’s fine as it still doesn’t make God’s knowledge contingent since He would know in all possible worlds. In fact, He even knows what all possible worlds could be, what actions and thoughts you could perform, and if you would actually do so, from all eternity.

Of course it is… it would STLL be dependent upon - which is the same as contingent upon the character’s action. There is still the same causative relationship involved… the “character acts” THEREFORE the “reader knows”.

Dependent: yes. Contingent: no.

(Maybe I’ll put that on a placard!)

 

[Ismael]

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.

As it was already stated elsewhere (but you simply ignore what debunks your statements) is that God ‘sustaining all creatures’ does not mean that what it is created has also independent action in some regards.

The fact that:

*II.9: God keeps all created things in existence.
69. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
70. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)
*

it is not to be intended as God is the direct accidental cause for all things, but rather God is the ‘first cause of all things’ and that the existence of all things.

It is thereby wrong to thing God move everything by remote-controle, like he’s the direct accidental cause of everything.

MOREOVER: Everything that changes depends upon God, but not viceversa.

All changes regarding God are so-called ‘Cabridge changes’ (a concept first mentione by Pter Geach). A Cambridge change is a relative change where one of the parties involved does not change at all.

For example if a person becomes taller than me but I stay the same height, I undergo a ‘Cambrigde change’, not a REAL change, since it is not I that changes but the other person.

The same with God and creation. Creation changes, being contingent, but God does not. All the ‘changes’ that regard God are only apparent Cambridge changes, not real changes.

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

This is also WRONG.

This is putting God in time, a being along other beings, but this is incorrect.

God’s knowledge is also eternal and an immutable. The problem is that our knowledge is not and that we are (due to our contingency) tome-bound, i.e. since we are beings who live in e cartain moment in space-time, moving from past to future, we can hardly understand timelessness (or not at all).

It is however wrong to apply our contingency to God who is not contingent.

It’s a grave fallacy, like treating an electron in an atom as a small bead.

The idea of being “outside of time” already creates a whole lot of other problems, but we can disregard that for now.

Problems for you, because it invalidates your own straw man, not for Classical Theists.

You are simply close minded in your thinking, like a person who refutes to accept the stochastic nature of Quantum Mechanics an insists to treat things with classical determinism.

I am not talking about God per se. I am talking about WHAT the believers (catholics) SAY ABOUT God. The difference is huge!

Your problem is that you are ATTACKING STRAW MEN.

You basically take ONE sentence out of a “dogma list” but ignore completely where that sentence comes from and what context it exists.

That’s just the wrong thing to do. In any discipline.

It’s like saying that it is ridiculous to say quarks have ‘colors’ thinkiing that ‘color’ in that context mean what we noramlly refer as color and not what it really means in QCD; a quantum number.

Why don’t you read a few works on thinkers like Aquinas, Anselfm and others?

Only number 1) remains: God’s knowledge is caused by our actions.

As said above: No.

This is not proposed by catholic doctrine. Classical theism has always regarded God outside of time BECAUSE he’s immutable.

Time implies change.

All we do and choose to do is known eternally by God, since he is not a time-bound contingent being.

Perhaps you have an hard time grasping the concept, but that is your problem.

As long as you go on peddling your straw men there is no serious discussion. Inform yourself better.

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.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Perhaps you ought to study a bit of history of philosophy and theology as well

This is a classical idea that we started proving just 10 years ago that God existed or that people in the past could not reason.

I think rather: everyone believed in God - UNTIL some people started creating staw men and ad hoc statements to deny there was a God. That is actually what happened…

 

[Ismael]

Yes, His knowledge is dependent on our actions or thoughts but not contingent on. In all possible worlds, God would necessarily know what we are going to do or think from eternity. Not only that, He would know all possible states of acting and thinking by an agent and if or if not these were actualised. God’s knowledge would only be contingent if He could possibly not know, but this is not the case.

I think ‘dependent’ is also a wrong term or at least it can give a wrong impression.

If X depends on Y it means that there is some causation where Y causes something in X.

In that sense God does not depend on our actions. Indeed God knowledge is eternal and as I stated in my previous posts all changes regarding God are so-called ‘Cambridge changes’ (or apparent changes, if you prefer).

That’s fine as it still doesn’t make God’s knowledge contingent since He would know in all possible worlds. In fact, He even knows what all possible worlds could be, what actions and thoughts you could perform, and if you would actually do so, from all eternity.

Remember that ‘necessary’ does not necessarily (no pun intended) mean “must be present in all possible worlds”.

This is more a modern conception of necessity.

For classical theists necessary is the contrary of contingent: i.e. that has not contingency present whatsoever.

I know that these days arguing “from different worlds” is very popular, but I find it somewhat akward and inelegant (although I am not saying it is necessarily wrong)

---

Be careful of semantics, it can be a death trap… actually is THE death trap, since the same words can mean different things in different contexts, or viceversa different words might mean the same thing.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Obviously number 2, 3 and 4 must be discarded. Number 2 would deny our free will. Number 3 is ridiculous, ir would assume that God is “blind” but extemely lucky. Number 4 I only mentioned for the sake of completeness, no one would seriously suggest it.

I would not discard number 2. The free will of man is nothing more than his power to act according to his own rational judgments. These judgments are influenced by other causes – his previous mood, the weather, other people, alcohol, etc. And God, being the first cause of all things, is in a certain sense to cause of man’s actions.

But the evil of sin is with the actor. God knows that man will sin, yet it is man who sins and not God. A parent knows that his children will sin, yet he does not sin in procreating.

 

[Love4All]

Only number 1) remains: God’s knowledge is caused by our actions.

ALL knowledge is contingent on fact. That is part of the definition of knowledge. It doesn’t make God contingent on anything.

NOTE: If anyone would like to insert this into the argument to Tyrion, please do so, he has me blocked. Thanks!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

You folks are being played like a violine. Don’t you realize " T " will never agree with you. He is a committed Ideologue. If he gives you an ounce, he loses.

We know that God’s Omniscience allows him to see all our possible acts and to arrange for every conceivable contingency. " T " thinks this makes God dependent on his creatures and thus God ( or our understanding of God ) could not exist because he wouldn’t be who Christianity says he is.

But we know that God’s foreknowledge of every event and his Provident action for every contingency don’t make God dependent on anything. He has Willed all things necessary for the fulfillment of his Divine Plan. His plan will be accomplished whether or not we cooperate. His Will is One, Eternal, Infinite Act. Linus2nd

 

[jonathan_hili]

I think ‘dependent’ is also a wrong term or at least it can give a wrong impression.

If X depends on Y it means that there is some causation where Y causes something in X.

In that sense God does not depend on our actions. Indeed God knowledge is eternal and as I stated in my previous posts all changes regarding God are so-called ‘Cambridge changes’ (or apparent changes, if you prefer).

I disagree. Firstly, I don’t think “dependence” is equivalent to “causation”. For example, I dependence on oxygen to breathe, but oxygen doesn’t cause me to breathe - rather, my biological system inhaling oxygen. Likewise, God depends on our actions and thoughts to have knowledge of them (or else you’ve got to say that God could have knowledge of our actions and thoughts without us having these actions and thoughts, which means God’s knowledge would be faulty), but God’s knowledge isn’t caused by them: God knows all things of His nature; and it happens that our thoughts and actions are part of all things.

 

[Tyrion]

I disagree. Firstly, I don’t think “dependence” is equivalent to “causation”. For example, I dependence on oxygen to breathe, but oxygen doesn’t cause me to breathe - rather, my biological system inhaling oxygen. Likewise, God depends on our actions and thoughts to have knowledge of them (or else you’ve got to say that God could have knowledge of our actions and thoughts without us having these actions and thoughts, which means God’s knowledge would be faulty), but God’s knowledge isn’t caused by them: God knows all things of His nature; and it happens that our thoughts and actions are part of all things.

You are playing with two different meanings of “dependence”. Your current existence was physically “dependent” on your mother’s nursing and feeding you (or someone else’s for that matter). Also your existence was logically dependent - aka contingent - upon your parents activity of having a specific sperm meet a specific egg. Moreover, the way you turned out was also dependent and contingent upon the way your perents raised you, they educated you - especially in your formative years. Without those specific teachings and care you would still be (physically) around, but you would be a different person.

This is the proper analogy for God’s knowledge. God is not dependent upon our existence, but his knowledge IS. And that logical dependency also constitutes a logical contingency. Without you acting a certain way, God’s overall knowledge would be different. Whether that knoweldge was “there” before you were even conceived is a different and inconsequential matter.

If you dig in your heels, then we can (again) try to wrap up this conversation. What I suggest is this. In a few weeks try to posit a poll about the difference between the meaning of “contingent” and “dependent”. Make sure you do it in an “abstract” manner, so as not to distort the result. For example present it as: "there are two events, “A” and “B”. “B” cannot happen with “A”. What is the proper way to call this relationship? Is there a difference between “B is dependent upon A”, and “B is contingent upon A”? And observe the result.

 

[jonathan_hili]

This is the proper analogy for God’s knowledge. God is not dependent upon our existence, but his knowledge IS. And that logical dependency also constitutes a logical contingency. Without you acting a certain way, God’s overall knowledge would be different. Whether that knoweldge was “there” before you were even conceived is a different and inconsequential matter.

Okay, let’s put it this way.

The sum of 1+1=2. There is a logical dependence of the sum “2” on “1+1” in this equation. However, I wouldn’t then say that “2” is contingent on “1+1”. “2” as an integer stands alone and is necessary. In fact, “2” is necessarily “1+1”. Similarly, God’s knowledge of our thoughts and actions is dependent on our doing these thoughts and actions, but this does not make God’s knowledge contingent.

I can’t agree with your use of “contingent” because this means “possible but not necessary in all worlds”. Yet, you would then have to say that the sum “2” is “possible but not necessary in all words” with regards the equation “1+1=” and this is ridiculous. Just as “2” is a necessary solution, so is God’s knowledge.

 

[Tyrion]

Okay, let’s put it this way.

The sum of 1+1=2. There is a logical dependence of the sum “2” on “1+1” in this equation. However, I wouldn’t then say that “2” is contingent on “1+1”. “2” as an integer stands alone and is necessary. In fact, “2” is necessarily “1+1”. Similarly, God’s knowledge of our thoughts and actions is dependent on our doing these thoughts and actions, but this does not make God’s knowledge contingent.

I can’t agree with your use of “contingent” because this means “possible but not necessary in all worlds”. Yet, you would then have to say that the sum “2” is “possible but not necessary in all words” with regards the equation “1+1=” and this is ridiculous. Just as “2” is a necessary solution, so is God’s knowledge.

Now you are “playing” with the multiple meanings of “contingent”. The current meaning of “contingent” has nothing to do with different possible worlds. It has everything to do with the simple concept of “a child’s existence is contingent upon the existence of the parents”. In other words, if the parents were not there… the child would not be there either. Now, I can understand your reluctance of accepting this simple concept. After all, IF you would accept it, it would throw a monkey-wrench into the “spokes” of the catholic concept of God. As I said before, God may very well exist, but the (christian / catholic) concept of the attributes of God would have to be re-evaluated. And to criticize these fundamental catholic concepts is to advocate “heresy”, which I can do, but you cannot. The price is too high for you. So, let’s drop it.

By the way, the concept of “1 + 1 = 2” is also contingent, and it has nothing to do with possible worlds either. It is simply a definition in “usual” algebra and thus it is contingent upon the axioms. However in Boolean logic, “1 + 1 = 1” and NOT “2”. It is funny that non-mathematicians think that mathematics is “absolute”. Not at all. If you look at any “theorem”, you will see the following construct: "Let X be… (whatever). FROM THAT it follows that (whatever)… ". All the theorems are contingent upon a “starting premise”.

 

[ivebeenshown]

All the theorems are contingent upon a “starting premise”.

Thanks for the boolean example. I will say, though, that in boolean logic, ‘1’ represents something else besides what it represents in mathematics. 1 + 1 is always 2 if 1 is a numeric value, while 1 + 1 is always true if 1 is a statement of ‘true’ (usually distinguished by use of the bitwise AND operator rather than the additional operator.)

But we believe that God is in himself the ‘starting premise’ of all things. His knowledge is not contingent upon our free will, but vice versa, since free will is just the fact that we reason between outcomes and choose to follow one.