Eternity: How does God know what we didn't do yet?

[MarcoPG]

He is literally there in the Eucharist and, more widely, is outside of time for the Essence He is, but intervenes in Time as He pleases because this Essence permits Him to do so. So he is both Inside and outside time and space, respectively if we speak of nature or operation of God.
I think it is understandable

 

[oldcelt]

He is literally there in the Eucharist and, more widely, is outside of time for the Essence He is, but intervenes in Time as He pleases because this Essence permits Him to do so. So he is both Inside and outside time and space, respectively if we speak of nature or operation of God.
I think it is understandable

I agree, except for the intervention part…that brings up a whole realm of other questions being discussed on another thread.

 

[MarcoPG]

Ok, i see your objection, but then i would like to know your position as a Deist, can God intervene? Why yes or not? How about Revelation?

Thank you :tiphat:

 

[Skye_Ariel]

Think of it like this, think of your bed as being all of eternity, when you look at your bed you can see the whole bed at one time, all four corners, top and bottom. Think of the beginning of time being the top of the bed and the end of time being the bottom. God is outside time so He can see all of eternity at one time the way you can see your whole bed all at once. You can lay across your bed and be in all time at the same time top and bottom and all corners at the same time the same way God exists in all time at the same time. That’s the time line and eternity to God. Now think of us humans as teeny tiny microscopic little living things on that bed, we are only capable of seeing only a small fraction of that bed at a time and if we want to get from the top of the bed to the bottom of the bed, since it’s so huge compared to our size, it will take us forever to go from the top of the bed to the bottom as we travel across it. So that’s how eternity is to God, all time is present for Him because He can see the whole time line at once the way you can look at your whole bed and see the whole bed at the same time. But microscopic beings are only capable of seeing a tiny small little part of the bed and have to travel for years, eternity, to try to get to the bottom. That’s us.

 

[Bahman]

A few philosophers have spent a lot of time arguing about this. I’m not sure why. “the current time” is an indexical referring to the present for some temporal entity. There is no such thing as “the current time” for God; it is not a fact that his omniscience requires him to know.

He does create substances that are temporal, so he does timelessly know the times at which they exist.

He cannot timelessly know the time at which they exit since God existence becomes subject to change.

This does not strike me as any more difficult than the knowledge of future contingents. If God knows some future contingent p, then God can disclose p (ie. prophesy p) just in case that disclosing p does not entail ~p. (This is because if disclosing p entails ~p, and God is infallible, then there is a contradiction. So that cannot occur in any possible world. This does not limit God’s omnipotence because it is only a logical constraint.)

The knowledge of future cannot be contingent since creation is done in one timeless act since otherwise (if it is contingent) it is contradictory hence it cannot be enclosed.

 

[Bahman]

There is always a way to reconcile God’s Omniscience with our free-will. And yes what we know is revealed. Therefore we can say we did what is in God’s mind, as to say what we did could be done so God would know it already. It is not a problem with Omniscience, since it does not dictate to our will.

I cannot disprove your last point, but if you were a true prophet, you would have to speak. And secondly, i don’t see what the point is to say that one could be omniscient and remain silent. I would think ok, as you wish, and? If God had said I know everything but I won’t tell you, this doesn’t disprove Omniscience nor free-will, just the need of prophecy.
Since there is prophecy, the revelations through prophets are needed, but once again, revelations contain our free-will.

There exist only one future since creation is performed in one timeless act. Future however can be contingent if it is enclosed to an agent who have free will which is contradictory.

 

[polytropos]

There is a real problem there too…take for example, the Eucharist. Is He, or is He not, literally present according to Catholic Doctrine?

He is. But:

Christ’s body is not in this sacrament in the same way as a body is in a place, which by its dimensions is commensurate with the place; but in a special manner which is proper to this sacrament. Hence we say that Christ’s body is upon many altars, not as in different places, but “sacramentally”: and thereby we do not understand that Christ is there only as in a sign, although a sacrament is a kind of sign; but that Christ’s body is here after a fashion proper to this sacrament, as stated above. (III, Q 75, A 1, R 3)

In this case the doctrine only needs to be formulated without contradiction. I don’t think there is a contradiction here, in claiming that Christ’s real presence in the sacrament is a mysterious sacramental presence that differs in mode from the spatial placement of natural bodies.

 

[polytropos]

He cannot timelessly know the time at which they exit since God existence becomes subject to change.

Why? You are concealing some principle here. God knows the times at which things exist, whether they exist to us presently or not. So when things come into existence, God does not acquire knowledge; since the then-future was eternally simultaneous with him, he knew of it then as well.

The knowledge of future cannot be contingent since creation is done in one timeless act since otherwise (if it is contingent) it is contradictory hence it cannot be enclosed.

Contingent just means it can differ in other possible worlds. In a given possible world, there is obviously one future, which God actualizes and cognizes.

 

[oldcelt]

Ok, i see your objection, but then i would like to know your position as a Deist, can God intervene? Why yes or not? How about Revelation?

Thank you :tiphat:

No intervention, no revelation. If God intervenes on behalf of one, He must do so for all who need help,or He is discriminatory. Why should one child die of leukemia and not another? No good reason can be given for creating a child only for them to suffer a hideous death a few year, or months, later.

Revelation really serves no purpose as the revealed is always a source of controversy.

 

[oldcelt]

He is. But:

In this case the doctrine only needs to be formulated without contradiction. I don’t think there is a contradiction here, in claiming that Christ’s real presence in the sacrament is a mysterious sacramental presence that differs in mode from the spatial placement of natural bodies.

So, Jesus did not send the Holy Spirit to us? Or has the Spirit been recalled to eternity and Jesus is only mysteriously present spiritually in our time.

Just like I thought…we are on our own.

 

[Bahman]

Why? You are concealing some principle here. God knows the times at which things exist, whether they exist to us presently or not. So when things come into existence, God does not acquire knowledge; since the then-future was eternally simultaneous with him, he knew of it then as well.

All creation’s states do exist in mind of God as mind states. God however needs an indicator in which it points to current state of creation in God’s mind making a one to one map between the state of creation and related mind state. This indicator however is subject to change hence God’s mind which is contrary to the concept of changeless God.

Contingent just means it can differ in other possible worlds. In a given possible world, there is obviously one future, which God actualizes and cognizes.

Sorry for using contingent since the right word was subject to change.

There exist only one future since creation is performed in one timeless act. Future however can be subject to change if it is enclosed to an agent who have free will which is contradictory.

 

[MarcoPG]

All creation’s states do exist in mind of God as mind states. God however needs an indicator in which it points to current state of creation in God’s mind making a one to one map between the state of creation and related mind state. This indicator however is subject to change hence God’s mind which is contrary to the concept of changeless God.

Sorry for using contingent since the right word was subject to change.

There exist only one future since creation is performed in one timeless act. Future however can be subject to change if it is enclosed to an agent who have free will which is contradictory.

I think there is only one future which is currntly being built by us and our free-will so to speak, but God knows and sees it already, it may change or not, by our means, but it will ultimately be what God sees, i don’t see the contradiction.

 

[Bahman]

I think there is only one future which is currntly being built by us and our free-will so to speak, but God knows and sees it already, it may change or not, by our means, but it will ultimately be what God sees, i don’t see the contradiction.

Future is fixed if and only we don’t know the future. Suppose that God tell you that you will do X at time T which means that future is fixed through prophecy. Could you do otherwise? Yes, then future is not fixed. No, you have no free will.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Future is fixed if and only we don’t know the future. Suppose that God tell you that you will do X at time T which means that future is fixed through prophecy. Could you do otherwise? Yes, then future is not fixed. No, you have no free will.

The future is not fixed by God. It is known by God, which is not the same as being fixed or pre-determined by God. You are limited in your knowledge of God because you do not have revelations from God that assure you of your free will. So you think by your own intellect you can figure it all out … that is, how the mind of God works?

I don’t think so.

 

[MarcoPG]

Future is fixed if and only we don’t know the future. Suppose that God tell you that you will do X at time T which means that future is fixed through prophecy. Could you do otherwise? Yes, then future is not fixed. No, you have no free will.

It is not fixed since we did not do it already, it is fixed by us when we do it and God sees this before we do. Free-will decides, God sees what we will have decided and sometimes tells us.

 

[Bahman]

It is not fixed since we did not do it already, it is fixed by us when we do it and God sees this before we do. Free-will decides, God sees what we will have decided and sometimes tells us.

It is fixed since God knows it. You are free to act upon since you don’t know it.

 

[MarcoPG]

It is fixed since God knows it. You are free to act upon since you don’t know it.

You may at the best say it is fixed, but fixed by us.

 

[Bahman]

You may at the best say it is fixed, but fixed by us.

That is correct. But suppose that you are told that you are going to do X tomorrow. Could you do the opposite?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Future is fixed if and only we don’t know the future. Suppose that God tell you that you will do X at time T which means that future is fixed through prophecy. Could you do otherwise? Yes, then future is not fixed. No, you have no free will.

There is no logical contradiction between you choosing and fixing the future by your free choice and God knowing that you have determined it in that way from eternity. Merely because God has eternal knowledge of your free choice does not mean his eternal knowledge has fixed the event - it is your choice that fixed it.

There is no contradiction between God knowing and your choosing because your choice could be precisely the causal determiner that fixes the event in time, even though God’s infallible eternal (not past time) knowledge is certain concerning your choice.

After the fact, you cannot “do otherwise.” That fixedness, after the fact, does not remove your free choice. After the fact, you could not have done otherwise, does that mean you were not free to make the choice merely because you determined the final outcome by your choice?

God’s eternal knowledge does not apply merely to anterior prophecy, but to posterior outcomes. Your argument would entail that because choices become fixed, after the fact, there was no real free choice involved because by having one determined outcome, you really could not have done otherwise.

It is not God’s knowledge of the outcome that eliminates free will, but the fact of time fixing choices moving from present to past. Time, then, is the culprit, not God’s omniscience.

Either you have a flawed view of what free will entails and your argument is baseless or you have picked the wrong suspect from the lineup.

 

[polytropos]

All creation’s states do exist in mind of God as mind states. God however needs an indicator in which it points to current state of creation in God’s mind making a one to one map between the state of creation and related mind state. This indicator however is subject to change hence God’s mind which is contrary to the concept of changeless God.

You mean that there must be some thing in God’s mind that corresponds to each state of affairs in the world? And since the world changes, God changes?

Even if the first statement were true (and I do not concede that*), the changing in the world would not imply that the indicator corresponding to the change in the world would itself change. So it does not follow that God changes. This is because the one-one correspondence need not represent the temporal mode of creation as a temporal change of the indicator.

To illustrate: Assume a created substance x changes over time. You claim that the map must be one-one, so they must be some y in God that changes over time. But God’s knowledge of the change need not be some aspect that corresponds to x while it exists. There could be a set of “indicators” in God corresponding to x at t0, x at t1, x at t2, etc. (This would follow if we characterize x not as “x changing over time” but as “x at t0 to t2,” which I think a realist account of time will require.)

*This itself seems to assume an account of omniscience that is contrary to simplicity. God’s single eternal act of willing and knowing is a willing of his own goodness and a knowledge of his own nature. Since God is perfect, his willing of creation, though included in this simple act, is not necessary. So God has a single act of knowing, despite knowing many things. To say that creation’s states “exist in” God’s mind as distinct would imply that his knowledge is actually composite, which is false.

There exist only one future since creation is performed in one timeless act. Future however can be subject to change if it is enclosed to an agent who have free will which is contradictory.

There is only one future because there is only one actual world; that is known independent of concerns from natural theology. Future cannot itself be subject to change because it is merely potential and non-actual. (Qua future, that is, it is non-actual. But it is only the future to us, and not to God, who is not in time.)

I don’t know what you mean by “enclosed to an agent.” Free will is one reason (and some might argue the only reason) that the future is contingent. But when I act freely I am not changing the future, which does not exist. I am actualizing the future of this particular possible world. What the freedom of my act means is that in some other possible world with a history identical to ours, I acted differently; a different possible world could have been actual on the basis of my freedom. But I am not changing the future.