Can omnsicence be understood in term of logic/semantic?

[Bahman]

1. The relation between God and creatures is meaningful if there is a mutual understanding between them
2. God has omniscience
3. Creatures understand things based on logic/semantic
4. This means that omniscience can be understood based on logic/semantic

 

[balto]

1. The relation between God and creatures is meaningful if there is a mutual understanding between them
2. God has omniscience
3. Creatures understand things based on logic/semantic
4. This means that omniscience can be understood based on logic/semantic

I’m not sure what would count as “understanding” God from your point of view. I don’t think that it would be possible for us to completely understand God as He is infinite, though we may have a finite understanding of God that can always grow. However I think that omniscience is still intelligible. Lonergan’s proof is a logical proof that attempts to show this.

I’m paraphrasing and cutting out a lot of the supporting argumentation but it basically involves noticing that every object contains intelligibility which can be liberated from the object by an intelligent observer via an act of understanding. Every object that we know of cannot be solely explained in terms of the intelligibility contained therein (for instance a tree cannot be solely understood in terms of the data of the tree without recourse to understanding cells, photosynthesis, chemicals, atoms, etc.) If an object cannot answer all questions about itself, then its existence is contingent upon other objects who can answer those questions (i.e. the tree’s existence is conditioned by cells, chemicals, etc.). It’s intelligibility is said to be restricted. At the highest level is unrestricted intelligibility which leaves no question unanswered about itself, because if it did then you would have a higher level of being, leading to an infinite regress.

He then goes on to show that this unrestricted intelligibility is also a perfect act of understanding that understands itself. This is because the unrestricted intelligibility is not tied down in an object like the information in a tree. Since it has unconditioned existence it is an act of understanding of itself.

 

[hicetnunc]

1. The relation between God and creatures is meaningful if there is a mutual understanding between them
2. God has omniscience
3. Creatures understand things based on logic/semantic
4. This means that omniscience can be understood based on logic/semantic

I would question your first premise. First of all, there can be no ‘mutual understanding’ between God and creatures. We are not God’s equal, and there is, and always will be, an ontological difference between God and us. But also, ‘mutual understanding’ is not the only basis of a relation, which on its own is sufficient to call your conclusion in doubt. Your first premise would be better without the hypothetical clause at the end, if the term ‘meaningful’ was qualified.

The major difference between God’s Reasoning and human reason is that they are only related analogically, and not univocally or identically. God’s reasoning is not discursive in the way our reasoning is discursive, namely, moving from premises to conclusions; God understands what he knows simultaneously and without discursion, so God has no need of logic. This doesn’t mean that God is illogical, but when logic is understood as a tool required to work towards figuring out the truth, it is clear that God doesn’t need to ponder things and work them out. Hence, there is also no justification for the conclusion of your argument for that reason too.

 

[polytropos]

In addition to the objections already made, I would also say that (3) is questionable. I do not dispute that we can use logic and semantics to understand things, but I do not think that the list is exhaustive. (We have knowledge that is not semantic and of which, without reflecting, we would not be able to parse the logical content.)

Ultimately, I think it is right to say that we understand omniscience based on logic and semantics–but the statement ought to be qualified. We know of God’s existence and omniscience (allegedly) through the use of logic and semantics. But contained in our use of semantics is a theory of analogy, by which we try to understand what we don’t understand (and what we can’t understand) about God’s omniscience.

Also, Bahman, when you are presenting arguments, in addition to listing your premises and argument, you should define unclear terms and defend the premises that you anticipate will be regarded as controversial.

 

[Bahman]

I would question your first premise. First of all, there can be no ‘mutual understanding’ between God and creatures. We are not God’s equal, and there is, and always will be, an ontological difference between God and us. But also, ‘mutual understanding’ is not the only basis of a relation, which on its own is sufficient to call your conclusion in doubt. Your first premise would be better without the hypothetical clause at the end, if the term ‘meaningful’ was qualified.

Suppose that God know X and we are cognitively open to X. How God could explain X to us with using logic/semantic?

The major difference between God’s Reasoning and human reason is that they are only related analogically, and not univocally or identically. God’s reasoning is not discursive in the way our reasoning is discursive, namely, moving from premises to conclusions; God understands what he knows simultaneously and without discursion, so God has no need of logic. This doesn’t mean that God is illogical, but when logic is understood as a tool required to work towards figuring out the truth, it is clear that God doesn’t need to ponder things and work them out. Hence, there is also no justification for the conclusion of your argument for that reason too.

Nah, there is a main reason between understanding a phenomena and explaining it to others. Our understanding is not discursive at all as you mentioned. We understand things first but we have put significant amount of effort to verbalize our understanding which is not possible without semantic and unfortunately that is discursive.

My question from you is whether God could possibly explain what it knows in term of logic? If the answer is yes then we are cognitively open to omniscience hence we can understand omniscience ourselves hence we, God and creatures, could mutually understand each other. If the answer is no then that means that God’s knowledge is not exhaustive in term of logic hence it is not complete.

 

[Bahman]

In addition to the objections already made, I would also say that (3) is questionable. I do not dispute that we can use logic and semantics to understand things, but I do not think that the list is exhaustive. (We have knowledge that is not semantic and of which, without reflecting, we would not be able to parse the logical content.)

I have two question for you: 1) How do we understand things? 2) Do we use logic as a part of process for understanding or that is the end point when we want to verbalize our understanding.

Ultimately, I think it is right to say that we understand omniscience based on logic and semantics–but the statement ought to be qualified. We know of God’s existence and omniscience (allegedly) through the use of logic and semantics. But contained in our use of semantics is a theory of analogy, by which we try to understand what we don’t understand (and what we can’t understand) about God’s omniscience.

So you agree that omniscience is exhaustive in term of semantic?

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure what would count as “understanding” God from your point of view. I don’t think that it would be possible for us to completely understand God as He is infinite, though we may have a finite understanding of God that can always grow. However I think that omniscience is still intelligible. Lonergan’s proof is a logical proof that attempts to show this.

I’m paraphrasing and cutting out a lot of the supporting argumentation but it basically involves noticing that every object contains intelligibility which can be liberated from the object by an intelligent observer via an act of understanding. Every object that we know of cannot be solely explained in terms of the intelligibility contained therein (for instance a tree cannot be solely understood in terms of the data of the tree without recourse to understanding cells, photosynthesis, chemicals, atoms, etc.) If an object cannot answer all questions about itself, then its existence is contingent upon other objects who can answer those questions (i.e. the tree’s existence is conditioned by cells, chemicals, etc.). It’s intelligibility is said to be restricted. At the highest level is unrestricted intelligibility which leaves no question unanswered about itself, because if it did then you would have a higher level of being, leading to an infinite regress.

He then goes on to show that this unrestricted intelligibility is also a perfect act of understanding that understands itself. This is because the unrestricted intelligibility is not tied down in an object like the information in a tree. Since it has unconditioned existence it is an act of understanding of itself.

That I largely understand but my question was not about the size of omniscience which I agree it is infinite but the fact if whether it is exhaustive in term of logic.

 

[balto]

That I largely understand but my question was not about the size of omniscience which I agree it is infinite but the fact if whether it is exhaustive in term of logic.

Well I think that any truth contained within omniscience would be logically defensible. If not, it would be a falsity which cannot be known by an omniscient entity. But again, the fact that we cannot know the infinite amount of truth in omniscience because we only can know a finite number of truths at a time is not a strike against omniscience.

This analogy may be useful: if I am thinking of mathematics, I can understand what the equation “y = 3x + 2” means. I could also understand how any finite number of points on that line are consistent with “y = 3x + 2.” Even though I cannot know every single point on the line as there would be an infinite number of points, the equation “y = 3x + 2” is still intelligible to me.

 

[hicetnunc]

Our understanding is not discursive at all as you mentioned.

Actually, I said that reasoning was discursive, not understanding. But understanding is subsequent to reasoning, which is indeed discursive by its very nature.

It might be a good idea to get some of these foundational terms nailed down to help you tackle the question, as Polytropos suggested above. You might find St Thomas’ discussion in the De Veritate on the difference between reason and intellect helpful, and why we say that human reasoning is always discursive.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/QDdeVer15.htm

 

[polytropos]

1. How do we understand things?

We obtain concepts by direct intentional acquaintance with things, which we can then use to reason, derive conclusions, imagine, hypothesize, etc.

1. Do we use logic as a part of process for understanding or that is the end point when we want to verbalize our understanding.

We use logic as part of the process of understanding. (Direct concept acquisition does not require logic, though it may play a role in concept refinement.)

So you agree that omniscience is exhaustive in term of semantic?

What do you mean by “exhaustive”? I believe that we have to employ semantic techniques to achieve what understanding of omniscience we have. I don’t believe that semantics are constitutive of omniscience.

 

[empther]

The original post:

1. The relation between God and creatures is meaningful if there is a mutual understanding between them
2. God has omniscience
3. Creatures understand things based on logic/semantic
4. This means that omniscience can be understood based on logic/semantic

1 has nothing to do with 2, 3, or 4.
2 has nothing to do with 1, 3, or 4.
3 has nothing to do with 1, 2, or 4.
4 has nothing to do with 1, 2, or 3.

Only 2 is always true.