Rate this:

Damien,

Thank you for taking time to read my site. I hope that you are finding it enjoyable. It is interesting that you would ask about there being multiple paths to God in light of the topic we are discussing, the law of non contradiction.

I feel the need to make an important distinction that I believe will help to more accurately convey what I am getting at. Everyone has beliefs. Everyone has convictions. These are two very different things. You may substitute the phrase “I believe” in front of anything and no one will question the validity of your belief. To believe requires nothing of us. I may believe whatever I would like to believe. For example: If I told you that I truly believed that I was an alien from another galaxy, you could not tell me that I was wrong, as it would be my belief.

The word conviction however, requires more of its user. If we say that we are convicted of something it usually has penal connotations. Even this definition has a value to our discussion. If these words were the same then why do we not just ask a judge if they believe or not if the person committed the crime. How does a person become convicted in a court of law? There must be evidence present to convict as they are innocent until proven guilty. Convicted evolved from the word convinced, which meant to refute or to prove. From convinced comes from the Latin convincere. Vincere means to conquer. Based up its etymolgy, when we think of the the definition of convicted, we must think of, in some way the words refute, prove, conquer, or convince because they are inextricably linked. At no time when I speak of absolute truth do I speak from an area of belief. I speak from an area of conviction. A belief is something that you can change, a conviction is not. I believe because I have been convicted. I present these arguments not from a blind spot of faith, but from countless days and nights spent making sure that if I am going to present something as truth then I had better be able to refute, to prove, to conquer and to convince.

Moving on to our topic….

“Just as I can feel two contradictory feelings about dinner, why can’t there be multiple paths to God? Is it outside of God’s abilities to create multiple paths to him that seem contradictory to us mere mortals?”

The Law States that the following two statements cannot both be true. A is equal to B, A is not equal to B. If we substitute our topic, the following is the result. The way to God is equal to Christianity, The way to God is not equal to Christianity. Either the first statement is true, or the second one is, but they cannot both be. Substitute now any of the world’s religions into that equation and the result is the same. The outcome of a equation like the one above is necessarily concluded by exclusivity. This is why there cannot be multiple paths to God. A claim of absolute truth (IE: the path to God) is exclusive by its own nature.

This brings me to the abilities question. It is not outside of God’s ability to do anything. But there are things that are outside of His nature and therefore He can’t do them. I know that everyone will immediately say, “so that means that God can’t do things”. The superficial answer is yes. The deeper explanation of why the answer is yes, is what is important. Again I would stress that it is the same with God as it is with truth. You would not expect a hammer to drill you a hole. Why then do you expect of God to do something equally as ridiculous like contradict himself? What type of God is that? God cannot and will not do anything that is outside of His nature. This includes lying (according to LNC) by telling people fundamentally different ways of reaching Him.

It is important to remember that when we talk of exclusivity in religion, we must not fall into the relativistic trap of believing that when we compare religions, we are comparing Granny Smith apples to Macintosh apples. The different schisms of religion that exist currently are all so diametrically opposed that to believe that they are all basically the same because the end result is God, is frankly somewhat naive. Is it really possible that the end result of a life dedicated to Satanism (yes, it is a recognized religion) has the same result as a life dedicated to Christianity? Of course not. Yet that is what you suggest. What we should be doing is comparing ice tea with number two crude oil. They are completely different in every aspect, except one. They are both liquids. Yet I would venture to guess that you would be hard pressed to find someone that believed that these two items were the same merely because they shared a common characteristic. Apply this same logic to religion and the answer is obvious.  Merely because two viewpoints share a similar goal does that make them equally true?

I would like to mention here Okham’s Razor which states that “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. In layman’s terms this means that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Why would there need to be more than one way to God? Knowing what we know about truth according to the law of non contradiction, to now add in Okham’s Razor only makes the concept of multiple, self contradicting paths to God a truly ridiculous proposal.

If you still believe that there are multiple paths, that is your prerogative. If you say that you are convinced that there are multiple paths, I would ask, “Where is your evidence for this religious court of law?”

That is why there is only one way to God.

Advertisement