You write, “I personally would opt not for ‘rational’ vs. ‘non-rational’ and instead ‘higher and lower’ or ‘basic and derived’ or even ‘God’s laws and laws derived from it.’”

My point was not the division itself, but rather to name all the kinds of laws I could think of (excluding manmade laws, of course). In the end they boiled down to two: Those which govern the involuntary conduct of non-rational forces and objects (commonly called the laws of physics), and those which govern the voluntary conduct of beings with minds (commonly called the moral law). If you know of other kinds, not falling into one of those categories, I would be interested to know what they are.

You write, ‘I go back to our (off line) argument about whether God being subject to laws implies something above God. You have now proven that is not the case — exactly like I said back then. The laws God is describable by are all statements of God’s nature.’

As usual I don’t understand you. I argued in my last post that God is subject to no laws whatsoever. Now you say I have disproven the proposition that if God is subject to laws that implies something above God? On the contrary, I still say that “subject to” implies something being ruled by something else in some respect. I deny that God is ruled by anything else.

You write, ‘… I disagree with you that God is a brute fact. If God were just a brute fact, then there would be no way to explain God. Instead, we find that God can be explained. God is not moral because morality is defined as ‘that which God has decided.’ Morality actually has a lawful reality all it’s own and it is therefore possible to explain God’s moral nature from various view points. That is to say, one can ‘explain why’ God is moral.’

I could agree that morality has a “lawful reality all it’s own” in the same sense in which I have a reality of my own (not sure where “lawful” comes in), nevertheless I am created and held in existence by God, so my reality is not “all” my own. The word “morality”, in my view of reality, pertains to the rules governing the way rational beings treat each other. These rules do not apply to God since God acts morally by nature. Having a law requiring God to act morally would be like having a law requiring water to be wet.

For this reason I do not agree that there is an independently existing moral law to which God is subject. Rather the moral law governing the behavior of rational beings arises from their need to conform their natures to God’s nature in order to live and be happy. There is no nature to which God needs to conform his nature in order to live and be happy. His life and happiness have no source outside himself. They just are, as he himself just is (i.e. “I AM”).

Personally, I’m not convinced that the divide between what you are calling rational and non-rational laws is as ontologically separate as you seem to believe. Indeed, I personally would opt not for ‘rational’ vs. ‘non-rational’ and instead ‘higher and lower’ or ‘basic and derived’ or even ‘God’s laws and laws derived from it.’

In short, I believe there is a difference, but not as strict a one as you seem to be claiming.

I go back to our (off line) argument about whether God being subject to laws implies something above God. You have now proven that is not the case — exactly like I said back then. The laws God is describable by are all statements of God’s nature.

On the other hand, this being the case, I disagree with you that God is a brute fact. If God were just a brute fact, then there would be no way to explain God. Instead, we find that God can be explained. God is not moral because morality is defined as ‘that which God has decided.’ Morality actually has a lawful reality all it’s own and it is therefore possible to explain God’s moral nature from various view points. That is to say, one can ‘explain why’ God is moral.

This is just a fancy way of saying God can be explained or that God is not random, he is ‘algorithmically compressible.’

It’s another way of saying God is lawful.

You write, ‘Agellius asked me to make a response.’

I don’t think I so much asked for a response, as for you to let me know if you did respond since the email notification function didn’t seem to be working. However I’m glad you did!

I started a point-by-point response but after pondering a while, decided to try it another way.

I believe you are saying that something is incomprehensible unless explainable by laws, which is another way of saying, governed by laws by which it may be explained. By “explained” I take you to mean how the thing exists and how it acts as it does.

I think laws can be divided into two kinds: (A) Those which govern non-rational things, and (B) those which govern rational beings.

Laws of type A govern non-rational things insofar as they are purely non-rational. Thus the law of gravity governs my body but has no direct effect on my thoughts. Type A laws govern things such as atoms, molecules, energy, light, etc. Things governed by such laws have no choice but to obey them. I will call laws of this type non-rational laws.

Laws of type B govern rational beings insofar as they are purely rational. Type B laws govern how rational beings are to conduct themselves, or in other words what we call the moral law. The moral law governs my spirit, i.e. my intellect and my will, but has no direct effect on my body. I can choose whether or not to obey the moral law. I will call a law of this type a rational law.

Non-rational laws govern how non-rational things interact with each other, for example how energy interacts with matter, how a rock interacts with the earth, etc. Rational laws govern how rational beings interact with each other, in other words how they treat each other and whether or not they obey the will of the supreme rational being we call God.

I say that God is not subject to non-rational laws since he is purely rational. No part of him is non-rational, such that it should be affected by laws governing the interaction of non-rational things insofar as they are purely non-rational.

I say that God is not subject to rational laws, since they are equivalent to God’s own will — in other words, to obey the moral law is to obey God’s will. The written moral commandments are the expression of God’s will as it concerns our behavior: He wills that we not steal or commit adultery, etc., therefore those things are a violation of the moral law. God is not subject to rational laws since he is their author: To say he is subject to them would be to say he is subject to himself, which is just another way of saying he is subject to no one.

There is no source of any laws outside God: He invented non-rational laws when he created non-rational things, and rational laws are nothing more than his will concerning the behavior of rational beings.

God is what you would call a “brute fact”, if by that term you mean a thing which has no external cause of its existence or behavior. By that definition he is the only brute fact, or what we Catholics call the Uncaused Cause. Other spirits are not brute facts since they have, and are therefore explainable by, a cause other than themselves, namely God. Such spirits are not subject to non-rational laws since they are purely rational (and therefore have no parts that are purely non-rational). However they are subject to rational laws since they are subject to the moral law, i.e. God’s will.

Human beings are subject to both non-rational laws and rational laws, since they are a composite of non-rational and rational (the only composite beings we know of): Their bodies are subject to non-rational laws, while their spirits are subject to rational laws.

“First, I’m not sure what you mean by “proof” in this context. Obviously I don’t claim to be able to prove it, either logically or scientifically. It rests upon premises which I believe are part of divine revelation. Therefore I can’t prove it, I can only show that it follows from my premises.”

Like I said before, I don’t think we’re really disagreeing, Agellius. You, in essence, restate my point.

I define “explanation” and “comprehension” as being one and the same. You don’t seem to but I don’t see you giving an alternative definition either. So at this point, I’m incapable of responding to any alternative point of view.

I also define “explanation” as synonymous with algorithmic compression. That is to say, I accept the idea that we can either algorithmically compress something or it’s by definition either an axiom or its random and can’t be compressed or explained even in principle. (I can’t take the time to explain algorithmic compression, but it’s not that big a deal. It just means something can be explained via functions or logical steps. Also, someone is going to here say, ‘yeah, you can explain something that is random. You just say the explanation is that it’s random.’ Fair enough. I just mean it can’t be explained beyond that.)

In claiming this, I am not denying the existence of emergent levels of laws or explanation. Clark took exception to the idea that salt can be comprehended by breaking it down chemically and instead suggested merely experiencing it is the best way to comprehend it. This is actually just a misunderstanding of what I am saying. You’d have to do both to fully comprehend salt. I am not claiming everything to be understood can only by understood via reducibility.

It seems to me that at some point you have to accept something as a ‘brute fact.’ A brute fact has no further explanation by definition. I think of Euclidean axioms as examples of such brute facts. I know of no way to prove or reduce “A straight line can be drawn between any two points” further.

I am *not* claiming that the fact that that axioms can’t be reduced further makes it incomprehensible. I consider such an axiom a first principle so I include it under the concept of ‘comprehensibility’; all accept it as true because it’s obvious, even if we have no way to explain further.

I believe you are agreeing with me, but hate my wording because it seems negative to you.

At this point, I am now claiming the Catholic concept of spirits are ‘incomprehensible’ according to my definition of comprehension *unless* declared a brute fact. I think this is logically obvious.

You, on the other hand, seem to be saying “yes they are comprehensible, because they need no further explanation.” In other words, you’re declaring them to be brute facts or axioms. Spirits just exist, period.

In other words, I see nothing you are saying that disagrees with what I have said.

Further, I agree with you (in the quote above) that the issue is really you are trying to affirm a Catholic revelation. In fact, it is specifically the fact that I feel that Catholic revelation is circular logic that I am taking exception to.

You are on faith accepting the idea that the concept of “God” is outside of any possible set of laws or, as, you say, mechanisms. When I question how that is possible you respond “well, how could God be God and be subject to a set of laws?” This statement makes perfect sense to you because you — by revelation — define God as being that which is outside of all laws.

Yet, it seems to me that this Catholic belief brings nothing to the table whatsoever:

If God can be explained in any part via love, then God can be explained (at least in part) via laws and is thus subject to laws in a sense. You don’t deny this, but you see no issue with it because you merely declare that love is a law ‘coming from within Himself’ and not external to Him. Therefore, this doesn’t deny your definition of God as being above everything.

Indeed, if I decide that God is subject to gravity it’s now no issue at all, because we can declare gravity as coming from within Himself. So this explanation does nothing for me. It seems to merely beg the question.

We might as well just say “God is subject to nothing but that which He is subject to on account of Him being God.” To me it’s it has the illusion of meaning without actually bring something to the table. From this point we can now arbitrarily ascribe to God anything we want while arbitrarily claiming ‘the other guy’ is limiting God. All we have to do is claim their concepts of God are ‘external laws’ and our own are ‘internal laws.’ And it’s all completely arbitrary at this point.

But arbitrariness is required now. Because if we decide to give ‘the other guy’ the benefit of the doubt, then even an out and out pantheist is in no way claiming there are laws above God. Indeed, I find it impossible to, even in principle, formulate such an ‘external’ law.

Other than that, I see only one other thing we are disagreeing over: Catholics claim spirits are brute facts requiring no further explanation. While some Mormons would agree with you, there is no Mormon doctrine one way or the other, so I’m free to believe otherwise. So I accept the possibility that they aren’t brute facts and that further explanation is possible, even if I don’t yet know what it is.