Hi folks this is really a question for those with some philosophy training but I'd welcome any feedback.

We often hear the question asked-" can God create a stone so heavy that God cannot lift it as an attemot to show the limitation of Gods power and prove that God is not all powerfull and all knowing. It is however easily dealth with and is just another example of a self-contradictory description. It is no limitation of God's power that he cannot create objects whose description is self-contradictory. It is therefore consistent to hold both that God is all-powerful, and that he cannot create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it.

However Ive come across a more difficult problem from Prof Geoffrey Klempner:

" I have an objection to the definition of God as 'allknowing'. I'll leave you to consider whether or not you think that it is convincing. Being all knowing, God sees things from every point of view, including yours and mine. He knows what it is like to beyou, and he knows what it is like to be me. But it seems to me that I know something God does not, and cannot know. What God knows is only what things are like for someone satisfying my totaldescription.He knows, for example, what it is like to be struggling with this question. But what God cannot know is what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I. From God's point of view, every individual is 'I'. From my point of view, only one is."

Also I often see this question posed by philosophers (taking a bit of a cheap shot at natural law and the concept of everything having a purpose) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOD? WHY does God exist?

Any thoughts?

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003

Answers

top

-- (top it@up.com), December 06, 2003.

The can be tough questions but the questions do not matter. Why? Because they put a limit on God. For humans to understand anything there must be a limit. But God is limitless. Think of God how you want but remember what ever you think of God as, He is beyond that.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

The statement "what God cannot know is what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I" would be more accurately restated: "from my limited perspective, based upon nothing more than my limited human intellect, it seems to me that God could not know what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I". Or to put it another way, "using nothing more than my flawed and finite human nature, I am incapable of comprehending how God could possibly know what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I". Stated in this way it is apparent that no limitation on the part of God is suggested, but rather the sheer futility of a creature's efforts to understand his Creator; of the finite seeking to comprehend the infinite by finite means. Any statement which begins "what God cannot know" presumes far too much - that I can validly equate my finite logical perception of God's capacity to know with His actual infinite capacity to know. Once this philosophical quandary is stated more accurately, as my inability to comprehend how God could have access to particular knowledge, the answer is obvious - "of course you can't understand how God could know this, but you can nevertheless know with certainty that God does know, because He has revealed His infinite and omniscient nature, and knows ALL, which would necessarily include everything which you are incapable of comprehending His capacity to know". Not only does God know "what it is like to be I", but He knows it perfectly, while I myself only know it imperfectly.

As for the silly "stone question", the second condition presented - "God could not lift it" - would contradict the very definition of the nature of God. If there was something "He" could not lift, then by definition, whoever "He" is, "He" is certainly not God. The original question therefore can be restated this way: "Is it possible for God to create a situation in which He is not God". Nope.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2003.

Kiwi asks: "WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOD? WHY does God exist?"

Because it is in His nature to exist.

"What God knows is only what things are like for someone satisfying my total description. He knows, for example, what it is like to be struggling with this question. But what God cannot know is what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I"

why not? I don't think you have proven your thesis

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 06, 2003.

Hi Gents thankyou.

The Professor presents a problem that from my perspective seems rational and logical, but in the end what you’re saying is that we cannot question the nature, purpose or scope of God? We must just accept the "mysteries of God". I find that frustrating in some ways, I guess I am really wondering is what, if any, limits/definitions/boundaries does scripture/tradition place on the concept of God.

Has our concept and understanding of God developed like other aspects of Catholic doctrine over time? If science starts to provide certain "proofs" about the creation of the earth/universe could this contradict Judo Christian beliefs about God? Paul as an aside, as scientist and a Deacon have you found any difficulties in accepting natural law and how have you overcome this (ie the apparent conflict between scientific "cause and effect" and natural law) In the end is discussion with non-believers hopeless and futile? I often feel this way and while we may have rational explanationsdescribing our faith, faith in itself is not rational. When we are operating from such different frameworks isnt it impossible?

Just because there are things in life we dont understand yet, "mysteries" so to speak, RATIONALLY speaking we should not just say "oh well lets not try and understand this but rather just call it a mystery of God". lWithout faith, belief in God is not rational IMHO. Many hard-core non believers the Chrisitan God is no more or less absurd than the tooth fairy in that such a theory is "ultra-stable" : The structure of the theory is such that it cannot be disproven under any circumstances. As such they feel it is not worthy of consideration and most probably false. How can you communicate with people who believe you’re barking mad?

Even "love" is laughed at, often nothing more than portrayed as "fear" or social construct or emotional reaction easily explained. Im going to ask the Professor to reply Paul if that’s ok as its perhaps fair if hes given the opportunity to reply, he moderates a very large and well known philosophical board and his response could be interesting if he has the time.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 07, 2003.

"The Professor presents a problem that from my perspective seems rational and logical, but in the end what you're saying is that we cannot question the nature, purpose or scope of God?"

A: It's not that we "cannot" question the nature and scope of God - indeed it is our nature to question that which we do not understand - but rather that our chances of fully understanding God are less than the chances of a mouse fully understanding human beings. As long as we accept this reality, we can question to the extent that this reality allows; but to question beyond that point is simply an exercise in futility. The problem your professor presents is indeed rational and logical "from our perspective". The problem is that "our perspective" is an extremely limited tool, and our human logic compared to God's logic is like the logic of a mouse compared to that of a man. Even that comparison is inadequate, since the logic of a mouse and that of a man are both finite, and as such are much closer to each other than either could be to the infinite. You hear people say "it is not logical" that bread and wine could become the body and blood of Christ; that there could be three separate and distinct persons comprising one God; that time and space themselves once did not exist. In fact, all of these "mysteries" are completely rational and logical, as is everything God does and is. But, they far exceed the limitations of human rationality and logic. We can believe that they exist, if we have faith, but we cannot understand or explain how they exist in terms accessible to human mental faculties, whether we have faith or not.

"... what, if any, limits/definitions/boundaries does scripture/tradition place on the concept of God"

A: Scripture and Tradition, the Word of God, place no quantitative limits on God. In every quality that describes God, He is that quality itself, the infinite and limitless expression of that quality. God is not merely loving but, as St. John tells us, God IS love. In the same way, God IS intelligence, IS power, IS knowledge, IS authority, IS justice, IS goodness; and the greatest expressions of these qualities that we can experience as human beings are merely the dimmest reflections of God, the absolute essence of all that is good. The only "boundaries" which apply to God therefore are infinity and perfection themselves. Nothing that falls short of these criteria can apply to God. There cannot be something God lacks the power to do, since He is power itself. There cannot be something God does not know, since He is knowledge itself. And there certainly could not be something I know that God does not know, including what it means to be "me". No other human being, no matter how intimately associated with me, could ever fully understand this; yet God understands it far better than I myself do, since all of my knowledge, including my knowledge of myself, is limited and imperfect, while God is knowledge itself, infinite and perfect.

"Has our concept and understanding of God developed like other aspects of Catholic doctrine over time?"

A: Most certainly. And if it continues to do so for another billion years, our understanding of Him will still be only the dimmest shadow of His reality.

"If science starts to provide certain "proofs" about the creation of the earth/universe could this contradict Judo Christian beliefs about God?"

A: Truth cannot conflict with truth. No genuine truth, from any source, can contradict any other genuine truth, from any source.

"Paul as an aside, as scientist and a Deacon have you found any difficulties in accepting natural law and how have you overcome this (ie the apparent conflict between scientific "cause and effect" and natural law)"

A: Natural Law pertains to the morality of all human behavior, including the behavior of scientists engaged in research. Once you accept that reality, and commit yourself to not crossing the line, potential interior conflicts are "resolved in advance", though there may of course be "difficulties" inherent in applying that commitment. Following the will of God inevitably causes difficulties in a world which does not follow the will of God. My wife, who is also a medical researcher, once lost an otherwise excellent position because she refused to culture cell lines obtained from aborted children. Scientific "cause and effect" applies only to realities which fall within the realm of science. Natural Law, a spiritual reality, does not.

"In the end is discussion with non-believers hopeless and futile? I often feel this way and while we may have rational explanations describing our faith, faith in itself is not rational. When we are operating from such different frameworks isnt it impossible?"

A: It may seem futile, but God calls one person to plant the seed, another person to water and fertilize it, according to His plan; yet God alone can make it grow. Your profession of the truth today, either by your words or by your actions, may plant a seed that will bear fruit in someone's life years from now, long after you have lost contact with that person - or not, if their heart is completely closed. As Mother Teresa said, "God does not require us to be successful - just faithful".

"Just because there are things in life we dont understand yet, "mysteries" so to speak, RATIONALLY speaking we should not just say "oh well lets not try and understand this but rather just call it a mystery of God"."

A: Certainly not. There would be a lot of valuable information we would lack if scientists took that approach! The purpose of science is to unravel mysteries, thread by thread. However, a scientist who thinks that every mystery can eventually be understood by empirical investigation is simply deluding himself. There are essential realities that can never be understood by scientific methodology, for they lie completely outside the realm of science. They influence and govern the universe, but are not part of it. Such realities cannot be fully understood by the application of mere human intellect. The only route to any understanding of them at all is to go to the source - God. One who rejects Him as the ultimate reality simply accepts ignorance in regard to a large portion of objective reality.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 07, 2003.

Dear Paul

Every hair on your head is counted, you are worth hundreds of sparrows!

Thankyou! If our professor doesnt return Im going to bug you with a few more 101 philosophy questions if thats ok as Im still not entirely satisfied(am I ever?) re: natural law and the assumptions that underpin in being in conflict with the laws of science, the demarcation line between the emperical and metaphysical being an ever changing one (or even try and ask you about Feyerabends view of science being merely another ideology), also emotion and faith and how you view fideism fitting into the modern Catholic theologians view,and my big hang up, how to explain the existence of "EVIL"! So many questions and so little time, no wonder I flounder in confusion..bear with me!

Ps I had the misfortune to be given a copy of Richard Dawkins article "Viruses of the Mind" where he compared religion to a disease, its the first time Ive read anything of his. He seemed to have a paticular distaste, even hatred for the Catholic Faith. ANyway I didnt think it was all that smart or clever what he was saying- even I could see obvious and very serious flaws in his logic. He reminded me of Russell in that I dont understand why everyone raves about him, Ive read much better arguments against the existence of God than these two men have provided.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 08, 2003.

Interesting.

God's "definition" is "Ipsum esse subsistens" or "His essence is to exist". So whereas every creature exists for the sake of something else (being caused by something else), God IS EXISTENCE ITSELF. being uncaused, uncreated, He is His own purpose! He is self-sufficient, whereas all creatures are not... they (we) have purposes which point beyond ourselves, God is the summit of being.

Now the so-called "intelligent" philosophers of the 19th century thought they were being clever when they wondered why God would bother creating anything at all if his purpose *(existence) was sufficent.

But they only revealed in the question what THEY WOULD DO IF gods! The self-centered man, (or devil) wouldn't bother creating anything else. But from the perspective of love, creation is pure gift. It doesn't NEED TO BE. There's no axiom requiring God to be creator. Creation doesn't have any rights on God. Covenants sure. rights no.

This context also points to the divine insight of Trinity as opposed to the dilema of a monistic view of God. Being Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there is an "internal" dynamism of love and relationships within the one divine nature. So rather than an uncreated egoist or "I" there is an uncreated trio, a "WE" each of whom are not egoists but who totally love the others.

The monist view of God as an "I" does tend to produce an ideal view of man as the independent god of his own universe. The unfettered ego- centered idol... in imitation of the dread lord of the universe.

But the Trinity - the eternal outpouring of self into others... that points to a logic of self-less giving that makes the Cosmos a gift rather than an arbitrary plaything, a clock or experiment as arbitrary and meaningless (purposeless) as it gets!

The supposed paradox about a rock heavier than God could lift is equally foolish. God is spirit, rocks aren't. Spirit is more real, more being than atoms are. Thus mountains stand no chance against "faith the side of a mustard seed".

There's just no comparison between the cosmos and the creator. "Bigger" or "too heavy" doesn't make sense. You might as well ask "could God create a God?" but then, if the definition of God is to be uncreated... the answer is no - but that's only a "limitation" of sanity not metaphysical "power".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2003.

Is there really proof of excistance , in that case , please , show me evidence , like a picture ??

And why or how is mankind created ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), December 10, 2003.

Kiwi,

Pray for stronger faith. Don't waste your time, because you will never understand the God of the Universe! How can anyone? Don't make it harder than it is.

Just be thankful for the air that you breathe, because this is a gift from our Lord.

Go to Confession and receive the Eucharist, and keep praying.

God bless the Catholic Church.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 11, 2003.

Hey David your words of truth to me here have really made me feel quite emotional and humble . Thanks more than you know. God Bless you and your family.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), December 11, 2003.

>Is there really proof of excistance , in that case , please , show me evidence , like a picture ??

Look in the mirror

>And why or how is mankind created ??

Created by whom? :)

Seriously, mankind is the only creature we know of that considers such questions. Only something outside of us could have created us so differently from the creatures around us and put into the each man the desire to find that answer.

God created man to ask the questions you are asking, and to eventually find and love Him.

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

Dear Deacon Paul I recieved a reply from Professor Klempner and others regarding your thoughts. Your name has been published on the Shefield University "Ask a philosopher" Website as I provided it to them. If you are unhappy with this or would like to respond please contact me for the Professor Klempner's e-mail address.

On a seprate issue on another thread I have just read, your response on the oral sex thread regarding my belief in the necessity for Catholics to folow their honest conscience EVEN when in error. So that Catholics do not misunderstand the CATHOLIC CHURCH's position with your own personal theological view I will ask you back up your assertions with the necessary evidence from tradition. I will reply asap on that thread when I have gathered the necesary references as perhaps their was a misunderstanding over the word "honest".

Hope you and all the forum folks had a wonderful Christmas and best wishes to you all for 2004! God Bless

Here it is Paul

Please comment on this response from Paul a Catholic Deacon:

The statement "what God cannot know is what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I" would be more accurately restated: "from my limited perspective, based upon nothing more than my limited human intellect, it seems to me that God could not know what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I". Or to put it another way, "using nothing more than my flawed and finite human nature, I am incapable of comprehending how God could possibly know what it is like for the individual satisfying that total description to be I". Stated in this way it is apparent that no limitation on the part of God is suggested, but rather the sheer futility of a creature's efforts to understand his Creator; of the finite seeking to comprehend the infinite by finite means. Any statement which begins "what God cannot know" presumes far too much — that I can validly equate my finite logical perception of God's capacity to know with His actual infinite capacity to know.

Once this philosophical quandary is stated more accurately, as my inability to comprehend how God could have access to particular knowledge, the answer is obvious — "of course you can't understand how God could know this, but you can nevertheless know with certainty that God does know, because He has revealed His infinite and omniscient nature, and knows ALL, which would necessarily include everything which you are incapable of comprehending His capacity to know". Not only does God know "what it is like to be I", but He knows it perfectly, while I myself only know it imperfectly.

I'm afraid I don't know much of God, but do believe knowledge to be a human concept about a particular animal relation to the world which implies the possibility of false belief and mistake. Mistake and false belief wouldn't apply to God, as you see him.

As far as I understand anything about God, God is not an animal in relation to the world and so you shouldn't be thinking of what God "knows".

Rachel Browne

Given what the good Deacon says I'd like to ask him why I should follow his faith? As he points out he hasan imperfect knowledge of his Creator so why should I believe his explanation?

Kim Boley

First, let me say for clarity that I agree with this thesis. One general comment on the comment of Paul Monfils, certainly not meant personal.. I know that language is personal, but using so many difficult phrases cannot be 'good'. It in fact hides his opinion more, than opening it up.

First it should be clear what either of them means when using the word 'God'.

1. Obviously for Geoffrey Klempner the notion 'God' is relative. 2. On first sight Paul uses an enlightened absolute view on the notion 'God'

Consequently Geoffrey's god is personal, and knows only one I, that of Geoffrey. Because in this view everybody creates his/her own image of 'god' such gods know only the different 'I's.

In the same way Paul's god is absolute. In the Enlightenment this was called a priori. Such a god per definition knows truth (his own single truth). And as a consequence if his/her followers use this truth then per definition he/she knows their truth.

So whatever words they use, both Geoffrey and Paul are right, ONLY they apply different rules. IF they want to communicate, than they should compare their parallel rules (their 2 logics), and find a mutual set of basic rules. That might involve that both should slightly change their own set. But Im convinced the differences are not that big. It would be a nice and educational exercise. Because I think both views need each other, and therefore should come to real communication, instead of risking remaining to parallel paradigms

Henk Tuten

I am perfectly happy to preface every statement I make in the context of philosophical discourse (including this one) with the disclaimer, "From my limited perspective, based upon nothing more than my limited human intellect it seems to me that...". That used to be the accepted literary style for philosopher, e.g. Augustine in the Confessions. "O God, I know I am a complete ignoramus, and you understand things infinitely better than I do, but might it possibly be the case that...?", and so on. But such self-effacing language did not prevent Augustine from doing ground-breaking work on the philosophy of time.

A disclaimer which applies equally to every statement one makes has no force whatsoever.

There appears to be a special problem with philosophical arguments which rule out the possibility of something. Isn't it harder to prove a negative? It is hard to prove that there are no unicorns, because this would require investigating every place in the universe that unicorns might be. However, in philosophy, we prove things by means of logical argument. (Again, it is our best judgement concerning what is "logical" or a "proof", but this goes without saying.) And there can be logical arguments to the effect that "such-and-such is an impossibility".

My argument concerns a definition of God's 'omniscience' offered by a philosopher. On a certain, plausible view of 'omniscience', I argue, an omniscient God cannot know the difference between my existence and G.K.s existence. The argument may be considered as a challenge. Of course, the theologian is free to say that if and when philosophy fails us, when it cannot meet the challenges set to it in the way that we would like, there is still room for faith. (That sounds close to Kant's view, although Kant held something stronger: that it is the task of his philosophy to demonstrate the limits of reason, in order to make room for faith.) However, one should never be complacent about the fact that one does not understand something. Especially in this case, where — at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition — it is a matter of central importance that God knows me as this unique I. That is why those who accept the comforts of religion have no reason to scorn philosophy.

Geoffrey Klempner

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.