Can God know a Potentially Infinite Future?

[ChainBreaker]

Nothing circular about it. God is infinitely perfect in every way. Freedom is a good we cannot deny to God. If we did, we wouldn’t be talking about God. More to the point, love is an act of the will and God’s will is free.

And God knows all ’ possibles ’ which are not self contradictory. Neither God nor ourselves can know the contrdictory because there is no concept of the contradictory and neither we nor God is able to know anything that is intelligible. See S.T., part 1, ques 25, ans 3 ).

Next?

Linus2nd

.

What are you talking about?

 

[Gorgias]

If i am correct this does not preclude the belief that we will live forever in God. It simply means that an eternal heaven is not a potentially infinite number of events. Instead we will be living in some kind of fully actualized state of being. The implication is that we will be fully actualized in God; whatever that means.

Hold on a second! You’re doing it again!

Either you’re talking about a potential infinite sequence of events within temporality, or you’re talking about eternity (which would include heaven). Earlier, you asserted that you weren’t talking about eternity; now you seem to be switching back to talking about it.

Which is it? ‘Eternity’ or ‘temporal future’?

(I agree with you that “eternal heaven is not a potentially infinite number of events”. Is that the solution to your problem? Were you really talking about eternity all along?)

 

[ChainBreaker]

Hold on a second! You’re doing it again!

Either you’re talking about a potential infinite sequence of events within temporality, or you’re talking about eternity (which would include heaven). Earlier, you asserted that you weren’t talking about eternity; now you seem to be switching back to talking about it.

Which is it? ‘Eternity’ or ‘temporal future’?

(I agree with you that “eternal heaven is not a potentially infinite number of events”. Is that the solution to your problem? Were you really talking about eternity all along?)

I am saying that the state of eternal heaven is not by definition a potentially infinite number of events so that people understand that my argument isn’t trying to refute our eternity in heaven.

Do you have some difficulty reading my posts?

 

[belorg]

The only being by nature. This is true. But if we exist by and through the act of God, and man is in potency to the act of God, perhaps we can be fulfilled by and through the act of God.

I am in agreement with the idea that in the eternal now all potency is fully actual.

No, we can’t be fulfilled by and through the act of God because that would mean we become the same being as God. The idea that human beings can become the same being as God is contrary to classical theism,

 

[Linusthe2nd]

.

What are you talking about?

Didn’t you read the reference? Here is the link, read it carefully. dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP/FP025.html#FPQ25A3THEP1

I put it in my own words just to please you. It is quite simple really. You claimed in the O.P. that " … If God’s knowledge is fully actual (unchanging) this implies that God cannot know a potentially infinite future since the movement from potency to act is never completed and thus the entirety of those events cannot be contained within the knowledge of a being that never changes without actualizing potency in God’s knowledge. " And based on this we were to conclude that:

" 1. God changes. This would mean that God’s being is a string of contingent acts of existing, just like the universe.

1. God’s knowledge is not identical with his being and so his knowledge changes but his act of existence does not. This would mean that God is not simple and would lead to further dilemmas.
2. There is no such thing as a potentially infinite future and that therefore all change will eventually come to an end or be completed. "

First we do not know that a " potentially infinite future " of events moving from potentiality to actuality is self contradictory or not. If it is self contradictory, then it is a concept that is unintelligible, it cannot be known - by God or by us. The reason is that only being is intelligible to God or to us and the self contradictory is non-being, so it cannot be conceived. So your three choices are based on a hypothetical and no valid judgment about what is real and true can be based on a hypothetical. Based on your scenario we cannot answer the question because it is based on a hypothetical premise.

However, based on faith we know that this world will come to an end. Thomas Aquinas mentions somewhere matter itself ( I assume he is talking about prime matter ) will continue to exist. The Church herself speaks only of the " new heaven and the new earth. " But it does not speak of the annihilation of the present world, only of a renewal of it. So whether this means an end of movement from potentiality to actuality is uncertain. But I think it reasonable to assume that the normal passage of things from potentiality to actuality will be at an end for the present form of this world. And we can assume that whatever the " new heaven and the new earth " will be, it will be a new beginning for it and thus a new beginning for changes/movement, if that will be going on. But we can only speculate on these things.

Linus2nd
Linus2nd

 

[Gorgias]

I am saying that the state of eternal heaven is not by definition a potentially infinite number of events so that people understand that my argument isn’t trying to refute our eternity in heaven.

Since you made an appeal to ‘eternity’, as a possible solution to your question, it seemed that you were asserting that the context of your question is ‘eternity’.

Do you have some difficulty reading my posts?

Only when they confuse the issue at hand.

So – if you’re affirming that eternity isn’t the context of your question, then your question is easily answered: a ‘potential infinity’, within the context of temporality, is a context that God doesn’t share. He isn’t ‘within’ the temporal frame of reference, but rather, has created it. Therefore, his context is not encompassed by temporality. And therefore, whatever its extent, He is not limited, bound, or swamped by it: temporality is, by definition, lesser than God.

 

[ChainBreaker]

No, we can’t be fulfilled by and through the act of God because that would mean we become the same being as God. The idea that human beings can become the same being as God is contrary to classical theism,

It depends. Our natures are fulfilled by the end to which they our in act. If that end is to be in perfect union with God, then once that is achieved there is no potency left to be actualized in our nature. There is no need to think that this means that we will become identical with God, because it is the union that is perfect according to our natures and not our natures in themselves that become perfect like God. This is only to say that our natures are perfectly actualized according to what are nature actually is. We do not become the nature that is God.

 

[belorg]

It depends. Our natures are fulfilled by the end to which they our in act. If that end is to be in perfect union with God, then once that is achieved there is no potency left to be actualized in our nature. There is no need to think that this means that we will become identical with God, because it is the union that is perfect according to our natures and not our natures in themselves that become perfect like God. This is only to say that our natures are perfectly actualized according to what are nature actually is. We do not become the nature that is God.

I am afraid you have this all wrong. It has nothing to do with becoming perfect like God, it is that, if somehow we have no potency anymore, then we are either nothing (which is not what will happen according to classical theism) or we are pure act. But “pure act” in classical theism is a synonym for God. So, yes, under your scenario, we do become “the nature that is God.”

 

[ChainBreaker]

I am afraid you have this all wrong. It has nothing to do with becoming perfect like God, it is that, if somehow we have no potency anymore, then we are either nothing (which is not what will happen according to classical theism) or we are pure act. But “pure act” in classical theism is a synonym for God. So, yes, under your scenario, we do become “the nature that is God.”

Well, no because our nature is not the act of existence, but rather we are held “in” existence by the act of God. It is our “natures” that become fully actualized. This is not to say that existence is fulfilled, but rather our natures as they exist in respect to their natural and ultimate end is fulfilled. There will be no more potency in our natures insomuch that we will no-longer be in a state of becoming. We will no-longer come into existence; we will just be “in” existence eternally.

 

[belorg]

Well, no because our nature is not the act of existence, but rather we are held “in” existence by the act of God. It is our “natures” that become fully actualized. This is not to say that existence is fulfilled, but rather our natures as they exist in respect to their natural and ultimate end is fulfilled. There will be no more potency in our natures insomuch that we will no-longer be in a state of becoming. We will no-longer come into existence; we will just be “in” existence eternally.

No, ChaninBreaker, we will either forever be a mixture of act and potency, In which case, in order for god to be omniscient he must know a Potentially infinite future, or we will become pure act, in which case we become God.
There is no other act than the act of existence.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, ChaninBreaker, we will either forever be a mixture of act and potency, In which case, in order for god to be omniscient he must know a Potentially infinite future, or we will become pure act, in which case we become God.
There is no other act than the act of existence.

Very good Belorg.

Linus2nd

 

[ChainBreaker]

No, ChaninBreaker, we will either forever be a mixture of act and potency, In which case, in order for god to be omniscient he must know a Potentially infinite future, or we will become pure act, in which case we become God.
There is no other act than the act of existence.

The asserted impossibility of all potency in ones nature being actualized does not mean that it is impossible. In the eternal-now all potency is fully-actualized and yet it is not identical with God because they do not share the same nature; so if there is a problem with my view then there is a problem with classical theism too. Also, if classical theism does happen to be wrong then it is wrong; my argument is not dependent on justifying classical theism. And yes there is no other act of existence and it just so happens that our natures are not identical with the act of existence precisely because our potency needs to be actualized. If your nature was the act of existence, you would not come into existence; you would be existence. Our being is analogous to the act of existence, but we are not the act of existence. Rather we exist through the act of existence. We are held in existence, we are not identical in nature with it. God is the act of existence.

If your argument was correct then every time your potency is actualized you would become identical with existence, which is logically impossible.

Now the fact that there is only one act of existence through which everything else has a being, does not mean that the act of existence cannot actualize all of our potency and remain absolutely distinct in nature from creation; for it is not our “existence” (since we have no existence of our own) that is fully actualized, but rather it is our “natures” that fulfills all of its potency.

 

[belorg]

The asserted impossibility of all potency in ones nature being actualized does not mean that it is impossible. In the eternal-now all potency is fully-actualized and yet it is not identical with God because they do not share the same nature; so if there is a problem with my view then there is a problem with classical theism too. Also, if classical theism does happen to be wrong then it is wrong; my argument is not dependent on justifying classical theism. And yes there is no other act of existence and it just so happens that our natures are not identical with the act of existence precisely because our potency needs to be actualized. If your nature was the act of existence, you would not come into existence; you would be existence. Our being is analogous to the act of existence, but we are not the act of existence. Rather we exist through the act of existence. We are held in existence, we are not identical in nature with it. God is the act of existence.

If your argument was correct then every time your potency is actualized you would become identical with existence, which is logically impossible.

Now the fact that there is only one act of existence through which everything else has a being, does not mean that the act of existence cannot actualize all of our potency and remain absolutely distinct in nature from creation; for it is not our “existence” (since we have no existence of our own) that is fully actualized, but rather it is our “natures” that fulfills all of its potency.

With all due respect, ChainBreaker, I think what you are saying here proves that you do not really understand what classical theism is all about. The point is that, under classical theism, "every time your potency is actualized " makes no sense, because there simply isn’t and there cannot be a time when all my potency is actualized.
You seem to think that we have a nature with a limited potency and that once this potency is actualized, we have some sort of “full” nature which is not identical with existence.
Like God wants us to become X and we are currently in the process of becoming X and once we have become X, our potency to become X has been fulfilled. So we have reached “our full nature” which is X.
But under classical theism, this full nature cannot be devoid of every potency, unless it is of course, pure act, which would mean that it has become identical with existence. As long as that is not the case, our nature will always have some potency

 

[ChainBreaker]

With all due respect, ChainBreaker, I think what you are saying here proves that you do not really understand what classical theism is all about. The point is that, under classical theism, "every time your potency is actualized " makes no sense, because there simply isn’t and there cannot be a time when all my potency is actualized.
You seem to think that we have a nature with a limited potency and that once this potency is actualized, we have some sort of “full” nature which is not identical with existence.
Like God wants us to become X and we are currently in the process of becoming X and once we have become X, our potency to become X has been fulfilled. So we have reached “our full nature” which is X.
But under classical theism, this full nature cannot be devoid of every potency, unless it is of course, pure act, which would mean that it has become identical with existence. As long as that is not the case, our nature will always have some potency

I see no refutation of my argument.

Secondly if there is never a time when potency is actualized, then it remains potency which does not in or of itself exist accept in the sense of what a thing could become or the potential to exist. In the eternal now all potency is fully actual and yet it is not pure actuality, because there is a distinction between that which has existence and that which is existence. The only thing that can actualize potency is that which is identical in nature to the act of existence, and we are not identical to the act of existence.

Perhaps it is you that doesn’t understand metaphysics.

 

[MrSnaith]

Secondly if there is never a time when potency is actualized…

Well, to be fair, belorg actually said:

there cannot be a time when all my potency is actualized.

So your response is a non sequitur.

In the eternal now all potency is fully actual and yet it is not pure actuality…

This would only be true if anything other than God, who is pure act, can exist in a purely “eternal now.” That all moments should at once be present and fully known, which is the presence of the “eternal now,” seems like something only an actual infinite, like God, could exist in.

The only thing that can actualize potency is that which is identical in nature to the act of existence, and we are not identical to the act of existence.

Well sure. So, let’s consider your premise then, that the nature of a thing might become fully actualized. This presupposes that a thing has finite potency. Yet, if a thing has finite potency, then the only available ultimate end of that thing is to cease to exist. I suppose you could argue an infinite state of animated suspension, but I would hardly call that existing.

If we are to argue, at all, that humans could somehow be brought into the eternal now, in a sense, we would first have to allow for the fact that human participation the eternal now would be limited, at best. In other words, the unity of moments they would experience would be only as much as God would allow, first of all, and secondly, only as much as human capacity could allow for.

But, I suppose before this argument could possibly be settled definitively, we should first approach the question of what the nature of man is. You have already defined the nature of God, as pure act. Could you give some form of definition to the nature of man, and how exactly we might envision man’s nature as becoming fully actualized?

I say this because I am granting that there may be different kinds of potency. One might say, for example, that there are potencies of being, nature, mind, or will. So, while nature, mind and will might be subcategories of being, there is still a distinction that exists there.

Therefore, while God may be pure act, it ought to be understood that when we say this we’re properly speaking of God’s being, though in God, there is an identic equivalence between His being, His nature, mind and will. So, if you would like to suggest that human nature could be fully actualized, you must at least admit that our being could never be fully actualized.

So, the question is irreducibly: is man’s nature finite, or infinite? If finite, how is it that it’s ultimate end should not be oblivion or an everlasting state of suspended animation? How do you define human nature, and how does it fit into this hypothesis?

 

[belorg]

I see no refutation of my argument.

Secondly if there is never a time when potency is actualized, then it remains potency which does not in or of itself exist accept in the sense of what a thing could become or the potential to exist. In the eternal now all potency is fully actual and yet it is not pure actuality, because there is a distinction between that which has existence and that which is existence. The only thing that can actualize potency is that which is identical in nature to the act of existence, and we are not identical to the act of existence.

Perhaps it is you that doesn’t understand metaphysics.

Well, I wanted to answer that, but I think MrSnaith expressed it better than I could have.

As for me not understanding metaphysics, I concede that there are things about metaphysics that I don’t understand, and there may be things about Thomistic metaphysics I do not understand, but I am pretty certain my assessment in this case is fairly correct.

 

[ChainBreaker]

This would only be true if anything other than God, who is pure act, can exist in a purely “eternal now.” That all moments should at once be present and fully known, which is the presence of the “eternal now,” seems like something only an actual infinite, like God, could exist in.

God’s being is timelessly present to all “actual” events. All potency is actualized from the perspective of the eternal now. God is his knowledge. If all events are actual at once in God’s knowledge, then in principle there is nothing contradictory about a creature fulfilling all its potency.

A creature fulfilling all it’s potency is not the same thing as a creature becoming pure-act. Pure actuality does not mean that God has eternally fulfilled all his potency. Pure-actuality means that God is the act of existence; the absolute antithesis of nothing. Since thats what God is, it makes no sense to speak of God as being made up of potency and act. Even a creature that has actualized all its potency is still not identical to its act of existence. It is still union of esse and essence.

The bottom line is, there is nothing contradictory about a creature being in an eternal state and at the same time not being identical in nature to the act of existence.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Well, I wanted to answer that, but I think MrSnaith expressed it better than I could have.

Mr Snaith has not refuted what i have said.

 

[MrSnaith]

Mr Snaith has not refuted what i have said.

No I didn’t. I don’t think anyone claimed that. I did ask for a definition, but if you want to skirt the issue, that’s fine. Let’s tackle your ideas head on.

God’s being is timelessly present to all “actual” events.

This statement actually poses a problem to your premise, at large. If, in time, the future is potency, and the present is actual, and the past is past-actualized, then per the above definition, God is timelessly present to only to the present and past. What this means is that, whether the universe is potentially infinite or just plain finite, God’s knowledge is, at least at present, incomplete. For, if it is only finite, then God’s knowledge will only be complete when the universe comes to an end, and its potency is fully actualized. And if it is potentially infinite, then God’s knowledge of it will never be complete.

Unless you mean to suggest that the future is already actualized before God’s presence. In which case, that means that God’s knowledge at least may be complete. For, if the universe is only finite, then God’s knowledge of its end, and thus it’s entirety, is complete. But this still leaves the problem of a potentially infinite future.

So the question might be asked, “is potency infinite?” I ask this because of your next statement:

All potency is actualized from the perspective of the eternal now.

Let us suppose two scenarios. The first scenario holds that potency is a property of finite beings, since God, the only actually infinite being existing is pure act. Thus, being a property of finite beings, potency is also finite. If this is the case, then one might argue that a finite being that exists without end, and having a finite potency, will at some point, whether brought into the presence of the eternal now or not, arrive at the completion of its potency. Eventually, the finite boundaries of its being will be fully actualized, even in temporality.

The second scenario holds that, even though potency is a property of finite beings, God’s creative capacity, like the rest of His being, is actually infinite. This means that the possible varieties of created, finite beings is actually infinite as well. Given this, potency, as such, is also actually infinite in principle. It is therefore, at least theoretically possible, that the universe as a potential infinite will indefinitely persist in infinitely changing variety.

It is important then, and we must understood, that the origin of potency is God’s creative capacity, which comes out of His very being. So, while we might say that for finite beings, act follows potency, for the infinite being, potency follows act. Finity comes out of infinity.

With this in mind, it must inevitably be understood that since all potency originates from God, who is actually infinite, even if potency itself is also actually infinite, all potency, as you say, is already actualized before God, namely because it originates from His being.

What this means is that even if a finite being persists infinitely, and even if his potency is never fully actualized as being a potential infinite, it doesn’t matter. His potentially infinite future is still present before God because, as you say, all potency is actualized before God.

God is his knowledge. If all events are actual at once in God’s knowledge, then in principle there is nothing contradictory about a creature fulfilling all its potency.

Except for what it might mean for a creature to fulfill all its potency. Sure, from God’s perspective, there’s no contradiction. However, if you want to suggest that after fulfilling its potency it goes on living everlastingly, that’s where I would suggest a problem. This would mean it is in an everlasting state of immutability, which just seems nonsensical to say of a finite being.

A creature fulfilling all it’s potency is not the same thing as a creature becoming pure-act. Pure actuality does not mean that God has eternally fulfilled all his potency. Pure-actuality means that God is the act of existence; the absolute antithesis of nothing. Since thats what God is, it makes no sense to speak of God as being made up of potency and act. Even a creature that has actualized all its potency is still not identical to its act of existence. It is still union of esse and essence.

The bottom line is, there is nothing contradictory about a creature being in an eternal state and at the same time not being identical in nature to the act of existence.

Also