God and Contingency
Classical theism presents the concept of an asymmetric relationship with Hashem, illustrating a profound and fundamental distinction between their Creator and His creation. In this framework, Hashem is the ultimate source of all existence, possessing the singular and absolute power to create. His creatures, on the other hand, are entirely dependent on Him for their existence and lack any intrinsic creative power.
This relationship is eloquently summarized by Charles Hartshorne, who described it as, “One wholly uncreated, the other wholly uncreative.” This encapsulates the idea that while Hashem is eternally self-sustaining and the origin of all that is, His creatures can neither originate nor sustain themselves independently, highlighting the essential dependence of the created upon the Creator.
In this view, it is entirely beyond the capability of creatures to influence or affect Hashem in any meaningful way. Thomas Aquinas articulated this profound asymmetry by building upon Aristotle’s concepts of “pure act” and the “unmoved mover.” Aquinas explained that the relationship from Hashem to His creatures is a real and dynamic one; it profoundly impacts their very existence and essence. In contrast, the relationship from creatures to Hashem is rational and conceptual, existing only in the mind. The existence of creatures, while dependent on Hashem, does not alter or impact His being in any way.
This delineation underscores the transcendent nature of Hashem, whose essence and existence are entirely self-sufficient and unaffected by the created world. It emphasizes the dependency and contingency of creatures on their Creator, while Hashem remains the immutable and ultimate source of all being.
This raises an intriguing question: if Hashem is a “pure act,”, implying that anything He could be, He already is, does He possess any potential for change? The concept of Hashem as the “unmoved mover” suggests that He initiates movement and change in others while remaining entirely unaffected by anything external.
This characterization implies that Hashem is impassible, meaning He is devoid of feelings or emotions as humans understand them. In classical theism, this notion underscores the idea that Hashem’s essence is entirely actualized, lacking any potentiality for change. His actions are not reactions but are the fundamental cause of all that exists.
This divine impassibility highlights the transcendence and constancy of Hashem, whose nature remains eternally the same, unaffected by the temporal and mutable realm of creation.
This presents a paradox that borders on incoherence. It posits that Hashem is all-knowing of a contingent world, yet nothing within Him can be different from what it is. These conditions seem to contradict each other. By definition, a contingent event could occur differently.
For example, consider a marathoner who, at a particular time and place, is sleeping instead of running. If this event were reversed, Hashem’s knowledge of the event would also be reversed. This does not imply that Hashem could be ignorant of something; rather, it suggests that the state of things known by Hashem could differ.
Therefore, Hashem, in His infallibility, necessarily knows whatever exists. However, it does not logically follow that what exists is necessary. This paradox remains unless one accepts the premise that nothing within Hashem can be other than it is, thereby maintaining that Hashem’s knowledge and essence are eternally consistent and unchanging despite the contingency of the created world.
In conclusion, it appears that a deity devoid of contingent aspects possessing knowledge of a contingent world presents a logical impossibility. The inherent nature of contingency implies potential variability and change, whereas a god without contingent aspects suggests absolute immutability and constancy. Reconciling these opposing qualities within the framework of divine knowledge challenges the coherence of such a concept, revealing a fundamental tension between the nature of an unchanging deity and the mutable reality of a contingent world.