Three teachings

[Tomdstone]

He does not change in time. …Therefore, God can act and be said not to be moved by His own actions or that of anything else.

This is something difficult for me to understand. Take for example, the bread and wine before the Mass. It is changed to be God after the prayers of the priest at the Consecration. If God is responding to the prayers of the priest, it seems that God is moved by these prayers. And further, God has changed in time because before the prayers the bread and wine was not God, but after the prayers God was there in the hands of the priest under the appearances of bread and wine.

 

[Qoeleth]

1. God is sovereign. This means that nothing we ever do makes God “contingent”.
2. Humans have free will. This means that God does not interfere with our actions. In other words we are the primary causative agents of our actions.
3. God is not only the first cause, but also the sustaining cause. This means that God is an active participant in every action. For example, if you shoot a gun to kill someone, God sustains the bullet in existence and maintains its trajectory all the way to the victim’s body.

Question: Do you see the glaring logical contradiction here?

These teachings are not so much logical truths, as articulations of praise of God.

It’s no problem if there’s an apparent contradiction- no more than saying “Verse 1 of ‘Amazing Grace’, seems to contradict ‘Verse 4’”.

It religious language, not logical argument.

Maybe logical contradictions are good in theology- since they serve to remind us of the finitude and fallibility of our minds.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

These teachings are not so much logical truths, as articulations of praise of God.

Well, if they are not true propositions, then how come that they became dogmas?

It’s no problem if there’s an apparent contradiction- no more than saying “Verse 1 of ‘Amazing Grace’, seems to contradict ‘Verse 4’”.

These are real contradictions, not merely “apparent” ones in some poetry.

It religious language, not logical argument.

Dogmas ARE religious language. Now if they are illogical, that is not good news for those who believe in them.

Maybe logical contradictions are good in theology- since they serve to remind us of the finitude and fallibility of our minds.

I am sure you are familiar with the principle of “ex falso quodlibet”. If there is just one logical contradiction in a system, then any proposition and its negation can be derived, and as such there are NO true or false propositions in that system.

Of course the church maintains that faith and reason do not contradict each other, but these propositions DO show a contradiction:

1. God is sovereign, not contingent.
2. Humans perform acts of free will.
3. God maintains the particles in reality according to the free action of humans.
4. Therefore - God acts according to the free decisions of humans - which means that God’s actions are contingent.
5. Since God is “simple”, his actions cannot be separated from his “essence” therefore God IS contingent.

As such #1 and #5 contradict each other. God is both contingent and NOT contingent, at the same time in the same relationship.

 

[STT]

Well, if they are not true propositions, then how come that they became dogmas?

These are real contradictions, not merely “apparent” ones in some poetry.

Dogmas ARE religious language. Now if they are illogical, that is not good news for those who believe in them.

I am sure you are familiar with the principle of “ex falso quodlibet”. If there is just one logical contradiction in a system, then any proposition and its negation can be derived, and as such there are NO true or false propositions in that system.

Of course the church maintains that faith and reason do not contradict each other, but these propositions DO show a contradiction:

1. God is sovereign, not contingent.
2. Humans perform acts of free will.
3. God maintains the particles in reality according to the free action of humans.
4. Therefore - God acts according to the free decisions of humans - which means that God’s actions are contingent.
5. Since God is “simple”, his actions cannot be separated from his “essence” therefore God IS contingent.

As such #1 and #5 contradict each other. God is both contingent and NOT contingent, at the same time in the same relationship.

(4) doesn’t follow from (3).

There is however a contradiction here. Any free act is self caused which means that God cannot sustain it therefore any being is sovereign (opposite of contingent) itself otherwise we are dealing with a contradiction since a contingent being cannot act freely. No need to say that a sovereign being cannot create a sovereign being so we are dealing with another contradiction too.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

(4) doesn’t follow from (3).

Of course it follows.

1. Human decides to pick up a pebble and throws it into a lake.
2. God directs the pebble to fall into the water, and then forces the water to make nice, concentrical waves.
3. All that was initiated by the human who started the sequence.
4. As such God’s action is contingent upon the human.

Of course, if one would believe a deistic god, who simply created the universe, along with the laws of nature, there would be no problem.

There is however a contradiction here.

There are many more contradictions, that is for sure. But one is sufficient to show the contradictions among the dogmas.

 

[davidv]

Of course it follows.

1. Human decides to pick up a pebble and throws it into a lake.
2. God directs the pebble to fall into the water, and then forces the water to make nice, concentrical waves.
3. All that was initiated by the human who started the sequence.
4. As such God’s action is contingent upon the human.

Of course, if one would believe a deistic god, who simply created the universe, along with the laws of nature, there would be no problem.

There are many more contradictions, that is for sure. But one is sufficient to show the contradictions among the dogmas.

Why is 2) true?

I believe 2) is not true. This makes the conclusion unsound. Like most arguments claiming contradictions this one is based on a number logical fallacies, namely equivocation, straw manning, and non sequitur.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Why is 2) true?

Because the Catholic teaching says that God is not just the first cause, but also the sustaining cause. If God would not sustain the world, it would simply flicker out of existence. Which means that God actively participates in every physical action, be it just a pebble being tossed into a lake, or affixing electrodes to the genitals of a victim and then allowing the electricity do what it is supposed to do. But since we (humans) are the primary causative agents, and God simply carries out our decisions, from that it logically follows that God is contingent.

I believe 2) is not true.

That is what the church teaches - as a dogma. Therefore you must accept it, even if you don’t like it.

 

[STT]

Of course it follows.

1. Human decides to pick up a pebble and throws it into a lake.
2. God directs the pebble to fall into the water, and then forces the water to make nice, concentrical waves.
3. All that was initiated by the human who started the sequence.
4. As such God’s action is contingent upon the human.

The God’s action is not contingent upon the human action since God knows and sustain our actions in His eternal now.

Of course, if one would believe a deistic god, who simply created the universe, along with the laws of nature, there would be no problem.

That is one solution. People however argue that matter is contingent. I have never understood why. Do you know the argument?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The God’s action is not contingent upon the human action since God knows and sustain our actions in His eternal now.

If God knows the human actions, then God’s knowledge IS contingent upon human actions. Besides, this “God of the philosophers” has absolutely nothing to do with the “God of the Bible”, who was an active God, walking among humans, manifested himself as Jesus. The “eternal now” is just a meaningless phrase, also contradicted by the Bible. One of them must be discarded. The point is still the same: “the three dogmas are mutually contradictory”.

That is one solution. People however argue that matter is contingent. I have never understood why. Do you know the argument?

I have no idea.

 

[BobCatholic]

1. God is sovereign. This means that nothing we ever do makes God “contingent”.
2. Humans have free will. This means that God does not interfere with our actions. In other words we are the primary causative agents of our actions.
3. God is not only the first cause, but also the sustaining cause. This means that God is an active participant in every action. For example, if you shoot a gun to kill someone, God sustains the bullet in existence and maintains its trajectory all the way to the victim’s body.

Question: Do you see the glaring logical contradiction here?

Yes.

We are imperfect, and God created us with imperfections, thus #2 is called into question. How free is one’s will if they’re imperfect? Buggy software will crash, so quick, punish the naughty computer!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yes.

We are imperfect, and God created us with imperfections, thus #2 is called into question. How free is one’s will if they’re imperfect? Buggy software will crash, so quick, punish the naughty computer!

There are only two options:

1. Either we are cars on a railroad track - with absolutely no freedom, or
2. We have any kind of freedom, imperfect or not, we are the primary causative agents of our actions.

If #2 is true (and it is also a dogma), then God’s actions are contingent upon our actions.

 

[STT]

If God knows the human actions, then God’s knowledge IS contingent upon human actions.

No, that is not true if God knows everything.

Besides, this “God of the philosophers” has absolutely nothing to do with the “God of the Bible”, who was an active God, walking among humans, manifested himself as Jesus.

God can be active and talk with people while He is in His eternal now. I however have problem with incarnation.

The “eternal now” is just a meaningless phrase, also contradicted by the Bible. One of them must be discarded. The point is still the same: “the three dogmas are mutually contradictory”.

Either God is temporal or not. Time is a part of creation hence God cannot be subject to His own creation hence the only viable option is eternal now.

I have no idea.

Good. Perhaps someone here can explain that to us.

 

[fhansen]

There are only two options:

1. Either we are cars on a railroad track - with absolutely no freedom, or
2. We have any kind of freedom, imperfect or not, we are the primary causative agents of our actions.

If #2 is true (and it is also a dogma), then God’s actions are contingent upon our actions.

God’s actions wouldn’t be contingent on our actions if He simply foreknew our actions and allowed them by His sovereign will.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No, that is not true if God knows everything.

This “everything” can be subdivided into two parts:

1. everything that is possible, even if it is not actualized, and
2. the other part, which is actualized.

And since it is US, humans who actualize the possibilities, then God’s knowledge is still contingent upon our actions.

God can be active and talk with people while He is in His eternal now. I however have problem with incarnation.

I have a lot of other problems, too.

Either God is temporal or not. Time is a part of creation hence God cannot be subject to His own creation hence the only viable option is eternal now.

Nope, there is another logical possibility. Time is actually a measurement of change, and it can have several manifestations; one is our time and the other one is God’s time. As soon as one accepts that God does or did something - like creating the physical world - an action takes place, which subdivides the reality into a before a during and an after. Timeless existence is simply stasis, no change, no action, no activity… and that is contradicted by the dogma that God sustains the ever-changing physical world.

God’s actions wouldn’t be contingent on our actions if He simply foreknew our actions and allowed them by His sovereign will.

The “foreknowledge” is still contingent upon our actions.

You simply cannot avoid it, if we have any freedom of action, and God “knows” about it, or actualizes our decisions, then God’s knowledge or action is contingent upon us.

 

[fhansen]

This “everything” can be subdivided into two parts:

1. everything that is possible, even if it is not actualized, and
2. the other part, which is actualized.

And since it is US, humans who actualize the possibilities, then God’s knowledge is still contingent upon our actions.

I have a lot of other problems, too.

Nope, there is another logical possibility. Time is actually a measurement of change, and it can have several manifestations; one is our time and the other one is God’s time. As soon as one accepts that God does or did something - like creating the physical world - an action takes place, which subdivides the reality into a before a during and an after. Timeless existence is simply stasis, no change, no action, no activity… and that is contradicted by the dogma that God sustains the ever-changing physical world.

The “foreknowledge” is still contingent upon our actions.

You simply cannot avoid it, if we have any freedom of action, and God “knows” about it, or actualizes our decisions, then God’s knowledge or action is contingent upon us.

If He foreknows it, existing in eternity as it were, then there’s no time within which contingencies can become actualized to Him. There’s no before or after. That only occurs from the human perspective.

 

[Qoeleth]

Well, if they are not true propositions, then how come that they became dogmas?

These are real contradictions, not merely “apparent” ones in some poetry.

Dogmas ARE religious language. Now if they are illogical, that is not good news for those who believe in them.

I am sure you are familiar with the principle of “ex falso quodlibet”. If there is just one logical contradiction in a system, then any proposition and its negation can be derived, and as such there are NO true or false propositions in that system.

Of course the church maintains that faith and reason do not contradict each other, but these propositions DO show a contradiction:

1. God is sovereign, not contingent.
2. Humans perform acts of free will.
3. God maintains the particles in reality according to the free action of humans.
4. Therefore - God acts according to the free decisions of humans - which means that God’s actions are contingent.
5. Since God is “simple”, his actions cannot be separated from his “essence” therefore God IS contingent.

As such #1 and #5 contradict each other. God is both contingent and NOT contingent, at the same time in the same relationship.

It’s no problem that religious doctrines are logically contradictory. If they were logically reconcilable, they would be scientific or philosophical doctrines. And these are often very boring and unconsoling indeed.

It’s like- on the one hand, God wills only good. Yet, on the other hand, all actions (everything) is sustained only by God. Yet, on the other hand, we sense that our actions are own free will (and often evil).

Conclusion- the apparent world (including ourselves) is a mere tissue of contradiction, delusion and folly, a dream told by an idiot. So, at a deeper level, there is must be a God- an absolute- into which we will fall when the delusion of self and the universe fall away- when we awake from this dream which we call ‘life’. But maybe that God is non-existent- or more precisely is totally beyond the category of existence.

I think religious needs to embrace contradictions- as it’s in an environment of mistrust of logic that religious can thrive best. It makes me think of a quote from Oscar Wilde:

“After the first glass of absinthe you see things as you wish they were. After the second you see them as they are not. Finally you see things as they really are, and that is the most horrible thing in the world".

The first glass of absinthe is when you literally believe in the doctrine of religion as logical propositions. The second, is when you don’t believe in them because they are logically contradictory. The third, is when you don’t believe in logic (or anything in this world) anymore, and therefore embrace happily the logical contradictions of religion.

But it is not the most horrible thing in the world- it is the most delightful, since it produces absolute freedom.

 

[Tomdstone]

If God knows the human actions, then God’s knowledge IS contingent upon human actions.

That does seem reasonable.

 

[Tomdstone]

It’s no problem that religious doctrines are logically contradictory.

Do you claim that the law of non-contradiction does not hold in theology?

 

[Qoeleth]

Do you claim that the law of non-contradiction does not hold in theology?

Absolutely. There is no theology without paradox.

Religion can use logic- but only as a rhetorical device. Truth begins where logic ends.

 

[Tomdstone]

Absolutely. There is no theology without paradox.

Religion can use logic- but only as a rhetorical device. Truth begins where logic ends.

I don’t buy it.
“… a person who thinks that this law [of non-contradiction] is not true will become a thoroughly confused individual whose thought life is a complete mess, full of contradictions and inconsistencies.”
Please see:
toughquestionsanswered.org/2011/12/28/what-is-the-law-of-non-contradiction/