St. Thomas' Motion Argument and Modern Physics

[belorg]

No, I don’t have to account for what I never said. I will maintain that,

1. God is not the world.
2. “God == the world” is pantheism.
3. Catholic Doctrine is not pantheist.
4. Your claim was that you were starting with Catholic Doctrine.

To be crystal clear, to remove any possibility that you can escape the logic here, I will state unequivocally that,

A state of affairs with only God IS a state of affairs with only God.

Your error is in your equivocation between “a state of affairs with only God,” and God. The reality, by contrast, and what I have actually been saying all along is the following:

1. God IS God.
2. A state of affairs with only God IS a state of affairs with only God.
3. A state of affairs with only God IS NOT God.
4. God IS NOT a state of affairs with only God.

Your error here is in attributing change, not to the situation, but to some being or substance. You are trying to make Nothing into Something, so as to assert that “there must be something else changing.” It will be helpful here to spell it out for you again in black and white, so that we can have that crystal clarity that characterizes the inescapability of logical truth.

1. Something is something.
2. Nothing is nothing.
3. Something is not nothing.
4. Nothing is not something.

It is an error to treat “no cats” as some cats. No cats is exactly the same lack of anything as no dogs. One cat, by contrast, is different from one dog. That is because things have characteristics, and a dog has different characteristics than a cat. But Nothing, does not have characteristics, because it is not any thing. So “no cats” is exactly the same as “no dogs” — both are nothing at all.

It is an error to treat “no cats” or “no dogs” as things having properties. “Nothing” has no properties. Yet, the phrase “no cats” has meaning. How can this be? The meaning of the phrase “no cats” cannot be found in the properties of any object, but rather in the semantics of a description of a situation. We are not talking about a catless object. We are only asserting that the situation is that all the cats have somehow gone missing. So really, whenever we posit, “nothing,” we are invoking possible worlds. The situation of “nothing” IS the situation of “nothing.” We have not produced an object, we have produced a semantical description. It is useful to produce semantical descriptions because a description is something that can be talked about. So:

1. Something is something.
2. Nothing is nothing.
3. Something is not nothing.
4. Nothing is not something.
5. A description of something is something.
6. A description of something is not the same thing as the thing described. (I.e. a description of a cat is not the cat.)
7. A description of a situation wherein there is nothing, is something.
8. A description of a situation wherein there is nothing, is not the same thing as the “nothing” described. Nothing is, in fact, nothing. Nothing is not a thing at all, so it could not possibly be the same thing as anything.

But descriptions are things. If we have a description of a situation, there is something we can talk about, namely the description of the situation. This is true even if the situation we are describing is the situation where there is nothing. The description of the situation wherein there is nothing, is something — it is a description of a situation.

Now, in set theory and number theory, we have exact correlations between sets and descriptions of situations. The situation wherein there is nothing is precisely mathematically described as {}. The null set. The empty set. The set with no members. The situation wherein there is nothing. 0. All these phrases are equivalent. They all describe the same empty set. They are all real descriptions of the situation wherein there is nothing.

{} = 0.

But the description, is something, not nothing. The description of the situation wherein there is nothing, is something, not nothing. The description of the situation wherein there is nothing, can also be represented precisely, mathematically, as {0}.

Now, PAY ATTENTION, as this is where your error comes in.

{0} =/= {}.
{0} =/= 0.

The description of the situation wherein there is nothing is not nothing. The set containing the empty set as its sole member is not the empty set.

{{}} =/= {}.

From here, it is facile to observe that, in general,

{x} =/= x.

The set containing x is not the same thing as x. This applies whether the value of x is positive, negative, or null. The set containing the empty set is not the empty set. The description of the situation wherein there is nothing is not nothing. The set containing x is not x. The description of the situation wherein there is x is not x.

The set containing God Alone is not God Alone. The description of the situation wherein there is God Alone is not God Alone.

wG =/= G.

Your move.

Do you have something new to add, Love, because I have been over this before and it is completely irrelevant, so there is nothin left to discuss.

 

[belorg]

I apologize for my tone. belorg, I apologize if I’ve offended you.

Apology accepted.

 

[Love4All]

Do you have something new to add, Love, because I have been over this before and it is completely irrelevant, so there is nothin left to discuss.

My solid, logical refutation of your entire thesis is “irrelevant.”

Good bye.

 

[yppop]

Do you have something new to add, Love, because I have been over this before and it is completely irrelevant, so there is nothin left to discuss.

belorg,
If you possess any intellectual integrity at all, you have to be embarrassed by your condescendingly simplistic response to Love’s beautifully crafted logic in post 806. If you aren’t embarrassed, it is because you don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to understand that Love’s argument completely refuted your basic argument, which I don’t believe you understood yourself until Love explained it to you in post 798 for which your response in post 801, “Wow, after more than 50 pages you have finally found what my argument is about.” sounds like you were thrilled to find out what your own argument was about.

Once again Amor vincit omnia. Maybe this time you’ll get it!

Yppop

 

[belorg]

belorg,
If you possess any intellectual integrity at all, you have to be embarrassed by your condescendingly simplistic response to Love’s beautifully crafted logic in post 806. If you aren’t embarrassed, it is because you don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to understand that Love’s argument completely refuted your basic argument, which I don’t believe you understood yourself until Love explained it to you in post 798 for which your response in post 801, “Wow, after more than 50 pages you have finally found what my argument is about.” sounds like you were thrilled to find out what your own argument was about.

Once again Amor vincit omnia. Maybe this time you’ll get it!

Yppop

Goodbye, yppop.

 

[Love4All]

Goodbye, yppop.

Why are you still here, belorg? According to you there is nothin left to discuss.

 

[yppop]

Goodbye, yppop.

Goodbye Belorg,
It has been fun; If nothing else you are a tenacious.
No hard feelings?

Amor vincit omnia. (the literal meaning this time)
Yppop

 

[Love4All]

Do you have something new to add, Love, because I have been over this before and it is completely irrelevant, so there is nothin left to discuss.

Ya know, on second thought, if I let this slide, that is giving you an unearned victory. Maybe I missed something in the thread, that you can point out.

I proved,

wG =/= G.

Your move. Either,

A) refute my proof,
B) point me to where you already refuted it, or
C) admit your argument has been defeated.

This is a test. Prove you are a real philosopher.

 

[itinerant1]

All the standard arguments plus Paul again. In 1 Cor 1:18-31 he argues that all attempts to prove anything about God are foolishness, nonsense when put beside Christ crucified. Christ should be more than enough for us, looking elsewhere is a stumbling block, it impedes us.

Maybe Thomas finally understood that when he made his “straw” remark.

The tone of inocente’s comment appears to disparage human reason. Intellect or reason is a gift from God, and it’s what separates man from the brute animals. The Apostle Paul never asked converts to leave behind their reason behind when they were baptized. To the contrary, Paul commands us to have a “reasoned worship”.

Furthermore, the existence of a Supreme Being and his attributes can be known by the natural light of reason, ie. without Revelation, as Paul teaches the Romans: “For what can be known about God is evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks” (Rom 1:19-20).

Clearly this natural knowledge of God and of his attributes, etc, is critically important because, as we learn from the Apostle, it is a knowledge that will judge the pagans who have never heard the Gospel.

Furthermore, there is an abundance of Christian philosophy, during two millenniums, beginning with the early Church, in which philosophy was viewed as the handmaid of theology, and was brought into the useful service of the Church.

Finally, why St. Thomas Aquinas came to view all he had written as “straw” was not for the reason asserted by inocente. It would be better to study the works of Aquinas rather than degrade them with such groundless speculations.

Peace.

 

[rom422]

All the standard arguments plus Paul again. In 1 Cor 1:18-31 he argues that all attempts to prove anything about God are foolishness, nonsense when put beside Christ crucified. Christ should be more than enough for us, looking elsewhere is a stumbling block, it impedes us.

Let us take a line from the text you referred to, where St. Paul says, “ … Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (1 Cor. 1:20) Did you see what God has made foolish? It was the wisdom of the world, - that means, the wisdom of the wordly wise, the wisdom of the proud and the greedy; it does not refer to the honest wisdom of the believer, whose reason is enlightened by faith.

Therefore, Inocente, you have misinterpreted St. Paul. He was not arguing against the use of philosophy in trying to understand or defend the faith; he was arguing against the abuse of philosophy by those who try to discredit the faith by deceptive (or sophistic) arguments. That is why he warned us: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ” (Colosians 2:8). If you read that carefully, he was not condemning all philosophy, but only that “hollow and deceptive” philosophy that mocks the cross. Also, he did not tell us to stop using philosophy in the service of the faith, but to not be taken captive by sophistry and deceptive reasoning. In fact, he himself argued passionately for the faith, as you can read in Acts 17:17-34. St. Thomas Aquinas did the same thing. He used philosophy in the service of the faith. In fact, he called philosophy “the handmaid of theology.”

It is incorrect to interpret the words of St. Paul in 1 Cor. as an outright condemnation of our attempt to use reason in understanding the faith. Did not our Lord say that we must worship the Lord our God, not only with all our heart and soul, but also “with all our mind” (Matthew 22:37)? When we use our reason, inspired by faith, to acquire a rational understanding of Him whom we love with all our hearts, - are we not loving Him also with our mind?

Maybe Thomas finally understood that when he made his “straw” remark.

I don’t think so. Toward the end of his life St. Thomas realized that there was much more to be learned and to be said about God than his philosophy could ever accomplish. He was so humbled by this realization that his work – great as it was – appeared to him as so much straw. St. Thomas did not think that what he had written was nonsense. He was simply filled with awe, so much so that perhaps he could have said what Shakespeare later put in the words of Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

 

[belorg]

Ya know, on second thought, if I let this slide, that is giving you an unearned victory. Maybe I missed something in the thread, that you can point out.

I proved,

wG =/= G.

Your move. Either,

A) refute my proof,
B) point me to where you already refuted it, or
C) admit your argument has been defeated.

This is a test. Prove you are a real philosopher.

I’m sure the readers are smart enough to decide whether my victory is earned or not.

 

[Love4All]

Just one sentence will suffice. An immutable being can only have one possible state.

Is this what you mean, belorg?

1. An immutable being can have only one possible state.
2. ???
3. Therefore God cannot be Pure Act.

I don’t see how you’re getting from 1 to 3.

Near as I can discern, your whole argument at this point is thus:

1. God is the Creator of everything.
2. Therefore there is a possible world wG where God is alone.
3. Since nothing comes from nothing, if anything changes in wG, it must be God that changes.
4. Therefore God cannot create without changing, and thus cannot be Pure Act.

You are failing to recognize a possible world for what it really is — a description of a state of affairs. A description of a state of affairs wherein God is alone is just that: a description of that particular state of affairs. The state of affairs can change. If God creates, He changes the state of affairs from Himself alone existing to creatures existing with Him. I have just demonstrated how to account for change in wG without God changing.

Thus there is a flaw in 3 above in your argument. While it remains true that nothing comes from nothing, it is not being asserted that the change in wG comes from nothing; the change comes from God. It is not God who changes, it is the fact of God being alone that changes, and that fact is outside God.

So no one is asserting something coming from nothing. Thus we should alter 3.

3.a. Since something can come from God, if anything changes in wG, it may be that God creates.

Then,

4.a. There is no contradiction between Creator and Pure Act.

So, there you have it. You’re done. Bye!

 

[Linux]

Thus if God alone exists, is it necessarily the case that nothing else can ever exist? Where would it come from? The obvious answer is that God could create it, except that God cannot change. Except, if God can create without changing, then He can still create. So why, again, were we saying God could not create?

This is wrong. If God creates, then he has always been creating. There is not a time or a place where God is by himself and then decides to create; that is logically impossible simply because we are talking about a timeless being. If a timeless being creates it means that he “timelessly creates” and he has timelessly willed that creation into existence. It is not a temporal act.

If God alone exists, then it means he never created and never will. I deny that a world which is only God is a possible state of affairs because it contradicts the natural fact that God is love.

 

[Love4All]

This is wrong. If God creates, then he has always been creating. There is not a time or a place where God is by himself and then decides to create; that is logically impossible simply because we are talking about a timeless being. If a timeless being creates it means that he “timelessly creates” and he has timelessly willed that creation into existence. It is not a temporal act.

If God alone exists, then it means he never created and never will. I deny that a world which is only God is a possible state of affairs because it contradicts the natural fact that God is love.

You wish to play both sides of the fence here, taking what suits you from a temporal scenario and what else suits you from an eternal scenario, finally producing a Frankenstein of sorts with pieces from both. Choose one. Either God is timeless or not. If not, then you have more arguing to do since the Church teaches He is. But if so, then your temporal requirements you are trying to place on Him don’t apply to Him.

Specifically, God is timeless in the sense of sempere nunc, “always now.” For God, all times are present. Thus eternity before He created His Creation is present to God, and the instant He began Creation is present to God, and the whole process of Creation described in Genesis is present to God, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the Virginal Conception of Jesus, and the Nativity, and the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection, are all present to God. Finally, the present moment from our perspective is of course present to God, and what you will decide to have for breakfast tomorrow is present to God, and the moment of your death, and your particular Judgment, and your eternity in heaven or hell, is present to God, NOW. “Now,” for God, is eternal. It is also the case that it is always now, for us, but we do not apprehend the past and the future in the eternal Now the way that God does. That is what is meant by saying that we are temporal and God is eternal, or, we are in time and God is timeless.

So:

This is wrong. If God creates, then he has always been creating.

This is a misconception of God’s activity in time. Let us imagine, as Moses did, that there is a six-day period during which God creates all that exists. According to you, there can be no differentiation between this six-day period, and all other times. All six of the days, according to you, must be melded into one, and that one must be stretched out through all time. That is a contrived requirement based on a confusion of time with eternity. God creates in the eternal Now, from His perspective. From our perspective, He created in time. At no time was it ever not Now. But the Now, changes. God does not change, but the present moment includes all manner of change, and God is aware of everything. To say, “He has always been creating,” is wrong. The reality is, rather, that it has always been and will always be the case that in the time God created, He was creating. This was true before, during, and after, the six days.

There is not a time or a place where God is by himself and then decides to create; that is logically impossible simply because we are talking about a timeless being.

That much, is true. God did not ever not know He was going to create. The Plan of Creation is eternal, as God is eternal. However the implementation of that Plan happened in time. There is a difference between saying, “God decided to create,” and “God began to create.” “Deciding” would contradict God’s omniscience. Beginning to create is something God did in time, or more accurately, in eternity before He began to create.

An instant of time is an atomic entity, it cannot be further divided. So, in eternity before God created His Creation, God began to create His Creation, including the creation of Time. Time is not even the first creature; Wisdom is. God created Wisdom, and that action was in eternity before He created His Creation. After that, He had begun His Creation, and He continued, in time.

 

[Love4All]

If a timeless being creates it means that he “timelessly creates” and he has timelessly willed that creation into existence. It is not a temporal act.

This is your confusion of temporality with eternity. God’s eternity is not some kind of restriction on His Omnipotence, that He cannot act in time. All of time is contained in eternity, and all of time is present to God in the eternal Now. Creation is specifically a temporal act. It is the bringing into existence of something where previously there was nothing. Thus there is a before, when X did not exist, and an after, when X does exist. It is impossible to create without causing change, and it is impossible for change to occur without time. So the phrase, “timelessly creates,” is nonsense. “Timelessly wills to create,” is coherent, but “timelessly wills that creation into existence” is nonsense. In the former phrase, the word “will” refers to God’s eternal intention to create. In the latter, the word “will” refers to the activity of creating, which happens — after the creation of Wisdom in eternity — in time.

If God alone exists, then it means he never created and never will.

That is belorgianism, a heresy. We can see by our own existence and the existence of the world that God did indeed create. It is absurd to assert that anything at all can mean He never created and never will. It is impossible for us to conceive of a difference between eternity before and after God created Wisdom, because God created Wisdom in eternity before He created His Creation. Since this is the case, it is also the case that there was never a time when God was alone. The Two Cherubim on which He is enthroned have always been with Him — they are His created Wisdom. But from a temporal perspective, there is no time when God and His Wisdom did not exist. It remains, however, that Wisdom is created, so it is absurd to assert that if God alone existed, He could never create.

I deny that a world which is only God is a possible state of affairs because it contradicts the natural fact that God is love.

We are unable to derive that God is Love without the doctrine of the Trinity, and Natural Theology does not assume a Trinity, at least not initially. Saint Thomas seemed to think that it was not possible to derive the Trinity from natural theology. I think we can derive it if we assume that God is Love, and for me personally, my religion is based on that assumption. But philosophy can’t be based on that assumption with one who does not hold that assumption, and belorg does not.

If you do hold that assumption, then it is facile for you to recognize that,

1. Love is always shared among persons.
2. Therefore if God is Love, then God is a Trinity of Persons (Lover, Beloved, and Love).
3. Therefore God Alone is not Solitary, but rather Trinitary.
4. Therefore there is no contradiction between a possible state of affairs wherein God is alone, and that God is Love.

 

[belorg]

Is this what you mean, belorg?

1. An immutable being can have only one possible state.
2. ???
3. Therefore God cannot be Pure Act.

I don’t see how you’re getting from 1 to 3.

Near as I can discern, your whole argument at this point is thus:

1. God is the Creator of everything.
2. Therefore there is a possible world wG where God is alone.
3. Since nothing comes from nothing, if anything changes in wG, it must be God that changes.
4. Therefore God cannot create without changing, and thus cannot be Pure Act.

You are failing to recognize a possible world for what it really is — a description of a state of affairs. A description of a state of affairs wherein God is alone is just that: a description of that particular state of affairs. The state of affairs can change. If God creates, He changes the state of affairs from Himself alone existing to creatures existing with Him. I have just demonstrated how to account for change in wG without God changing.

Thus there is a flaw in 3 above in your argument. While it remains true that nothing comes from nothing, it is not being asserted that the change in wG comes from nothing; the change comes from God. It is not God who changes, it is the fact of God being alone that changes, and that fact is outside God.

So no one is asserting something coming from nothing. Thus we should alter 3.

3.a. Since something can come from God, if anything changes in wG, it may be that God creates.

Then,

4.a. There is no contradiction between Creator and Pure Act.

So, there you have it. You’re done. Bye!

Yes, you have managed to refute your own utter misunderstanding of my argument. Congratulations.

 

[davidv]

I’m sure the readers are smart enough to decide whether my victory is earned or not.

This reader declares that your position remains supported only by bare assertions and faulty logic. No victory, earned or not.

 

[Linux]

This is your confusion of temporality with eternity. God’s eternity is not some kind of restriction on His Omnipotence, that He cannot act in time. All of time is contained in eternity, and all of time is present to God in the eternal Now. Creation is specifically a temporal act. It is the bringing into existence of something where previously there was nothing. Thus there is a before, when X did not exist, and an after, when X does exist. It is impossible to create without causing change, and it is impossible for change to occur without time. So the phrase, “timelessly creates,” is nonsense. “Timelessly wills to create,” is coherent, but “timelessly wills that creation into existence” is nonsense. In the former phrase, the word “will” refers to God’s eternal intention to create. In the latter, the word “will” refers to the activity of creating, which happens — after the creation of Wisdom in eternity — in time.

Gods activity is not temporal. Creation changes, but Gods will does not and neither does his being. There is no “before” creation because there is no time before creation. Before and after is purely a temporal fact; and if it can be applied to God at all it can only be applied as an analogy and not as a literal state of affairs. There is simply that point where creation begins, there is no “before” that point.

That is belorgianism, a heresy.

Assertion and a red herring

We can see by our own existence and the existence of the world that God did indeed create.

I did not deny that.

It is absurd to assert that anything at all can mean He never created and never will.

You are making a straw-man of what I said. I clearly did not say that God never created. I said that in a world where God has not timelessly willed creation into existence there will never be a creation, since Gods will is not temporal; it does not change. What he wills is what he has always willed from all eternity. It is you who does not understand Gods creative act.

It is impossible for us to conceive of a difference between eternity before and after God created Wisdom.

There is no “before” creation because there is no time before creation. Before and after is purely a temporal fact; and if it can be applied to God at all it can only be applied as an analogy and not as a literal state of affairs. There is simply that point where creation begins, there is no “before” that point.

because God created Wisdom in eternity before He created His Creation.
Since this is the case:

I don’t know exactly what you mean by that but if you are saying that God temporally created something before the creation of the universe, I cannot accept that rationally. I can accept, however, that God timelessly willed all things into existence.

We are unable to derive that God is Love without the doctrine of the Trinity

That’s not what I was attempting to do and neither is it relevant to what I said. However I can conclude that creation makes no rational sense unless God is Love.

1. Love is always shared among persons.
2. Therefore if God is Love, then God is a Trinity of Persons (Lover, Beloved, and Love).
3. Therefore God Alone is not Solitary, but rather Trinitary.
4. Therefore there is no contradiction between a possible state of affairs wherein God is alone, and that God is Love.

God is not three separate entities which when unified is love. Jesus is God, the holy spirit is God, and the father is God. But it is just one God. God created the universe because that is what love does, and God only does what he is. God is not arbitrary. That God would create is just a fact of God being love and is perfectly predictable given that nature.
The trinity merely shows that Love as a being is intrinsically a community of persons. To love only that which is eternally perfect is not love. That would mean that God loves only himself and therefore would not tolerate anything imperfect existing outside of his own essence. True love also loves that which is imperfect and that is what we call the mercy of God because love is mercy. Creation itself is an act of mercy.

 

[Love4All]

Yes, you have managed to refute your own utter misunderstanding of my argument. Congratulations.

I totally get your argument, and I totally trounced you. But since you can’t be bothered any more, Good Bye!

 

[Love4All]

Gods activity is not temporal. Creation changes, but Gods will does not and neither does his being. There is no “before” creation because there is no time before creation. Before and after is purely a temporal fact; and if it can be applied to God at all it can only be applied as an analogy and not as a literal state of affairs. There is simply that point where creation begins, there is no “before” that point.

God is eternal, with or without Creation. Thus, before Creation, God is eternal, and He is in eternity before Creation. There is not time before the creation of time. But what is not time, is eternity. Thus there is eternity before the creation of time. Time is not even the first creature, Wisdom is the first creature. “And God said (to Wisdom), ‘let there be light!’ And behold, light!” So it seems light also was created before time. We do not read about time until the next verse, “and evening came, and morning followed, the First Day.” So the original perception of time by a creature was the perception of the alternation of Day and Night by God’s created Wisdom, the Children of Love.

You are making a straw-man of what I said. I clearly did not say that God never created. I said that in a world where God has not timelessly willed creation into existence there will never be a creation, since Gods will is not temporal; it does not change. What he wills is what he has always willed from all eternity. It is you who does not understand Gods creative act.

From Creation’s point of view, it is in time. Hence the Six Days of Genesis. You are essentially saying the Six Days is not a true account, but a gross mistake, since Creation doesn’t happen over time. But from our perspective as creatures, yes it does. And while I can accept that God’s perspective is different, since God is eternal, I am more used to thinking like a human being. He created everything in six days for the benefit of His created Wisdom, who in turn helped Moses to write Genesis.

There is no “before” creation because there is no time before creation.

As elucidated above, there is eternity.

Before and after is purely a temporal fact; and if it can be applied to God at all it can only be applied as an analogy and not as a literal state of affairs. There is simply that point where creation begins, there is no “before” that point.

That is like saying -1 is not on the real number line. Yes it is. There is eternity before Creation, otherwise how do we say God is eternal? God did not come into existence with the universe; God is eternal.

I don’t know exactly what you mean by that but if you are saying that God temporally created something before the creation of the universe, I cannot accept that rationally. I can accept, however, that God timelessly willed all things into existence.

I am saying in eternity, not in time, in eternity before Creation, God created Wisdom. That is the First Creature. Since Wisdom is First, and since Time is Created, consequently Wisdom was created in eternity, before time and space. God exists eternally, and in that eternity God created His created Wisdom, and that was the beginning of His Creation.

That’s not what I was attempting to do and neither is it relevant to what I said. However I can conclude that creation makes no rational sense unless God is Love.

Good thing He is then! As if to say, making rational sense could ever be as important as love, in the first place!?

See, to me, Love comes first. That is why it is my religion. Love, as a religion, is non-different from Catholicism. Catholicism is Love. The reason we can trust God’s Church absolutely, to teach us the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is because God is Love. If it is God’s Church, and God is Love, then how could God ever lead us astray? It is ridiculous — He couldn’t. Not if He’s Love. Therefore I trust God’s Church, because I trust God.