E
excelsus
Guest
Meaning in the Church? Is it absolute omnipotence so he can make square circles or something like that, or is it a degree of omnipotence where he can do anything that makes logical sense, etc…
- Status
A
Areopagite
Guest
No. He can only do things that make logic sense. There are three kinds of necessity …
Metaphysical Necessity - Things that are necessary because otherwise it would inconceivable and contradictory
Moral Necessity - Things that are necessary for a free agent to do, as prescribed by a law
Natural OR Physical Necessity - Things that are necessary due to the laws of nature
God is able to bypass natural/physical necessity, as, for example, making an apple fall upward from the tree (as such a thing is conceivable and thus not metaphysically impossible).
God is unable to metaphysical impossibilities because such conceptual contradictions are against the truth, and God is the truth, and God would thus be contradicting himself (in short).
As for moral necessity, it depends on what you mean. God is certainly not bound by human-made laws, but you could say that he is bound by the truth of Himself … which I guess you could call the Eternal Law. And so for him to transgress that, would again be contradicting Himself. So in that sense, he is bound by a kind of moral necessity.
I might be wrong on some of these details. I’m open to corrections of course (especially on the moral necessity bit). Hope this answer is satisfactory.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
The Church teaches that God can do all things. He can do all good things. He cannot contradict Himself, being Perfect, so He cannot do evil things, like deceive others.
G
geometer
Guest
There are more than 200,000 kinds of logic. Granted we only know a few types of logic which seem to describe reality, but we also know that the descriptions that they provide individually and as a group, are incomplete. If you mean that God can apply any kind of logic, then there are simply no limits that we can apply to him.
Logic is used to follow the verbs that we understand. Do we really understand the way in which God does what he does to the point that we can make logical maps?
We may wish to have such powers of logic, but do we?
Best regards,
Vincent
T
TheQuestioner
Guest
God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants however he wants. If he wanted to make it so that a pink elephant appeared in every city on earth instantaneously he could do it. However God cannot lie because he WILL not lie. It is against his nature. God cannot do evil because he WILL not do evil. It is against his nature. So can God do anything?..yes, will he?..no. Because he cannot.
A
Areopagite
Guest
It’s true that there is very little we know about the nature of God. But what we do know (from the little that can be gathered from natural reason, and the little bit more from divine revelation) is that we can examine other propositions about God and see whether or not they are logically consistent with those few things that are known about God. However, you claim, so I gather at least, that our logic may not apply to God’s nature, since God is so vast, great, and omnipotent, etc. As support, you mention how there are 200,000 kinds of logic, all of which are different. So which one applies to God? Perhaps none.
However, first of all, logic (just like math as Albert Einstein said) does not describe reality. Logic can be applied to what we know about reality in order to figure out if our thoughts are consistent with other thoughts. As Chesterton said, one can be very logical about faeries, as long as he doesn’t contradict his premises (i.e. that faeries exist and whatnot). Logic doesn’t give us our premises. Logic can help us confirm the truth for us, but we first must be given the truth via some other channel (like intuition, or like, especially in this case, divine revelation).
Also, with regard to your objection based on the "different kinds of logic,’ it depends what you mean by “kinds of logic.” ** In the broad sense, there is only one kind, and here I mean logic as the “form of reason”** … that is, the way reason works, in a sense.
There are 200,000 (or so) different ways we can systematize the study of logic. These logical systems are sometimes simply called different “logics.” But in that case, the word “logic” is used in its more narrow sense. Really all the logical systems come from the one logic, which, again, here refers broadly to “the form of reason”). It’s like how there are different mathematical systems (e.g. algebra, calculus, set theory, number theory, probability, linear and nonlinear analysis, geometry, trigonometry, topology, etc.). These are different kinds of math, and there are continuing new kinds of math, and yet we can know some things that are mathematically correct or incorrect. Nonetheless, they are all math, just like all the different logical system are all logic.
Now, different valid mathematical systems don’t contradict each other but look at different aspects of quantity/number. If they contradicted each other, then one or more of those systems are in error. Likewise, just because there are many different kinds of logic, does not mean they contradict each other, but instead all specialize in analyzing the logic process of different kinds of propositions in different ways. Modal logic, for example, looks at logic in terms of potentiality vs. necessity in contrast to categorical logic. There are even subdivisions of modal logic, like epistemic logic that specializes in analyzing propositions about knowledge. But they do not contradict each other.
Now, statements about God can be looked at logically. What’s true about God in one logical system is not false in another logical system and vice versa (unless you are using an invalid logical system … in which case, that system should be excommunicated from philosophy). Thus, if a statement is false is one logical system, it is false for all logic.
To say that there are no limits we can apply to God is silly. *For then we could say, “God is even able to change Himself in such a way that we could put limits on Him” in which case your claim that “there are no limits we can apply to God” is no longer true. It just doesn’t make any sense. * G. K. Chesterton said that even God is bound by reason. And I think that’s true.
This is a good question though. I struggled with it for many years, until I read the book called The Trivium by a nun from the 1930’s who finally put the issue at rest for me. I would be interested what you have to say.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Okaaayyy…God supposedly created the universe from nothing, thus violating the identity property. Making zero equal one is pretty much the ultimate magic trick. If God isn’t limited by logic in this case, why should he be in others?
A
Areopagite
Guest
Not entirely sure what you mean here. If you think I’m saying, “Since God created the universe from nothing, the universe is made of nothing” then I can see your confusion. What I mean though is that God did not make the universe from pre-existing matter. * Now, from our observations in the physical sciences, we cannot make physical objects unless we craft then from pre-existing matter. But the physical sciences pertain to physical/natural necessity. I have stated in my previous posts that physical/natural necessity is entirely different form logical necessity. ** God can overstep physical/natural necessity but not logical/metaphysical necessity.*
I’m not sure why ex nihilo creation, as I’ve described it, would be equivalent to making zero equal one. Yeah, in fact, I’m really not quite sure what you’re saying there. Could you elaborate? I mean, as far as I understand you, if you’re right, we are capable of logical contradiction too. ** For example, when I am making a chair: First there is no chair. But then, after I make it … there is a chair. First there were zero chairs, then there is one chair.** Therefore, zero = one? Yeah, I’m not sure what you mean there. You might be mixing up the ideas of substance and quantity. I don’t blame you. I did something like that too before I recently came upon Aristotle’s 10 categories of being, something (I would claim, though others may very well disagree) that makes so much common sense that it hurts (joyfully) and dispels a lot of silly and pseudointellectual nonsense that I had fallen into. But perhaps I am suffering from pseudointellectual nonsense still in this case.
What is your response?
I might be making myself horribly unclear and require filling gaping holes in my argument.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I think we have to be omniscient to understand fully what being omnipotent entails. To create ex nihilo does not seem to entail any contradiction. It is generally agreed that everything except the Creator is contingent. There is no reason or evidence to believe the universe or anything in it must exist. It does exist and that calls for explanation.
We cannot understand how the universe is created and sustained in existence but there are many things we don’t understand. Our limited intelligence and understanding should make us hesitate to legislate about what is possible and impossible for the Ultimate Being. It all amounts to speculation and probably leads nowhere. In life we have to decide what is worth pursuing and this issue is IMHO interesting but fruitless apart from its value as an intellectual exercise.
We cannot understand how the universe is created and sustained in existence but there are many things we don’t understand. Our limited intelligence and understanding should make us hesitate to legislate about what is possible and impossible for the Ultimate Being. It all amounts to speculation and probably leads nowhere. In life we have to decide what is worth pursuing and this issue is IMHO interesting but fruitless apart from its value as an intellectual exercise.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Now I’m curious: where did you provide the argument that God can overstep physical necessity? Further, where’s the argument that non-physical things exist? How do you know if they can’t be sensed?
I’m sorry that I was unclear, though I don’t know exactly how. Christians believe that, at one time, God was the only thing that existed, right? He then created the universe by causing matter to spontaneously pop into existence. One cannot yield matter from no matter anymore than one can yield one from zero, hence the violation of the identity property.
A
Areopagite
Guest
You have a beefy set of questions there, Oreoracle. So I’m going to answer them in separate chunks. First this one …
Now, before I tackle whether there are non-physical things that exist, let’s first take up the question whether you can know if certain physical things exist … without sensing them.
Well, there are many examples of this, like, my great grandparents. I have never sensed my great grandparents. But I think I can say, nonetheless, that I know they existed at one point. * I can put the clues together, and even though I can’t sense them, I know they existed. This principle can really be applied to all of* historical knowledge.**
If you reply that “Well, they don’t exist anymore” then there is another kind of example … I have never sensed the Taj Mahal. It’s true I’ve seen pictures of it, but technically I haven’t sensed it. There are many people who probably have never even seen a picture of it. But they’ve heard about it and read about it maybe. But they have never sensed it. In fact, I have never been to Asia … I have never sensed Asia. Maybe the existence of Asia is a conspiracy. But I don’t think so. *** In fact, I would go so far as to say that I know that Asia exists, without ever having sensed the thing myself.***
You may make the statement “Well, it’s possible for you to fly over to Asia and sense it, whereas with non-physical things, that’s never possible.” *Well, of course, I will never be able to sense my cremated ancestors (for example) … does that mean I can never know they existed? * Also, you could also say that it is impossible to see sub-atomic particles but simply infer their existence from rather hard-to-understand electronic readings and graphical representations. One empiricist (I forget his name) refused to accept the existence of atoms because he could not see them, though Einstein showed him the data that proved that they existed. Atoms are physical, but we can’t see them. You could say “Well, we’re always seeing them” but someone could say “That’s what you say … I just see continuous physical matter and not individual atoms.”
So, thus, I would say that the argument** “If you can’t sense something, you can’t know if that something exists”** is unsound, for I have pointed out instances that contradict this statement. Empiricism, I would go so far as to say, goes not hold up in this way.
However, with regard to the knowledge of non-physical things, I’ll grant that’s another beast, but to deny possible knowledge of them because they are not sensible is not going to work, for then you would have to deny the knowledge regarding a lot of physical things too that are obviously knowable.
Next, I’ll try to answer the non-physical question. Did this help though? Or rather, have I said anything objectionable so far?
That’s a good question. St. Augustine struggled with this particular thing at one point before his conversion. So, your argument here, correct me if I’m wrong, is that** “If you can’t sense something, you can’t know if that something exists.”** Empiricism, basically, right?
Now, before I tackle whether there are non-physical things that exist, let’s first take up the question whether you can know if certain physical things exist … without sensing them.
Well, there are many examples of this, like, my great grandparents. I have never sensed my great grandparents. But I think I can say, nonetheless, that I know they existed at one point. * I can put the clues together, and even though I can’t sense them, I know they existed. This principle can really be applied to all of* historical knowledge.**
If you reply that “Well, they don’t exist anymore” then there is another kind of example … I have never sensed the Taj Mahal. It’s true I’ve seen pictures of it, but technically I haven’t sensed it. There are many people who probably have never even seen a picture of it. But they’ve heard about it and read about it maybe. But they have never sensed it. In fact, I have never been to Asia … I have never sensed Asia. Maybe the existence of Asia is a conspiracy. But I don’t think so. *** In fact, I would go so far as to say that I know that Asia exists, without ever having sensed the thing myself.***
You may make the statement “Well, it’s possible for you to fly over to Asia and sense it, whereas with non-physical things, that’s never possible.” *Well, of course, I will never be able to sense my cremated ancestors (for example) … does that mean I can never know they existed? * Also, you could also say that it is impossible to see sub-atomic particles but simply infer their existence from rather hard-to-understand electronic readings and graphical representations. One empiricist (I forget his name) refused to accept the existence of atoms because he could not see them, though Einstein showed him the data that proved that they existed. Atoms are physical, but we can’t see them. You could say “Well, we’re always seeing them” but someone could say “That’s what you say … I just see continuous physical matter and not individual atoms.”
So, thus, I would say that the argument** “If you can’t sense something, you can’t know if that something exists”** is unsound, for I have pointed out instances that contradict this statement. Empiricism, I would go so far as to say, goes not hold up in this way.
However, with regard to the knowledge of non-physical things, I’ll grant that’s another beast, but to deny possible knowledge of them because they are not sensible is not going to work, for then you would have to deny the knowledge regarding a lot of physical things too that are obviously knowable.
Next, I’ll try to answer the non-physical question. Did this help though? Or rather, have I said anything objectionable so far?
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Well, I wasn’t arguing from empiricism, I was just noting that knowledge of a non-physical thing’s existence could not be a posteriori. If you could give me an a priori proof for the existence of such, as you did with your grandparents, I would be satisfied. However, I’ve never seen this done by any philosopher.
A
AndyF
Guest
How do we know is nature is static rather than dynamic.?God can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants however he wants. If he wanted to make it so that a pink elephant appeared in every city on earth instantaneously he could do it. However God cannot lie because he WILL not lie. It is against his nature. God cannot do evil because he WILL not do evil. It is against his nature. So can God do anything?..yes, will he?..no. Because he cannot.
Andy
A
Areopagite
Guest
I’ll attempt to answer this one. I might fail. Sometimes this proof doesn’t do it for some people.
One approach to prove the existence of non-physical things is by looking at intellectual knowledge. This is how Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and even Augustine did it, but maybe you’ll have objections … especially considering that I’ll be trying to rephrase what these rather daunting figures have already written. (Perhaps I should just quote them … but I fear it might take a long time to find the right passage … and perhaps the passage might be too long … or confusing in its own way … I’ll do my best)
This argument basically goes like this (I’ve mentioned parts of this in other posts). Though it is true that our physical brain holds “sense images” in our imaginations and memories (not only visual images, but sound “images,” tactile “images,” olfactory “images,” and taste “images”) … the understanding of what we see transcends those physical brain-stored imagery. Our intellect (the part of us that understands and acquires and holds abstract knowledge as opposed to sense knowledge) is a power in our soul … and of course, if we have soul … you would agree there is such a thing as non-physical things, right?
Now, why would the intellect be non-physical? Well, if you think about it, we can see many particular “horses” for example, but we can all understand them to be of the species “horse” … and then we can categorize them as an “animal” … and categorize them under “living thing” etc. We can really get abstract by then conceiving of the idea of “number,” “physicality,” “velocity,” etc. "Concepts (like all of these) cannot be explained physically. They may pertain to the physical, but the concepts themselves, as ideas, cannot have physical existence in our brains. We may have images associated to them, but as we hold the images in our consciousness, it must be an immaterial thing that gives understanding to what these things are. There cannot be a concrete/physical thing that encapsulates all concrete/physical horses. If it can’t be concrete/physical then it has to be abstract/non-physical.
I anticipate some objections. And I apologize if I have failed you thus far. I could say more, but instead, I’m going to ask if you are buying any of this, or what your particular objections and concerns are, so I can limit my babbling.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I’m glad you’re willing to put so much effort into this discussion! I never type as much as you do.I’ll attempt to answer this one. I might fail. Sometimes this proof doesn’t do it for some people.
I anticipate some objections. And I apologize if I have failed you thus far. I could say more, but instead, I’m going to ask if you are buying any of this, or what your particular objections and concerns are, so I can limit my babbling.
You’re right, I do have an objection. If you look at the big picture, the argument is an attempt at understanding understanding. How can understanding be understood? As a friend of mine would say, that’s like an eye trying to see itself–it can’t be done.
Okay, your “soul” would be “you.” It is what perceives; it is the eyeball viewing the world, right? When you identify the soul as a “thing,” you are objectifying the soul by observing it. But wait, if your soul is supposed to be what observes, and you are supposedly observing your soul, then what’s observing your soul? Whatever you call your soul, then, cannot be your soul.
I’m sure I butchered this explanation, but the point is that if my soul is the subject (it experiences objects), it cannot have identifiable qualities, for whatever experiences those qualities must be the soul instead. As the Buddhists say, consciousness is nothing because it has no qualities. So I would not call it a “non-physical thing.” I would instead call it “nothing.”
A
Areopagite
Guest
Okay, I think I understand you. This definitely wasn’t the objection I was expecting … it’s much more interesting too than the one I was preparing for.I’m glad you’re willing to put so much effort into this discussion! I never type as much as you do.
You’re right, I do have an objection. If you look at the big picture, the argument is an attempt at understanding understanding. How can understanding be understood? As a friend of mine would say, that’s like an eye trying to see itself–it can’t be done.
Okay, your “soul” would be “you.” It is what perceives; it is the eyeball viewing the world, right? When you identify the soul as a “thing,” you are objectifying the soul by observing it. But wait, if your soul is supposed to be what observes, and you are supposedly observing your soul, then what’s observing your soul? Whatever you call your soul, then, cannot be your soul.
I’m sure I butchered this explanation, but the point is that if my soul is the subject (it experiences objects), it cannot have identifiable qualities, for whatever experiences those qualities must be the soul instead. As the Buddhists say, consciousness is nothing because it has no qualities. So I would not call it a “non-physical thing.” I would instead call it “nothing.”
First of all, my initial thoughts:
You say an eye cannot see itself … well, what about mirrors? That might sound like cheating, but there is something in Aristotle’s epistemology that reflects (no pun intended) this idea of a soul understanding itself (to some extent). Nonetheless, you might say that if our soul is like a mirror in some way and it looks at itself … then it’s like two mirrors facing each other (and we all know how that goes). I can see how that kind of argument is a legit one (perhaps not correct but definitely being somewhat formidable).
The Buddhist thing you said doesn’t make too much sense (but, hey, it’s Buddhism:shrug:
). But I might be reading it wrong … if we can’t know any qualities about the soul, then the soul isn’t really a thing, it’s actually nothing. Of course, that’s a leap of logic. Just because you can’t identify any properties in something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If anything, it may mean that we can’t know it exists … and I suppose, that’s the topic at hand.Alrighty, so you’re worried that if you look at your soul, you would be looking at your soul which would be looking at your soul which would be looking at your soul, etc. It would be a never ending loop of nonsense. However, I don’t think one’s mind necessary has to do this. You can, in your mind, distinguish the idea of your soul from the idea of your soul looking at itself. Your mind does not need to be a perfect reflection of itself of what it’s doing right at the moment (for that would end in madness).
This might be confusing or not: It’s like studying a horse in general opposed to studying a particular horse doing something at a particular moment. It’s possible for someone to study oneself (i.e. their soul) in a general way opposed to studying oneself and what the self is doing at that immediate time. Does that make any sense?
Briefly (if that’s even possible), here’s Aristotle’s epistemology (some of which Plato even agrees with) … physical things are made of matter and form. When the senses perceive a physical object, the intellect looks at the sense image it receives from the brain and abstracts the form from the matter. That is, it immaterializes the form as an immaterial concept. The form of the object is the same as in the subject now, except the latter does not have the material embodying the form as in the case with the former. The object, as it were, is reflected in the intellect, not in its particular material details but in a general way that the mind can now recognize other objects in that same form. And … I’m stopping there … if anything what I just said catches your attention, I can elaborate … if that just distracts you … then we’ll save that for some other time … or something. Or not, even.
Don’t worry about not typing so much. Sometimes I feel guilty about typing too much when it can perhaps be more succinctly stated. But all this makes me think about my own beliefs and helps refine them. We’re all in this together.
G
greylorn
Guest
Your rule respecting physical necessity needs work. Consider it in the context of the three laws of thermodynamics.
If God causes an apple to move upward, He’s reversing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, presumably at a local and temporary level. Not a big deal. Humans capable of telekinesis have demonstrated the ability to perform similar feats. But can God permanently change the 2nd Law such that all apples fall upward?
Slightly more interesting is, can he violate the 3rd Law and chill something to a temperature lower than 0 Kelvin?
Even more interesting is, can God violate the 1st Law? I submit not, and predict that you will disagree.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Andy,
This is a bit off-topic, but I have a question about your signature? Is it saying that homosexuals should keep their preference quiet other than when talking to a priest? Presumably implying that homosexuality is a sin, despite its non-voluntary nature?
I assume that whatever its meaning, you’re openly homophobic?
T
tonyrey
Guest
To understand fully the nature of omnipotence entails omniscience. How can a finite intelligence have a complete understanding of what is feasible when it comes to creating a universe ?
G
greylorn
Guest
It cannot, and apparently did not.
The creation-evidence we are in the best position to observe and evaluate is the evidence of biological development. This is not supportive of immediate, perfect creation, as disenchanted six-day creation proponents eventually figured out.
The evolutionary evidence is strongly supportive of a creator who did not quite know how to do the job when he first undertook the project, and is still fussing with details.
- Status