Can God Think?

[teachccd]

It amazes me to watch so many people trying to put the oceans of the world into a dixie cup. And that is a miniscule task in comparison to comprehending the essence of God and what He can and cannot do. But I can continue to observe the fervency in how hard we try…teachccd

 

[Ghosty]

It seems to me that what the OP defines as “thinking” is actually a limitation on ideas and knowledge.

What I mean is that if “thinking” means only creating an idea that wasn’t there before, then “thinking” is something constrained to time and limited beings, and is actually a low form of “thought” as I understand it. God, being beyond time and being perfect, does not change His mind from one moment to the next, but this doesn’t mean He doesn’t have unique ideas or thoughts, it just means that His ideas and thought isn’t weak and broken like our own.

If I come up with a “new idea” in this moment that I didn’t have the moment before, it’s only because I’m a broken being who is limited to existing moment to moment, and who isn’t perfect in my thoughts. A moment ago I was less, knew less, understood less than I know now now, and now I am less, know less, and understand less than than I will know in the next moment. The OP’s definition of “thinking”, then, is really just a reformulation of “broken, imperfect being”. So does God have broken, imperfect being? No, of course not.

The problem with that definition, though, is that it doesn’t deal with what the real essence of “thinking” is, at least in my mind, and “thinking” is having ideas and thoughts. For us, broken as we are, it means coming to new thoughts and ideas since we are imperfect, but that’s only because of our imperfection; it’s not intrinsic to the notion of ideas and thoughts. God has ideas and thoughts, but the difference is that He is perfect and eternal, and therefore has these thoughts and ideas perfectly and eternally, without the interval of time. What we have is, in fact, a pale imitation of real thinking since our thoughts are broken up by intervals of time, rather than existing wholly and perfectly at once.

Peace and God bless!

 

[greylorn]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that God cannot think. Comparing the thought processes of human beings to the thought of God is unsatisfactory. An argument like “this is how humans think, and God does not think like that, and therefore God cannot think” is fallacious. All you’re really communicating is that God does not think in the way or the sense that humans do. Well, yeah; we all agree.

As for your apparent definition of human thinking as “the spontaneous generation of information,” I think that’s pretty problematic in itself as well. I seriously doubt that the human mind, or human thought, is capable of actual spontaneity (even though it often very much seems that we experience spontaneous ideas). Rather, whatever ideas ‘enters’ my mind are the product of the ideas that came before it, and it before it, ad infinitum. What we think is what we are determined to think by the countless visible and invisible causes around us, from all directions.

In short, your definition seems to operate under the assumption that human beings possess some kind of ‘libertarian’ freedom of thought.

Gerry,
We allegedly have “free will.” How could we possibly have free will without freedom of thought?

There seems to be a contradiction between the idea that God knows absolutely everything (which is non-intuitive dogma) and the notion that God can think (which is probably not an explicit item of dogma but which is implicit in many of His actions as described in the Old Testament).

If the contradiction is valid, as it would appear to be, I’d opt for the choice that God can think. This implies that He cannot know everything.

 

[greylorn]

It amazes me to watch so many people trying to put the oceans of the world into a dixie cup. And that is a miniscule task in comparison to comprehending the essence of God and what He can and cannot do. But I can continue to observe the fervency in how hard we try…teachccd

It’s a matter of perspective. I’m trying to enlarge the dixie cup.

 

[greylorn]

I think the “consensus” appears to be that your definition of thinking is too constricted by human sequential inference and discovery.

After all, humans can’t have new, creative thoughts either. What they can do is discover a bit of what God already knows.

Human mental processes have many different aspects: short and long term memory, plus enough information processing and body-interaction mechanisms s to fill a dozen textbooks. I’ve tried with limited success to make it clear that for the purpose of this discussion I am excepting just one aspect of human thought:

The ability to spontaneously generate information which did not previously exist. We can call it creative thought. As others have correctly pointed out, creative thought depends upon current knowledge. Whatever, this ability appears to be the main one which separates us from animals.

This ability can stand as a concept in its own right, irrespective of whatever entity generates the thought, God, man, possum, or computer.

Since the soul is allegedly the component of man which survives his death, and the soul is also what differentiates us from animals, it follows that creative thought is a unique property of soul.

God made man in His own image. That image is clearly not another human body— God is pure spirit. The reflection of God’s image must then be in the soul. And if the soul can have a creative thought, then God had darned well better be able to have creative thoughts also.

But if God really knew everything, He’d know in advance about the creative thought He was about to have, so it wouldn’t be creative any more. So either God thinks, or knows everything— not both.

If God thinks and therefore does not know everything, then humans are capable of imagining things God has not thought of.

These are probably not things which God couldn’t have thought of. Just things which He did not take the trouble to think of, or had no particular interest in doing.

 

[greylorn]

I would think that all possible knowledge would encompass creative thought otherwise we are only discussing semantics.

The reasons for Gods creation are specifically set out in the bible and expounded upon by Jesus Christ (an historical person).
Gerry

Gerry,
Semantics, no. But we must be concerned with the meanings of the words we use and agree upon their definitions in order to have a coherent discussion.

If you declare that creative thought is the same thing as all possible knowledge, we don’t have enough common ground for further discussion. It may be possible to win arguments by redefining words, but that strategy doesn’t advance anyone’s understanding. And that’s what I seek here.

Thank you, anyway.

 

[greylorn]

Both of Gerry’s responses are fine ones.

I suggest you spend some time processing them (internally) before seeking other (name removed by moderator)uts.

Thank you for that caveat. I always try. And I envy Gerry. No one ever expresses agreement for anything I write. You honor him.

 

[greylorn]

He imagined us into existence, and if he pleased could create a universe of inteligent manatees that swims between the stars.

Trying to tie God down with our limited human concepts of what it means to be ‘eternal’ or ‘omniscient’ isn’t likely to increase the sum total of human knowledge or happiness.

Don’t be too certain of that, Sam.

I disagree with your statement more deeply than with any of the other posters on this site— respectfully, of course.

If you pay attention to the workings of the world around you, you will see considerable social unrest. If you pay attention to the machinations of the ACLU, you may see that the atheistic community has been mounting an increasingly aggressive attack upon Christianity. If you don’t see this, watch Fox News (but mute the annoying background drum thumping).

Are you aware that 16% of the world is atheistic, and that the size of this population is increasing faster than even the agressive Muslim religion? And much faster than the Mormons, despite the fact that every Mormon male puts in missionary duty.

Check out the behavior of the US Supreme Court, and watch it continue to strip the effects of Christian beliefs and ethics from the laws of that land. When the atheists gain control, which they are close to doing, you will not be a very happy camper in this country. Your kids, grandkids, whoever, will be taught more Darwinism and more atheism, and after a few years of that programming they are going to think that your a nut for believing in a Creator.

There is a reason for the ascendancy of atheism. It is because the more we learn about science, the less sense religion makes. You may deny that, but then, you’re not a scientist.

I worked for and with scientists and engineers for 20 years. Good, dedicated, and mostly intelligent and first-rate people. I never met a single one who believed in God. Not even one!

And that was not because I don’t talk, argue, and engage in discussions about religious beliefs. During those 20 years I learned that the reason why very intelligent technical people do not believe in God is because the God-concept is illogical, and cannot be reasonably related to the world He allegedly created.

I agree with their arguments, and I understand their arguments, but I still believe in a Creator. And I am certain that if the most wonderful, powerful nation ever founded on this planet is to survive, it must retain its belief in God. When “In God We Trust” disappears from our currency, our currency will become valueless.

I am convinced (this is a personal and heartfelt belief) that if religion is to survive as a force for good, for joy, and for true happiness in human lives now and to come, we must derive a God-concept which matches the universe He created.

That may mean exploring our ideas about the nature of God, honestly and objectively. It will mean looking at the origin of those ideas, and examining them in the microscope of logic as well as the clear light of common sense.

Thank you for your response. I know that your intentions are good, and invite you to consider their long term implications.

 

[Cajetan]

I am convinced (this is a personal and heartfelt belief) that if religion is to survive as a force for good, for joy, and for true happiness in human lives now and to come, we must derive a God-concept which matches the universe He created.

Have you read Baruch Spinoza? Spinoza’s conception of God quite literally “matches the universe”: God is the universe.

I think Spinoza is wrong – obviously, I’m not a pantheist – but I have long been impressed by the moral system he was able to construct upon this conception. It’s brilliant.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

By the conventional understanding, God is omniscient, possessing all knowledge of all things, past, present, and future.

What we know of as thought involves several different kinds of information processing. It requires memory, which computers possess. One form of “thought” involves mathematical computation, a task at which computers generally surpass humans. But what of creative thought?

By creative thought, I refer to the ability of anyone, you or I, to come up with a unique idea— an idea which we’ve never had before. In this context it does not matter if some Chinese guy already thought of it yesterday on the other side of the world. A new idea can be new to you if you came up with it from scratch, even if Plato thought of it, so long as you’ve not read Plato.

Can God have such a creative thought? Can God think of something which He never thought of before, and thereby create information which He did not previously know?

No, God can’t - this would contradict His:​

• immutability
• fullness of life
• eternity
• simplicity
• being Pure Act
• goodness
• wisdom
  There is nothing in God to develop - He is His Knowledge, Wisdom, Act, Life, and so on. There is nothing He can learn, because whatever has being, is from Him in the first place. It exists, & endures, & is preserved in its life, only because it is upheld by Him What He knows, is known in a single timeless act of knowing, from which nothing in creation is absent. He is beyond thinking - for to think is a sign of incompleteness, of lack of knowledge, of untapped potentiality

 

[teachccd]

It’s a matter of perspective. I’m trying to enlarge the dixie cup.

To the size of an all encompassing infinite God? Or to put it in perspective, to the size of a coke bottle? You still have the rest of the ocean and that’s on the finite scale…teachccd

 

[greylorn]

Have you read Baruch Spinoza? Spinoza’s conception of God quite literally “matches the universe”: God is the universe.

I think Spinoza is wrong – obviously, I’m not a pantheist – but I have long been impressed by the moral system he was able to construct upon this conception. It’s brilliant.

Not really. Decades ago I started reading his ideas and did not agree with them, or with his style of reaching conclusions, so I read someone else. I will reconsider if you and at least two others believe that I’d benefit from studying his works.

If I understand you rightly, you disagree with Spinoza’s premises but like the moral system he constructed therefrom. I don’t know what that is, of course, so cannot say a word about it. But if you find his moral system of such great value, why have you not adopted the fundamental beliefs from which he derived it?

A side note: Science works because of technology, not because scientists are all that clever. We trust science as pretty much the new modern religion because of the results it has produced. So if you like the results of a philosophy, why have you not adopted the philosophy? Just curious.

 

[JDaniel]

Don’t be too certain of that, Sam.

I disagree with your statement more deeply than with any of the other posters on this site— respectfully, of course.

If you pay attention to the workings of the world around you, you will see considerable social unrest. If you pay attention to the machinations of the ACLU, you may see that the atheistic community has been mounting an increasingly aggressive attack upon Christianity. If you don’t see this, watch Fox News (but mute the annoying background drum thumping).

Are you aware that 16% of the world is atheistic, and that the size of this population is increasing faster than even the agressive Muslim religion? And much faster than the Mormons, despite the fact that every Mormon male puts in missionary duty.

Check out the behavior of the US Supreme Court, and watch it continue to strip the effects of Christian beliefs and ethics from the laws of that land. When the atheists gain control, which they are close to doing, you will not be a very happy camper in this country. Your kids, grandkids, whoever, will be taught more Darwinism and more atheism, and after a few years of that programming they are going to think that your a nut for believing in a Creator.

There is a reason for the ascendancy of atheism. It is because the more we learn about science, the less sense religion makes. You may deny that, but then, you’re not a scientist.

I worked for and with scientists and engineers for 20 years. Good, dedicated, and mostly intelligent and first-rate people. I never met a single one who believed in God. Not even one!

And that was not because I don’t talk, argue, and engage in discussions about religious beliefs. During those 20 years I learned that the reason why very intelligent technical people do not believe in God is because the God-concept is illogical, and cannot be reasonably related to the world He allegedly created.

I agree with their arguments, and I understand their arguments, but I still believe in a Creator. And I am certain that if the most wonderful, powerful nation ever founded on this planet is to survive, it must retain its belief in God. When “In God We Trust” disappears from our currency, our currency will become valueless.

I am convinced (this is a personal and heartfelt belief) that if religion is to survive as a force for good, for joy, and for true happiness in human lives now and to come, we must derive a God-concept which matches the universe He created.

That may mean exploring our ideas about the nature of God, honestly and objectively. It will mean looking at the origin of those ideas, and examining them in the microscope of logic as well as the clear light of common sense.

Thank you for your response. I know that your intentions are good, and invite you to consider their long term implications.

Hello Graylorn:

Well, I must admit, you are a very clever fellow. Your arguments are cleverly written, but, not factual. As a person who worked with scientists one would have thought that your methodology and ultimate results would have undergone a very rigorous scrutiny and been very accurate.

First of all, “atheism” does not comprise 16% of the world population. The 16% you refer to is comprised of secular, non-religious, agnostic, and atheistic, with atheism comprising about 200 to 240 millions out of approximately 1 billion adherents. That’s about 4% of the world’s population. The majority of the 16% you quote is agnostic. There is a rather large difference between denying the existence of God and not knowing whether or not He exists.

There is no group growing faster than Islam, at about 1.5 billion. Catholicism is most likely the second fastest growing group at about 1.113 billion. Thus, there’s no “crisis” of religion going on in the world that would cause a serious Catholic, or Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, for that matter to jump ship and throw out 2,000 to 6,000 years of tradition.

I have worked along side of scientists (working and teaching scientists) for about 25 years. I would say that most of those that I knew were non-religious. But, most that I knew were/are in the medical sciences and physics. Medical scientists - I can understand - they actually get to save lives. So, they’re like gods. Physicists, well, they believe matter and energy are all that matters, with the exception of a little gravity

You have also indicated that there are all kinds of terrible things going on in our courts of law, public schools, etc. We already knew that. We are hunkered down for the battle. And, as far as being told by scientists that our arguments are “illogical”, come on, how would most of them know? All most of them understand is deductive reasoning. They arrive at theories that they claim are repeatable. And, they are. Except, some time later, that old theory is thrown out for a newer theory. Special Relativity → General Relativity → String Theory → the Theory of Everything, etc., etc.

God bless,
JD

 

[JDaniel]

Graylorn:

Look, I think you are sincere. And, out of this leniency, I will admit that you have some serious concerns about the state of the world and the continuity of its religions. But, trying to replace centuries of tradition, thought, theology, and philosophy, with something that most of us believe is repleat with its own errors and stupidity, in one fell swoop, with a modified new-age belief system will not be an easy task.

The logic of St. Thomas is “logic” and is rigorously valid. The arguments of Augustine are rigorously valid. Statements by the succession of the Papacy have been rigorously valid. We test all these with the known world and universe. if any are found inadquate or invalid, they are corrected. Thus far, the need for correction has been minimal;.

I understand you like the Theories of Rene Descartes. Remember, his theories resulted in declaring that only humans had souls and could feel pain. He was responsible for a run of horrible (live animal) vivisections, in his time.

Let’s see if together we can make improvements to our world view by being respectful of each other’s points of view.

God bless you,
JD

 

[Fran65]

Greylorn,

How strange that you never worked with a single scientist who believed in God! It sounds like an atypical sample given the results of a survey quoted by Alister McGrath in his book ‘The Twilight of Atheism’.

It found that 40% of the scientists surveyed believed in a god (not necessarily the Christian God) and that 20% were agnostic. That means that the majority* were not *atheist.

I’m a psychologist (teaching now) myself and consider myself a scientist having been trained in the scientific method and awarded a BSc Hons. I’m also Catholic (faithful and practicing).

McGrath has a phD in Biomolecular Physics and is a Dr of Divinity from Oxford University (Best university in the world! - but I digress!!) Not Catholic, but then we all have our weaknesses! LOL

 

[greylorn]

Greylorn,

How strange that you never worked with a single scientist who believed in God! It sounds like an atypical sample given the results of a survey quoted by Alister McGrath in his book ‘The Twilight of Atheism’.

It found that 40% of the scientists surveyed believed in a god (not necessarily the Christian God) and that 20% were agnostic. That means that the majority* were not *atheist.

I’m a psychologist (teaching now) myself and consider myself a scientist having been trained in the scientific method and awarded a BSc Hons. I’m also Catholic (faithful and practicing).

McGrath has a phD in Biomolecular Physics and is a Dr of Divinity from Oxford University (Best university in the world! - but I digress!!) Not Catholic, but then we all have our weaknesses! LOL

The scientists and engineers with whom I’ve worked were indeed atypical, in that they were “hard” scientists— physicists and astronomers. The engineers were “hard” engineers— electrical and mechanical guys who actually built things that work. Chances are that the surveys quoted included a broader range of people, many who I’d put into the category of pseudo-scientists.

With all due respect, I do not regard our “soft” or social sciences very highly, although I know and have cherished several fine practitioners in these fields. An early mentor was a sociology teacher and priest, and he’d be the first to understand my feelings without insult. I set my standards for what constitutes a hard scientist rather rigorously. For example, although I have a BS in physics, math, and engineering and have authored two minor, but published, scientific papers, I am not a scientist.

Perhaps you’ve read of heard of Michael Behe, a microbiologist and professed Catholic whose excellent books are relevant to the intelligent design movement. A PBS piece about a half year back featured his participation in a Scopes-like court case re: the teaching of I.D. In court, Behe got hammered by atheists from his own field who distorted his ideas.

My point is that there is little support for religious ideas in the world of “respected” Ph.d-type scientists. The pseudo-intellectuals follow their lead. The Catholic Church sits on the sidelines.

Note that the popular information-channel programming about how the universe came to be, and how life evolved, do not mention God. Your own field does not include the concept of “soul” in its description of the human mind.

This bodes poorly for our future, IMO anyhow.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

 

[greylorn]

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that God cannot think. Comparing the thought processes of human beings to the thought of God is unsatisfactory. An argument like “this is how humans think, and God does not think like that, and therefore God cannot think” is fallacious. All you’re really communicating is that God does not think in the way or the sense that humans do. Well, yeah; we all agree.

As for your apparent definition of human thinking as “the spontaneous generation of information,” I think that’s pretty problematic in itself as well. I seriously doubt that the human mind, or human thought, is capable of actual spontaneity (even though it often very much seems that we experience spontaneous ideas). Rather, whatever ideas ‘enters’ my mind are the product of the ideas that came before it, and it before it, ad infinitum. What we think is what we are determined to think by the countless visible and invisible causes around us, from all directions.

In short, your definition seems to operate under the assumption that human beings possess some kind of ‘libertarian’ freedom of thought.

Yes, in a nutshell. Aren’t we supposed to have “free will?” How is free will possible without unfettered thought?

 

[Fran65]

We can’t choose to do something that we haven’t thought of. As God is omniscient He knows all of our thoughts. Psalm 139 refers to this:

O LORD, you have searched me
and you know me.

You know when I sit and when I rise;
you perceive my thoughts from afar.

You discern my going out and my lying down;
you are familiar with all my ways.

Before a word is on my tongue
you know it completely, O LORD.

You hem me in—behind and before;
you have laid your hand upon me.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
too lofty for me to attain.

 

[jkiernan56]

Can God think of something which He never thought of before, and thereby create information which He did not previously know?

I thought alot about this one … LOL
ANSWER = NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

If God does not know everything there is to know, God would not be God.

 

[greylorn]

I think the “consensus” appears to be that your definition of thinking is too constricted by human sequential inference and discovery.

After all, humans can’t have new, creative thoughts either. What they can do is discover a bit of what God already knows.

This comment comes close to summing up all answers to the question, “Can God think?” And I am sorry that this is the best you guys can do.

The implication is clear: God either cannot or does not think (functionally, it does not matter one way or another, because the result is the same).

Likewise, humans do not think (meaning to have new thoughts or ideas) because God has already thought of everything that can be thought of.

I think that unless someone weighs in with a creative thought, we are about ready to close this thread with the conclusion that, because God is omnipotent, creative thought cannot exist.

I’ll take this conclusion to another thread, and hope that someone who does not feel limited by this conclusion joins it. Thank you all very much for offering your opinions on the subject.