God cannot sustain the creation because he cannot know what is the current time

[JuanFlorencio]

I can say I know the “free fall” phenomena. But a free falling body changes continuously. Does it imply that my knowledge of the “free fall” phenomena changes continuously?

I can introduce my hand into the sand, and when I do it, the grains of sand will move and find a new accommodation. I have absolutely no representation of their situation in my mind, but I know that if I withdraw my hand, such situation will change. How is it? Can it be said that I sustain the grains in their situation or not?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Even in those acts which we call “human acts”, our action encompasses much more that the representation we might have of it. We need time and penetration to analyze what we have done; and the results of our analysis are usually incomplete and, therefore, provisional. Therefore, is it necessary to have a comprehensive mental representation on one’s actions to be their author? Are we really the authors of our human acts or not?

We are the only beings in nature from which we get our notion of knowledge. We tend to think that it is one of the greatest possible perfections; such, that we tend to think we must attribute it to God. And some might even think that this perfection is so pure that we just need to make it “infinite” to attribute it to Him. Some used to think that if we had an infinite intelligence, the apprehension of reality at any given instant would suffice us to have the knowledge of the past, present and future of the whole reality. This is the way in which through the knowledge of a mathematical model, plus the initial and boundary conditions of the corresponding physical system, a mathematician knows the whole of a transient phenomenon. He will claim that his mathematical model is a true representation of an aspect of reality. But if an ordinary guy looks at it, he will see on it no representation of anything at all. So, is it a representation or not? Is it knowledge or not? Is it the perfect way of knowing or not? Is it the way in which we can say that God knows or could we conceive one which is more perfect?

Is knowledge, understood as a representation of something, a pure perfection attributable to God?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

So, what can be the basis for this statement?:

1. God needs to know the state of creation at now to sustain the creation

We know that to sustain our human acts, we don’t need a mental representation of their actual state at every moment. We don’t even need to have a comprehensive representation of our acts. Further, we never have such comprehensive representation. Still, we act.

From where does Bahman get his belief that his statement is true?

 

[Bahman]

I love analyzing like the next person, but there are ways of doing it without immediately contradicting yourself, like say claiming something about God with wording that you agree is a contradiction, then adding ‘but…’

I am not contradicting myself.

Maybe try coming at your argument in a way that doesn’t read as creation knowing more than God, if there is a God.

I didn’t claim that creation knows more than God.

 

[Bahman]

Thank you for the response. You actually answered the question in your response you just don’t see it.

What question and what response?

I can follow this concept and agree, God sees all states of creation presently and continues to see all states eternally.

Good.

Still following you and have no objections to this thought process.

Good.

Agree that the current time can be seen as one of the frames. However, I disagree with the replacement because God sees all frames at once. Think of it like a 1000 piece puzzle laid out on a table. All the pieces are on the table. I can move the pieces around to build the puzzle but nothing gets replaced. I am standing above the table and can still see all of the pieces.

The way God see creation is like seeing all frame of a movie together. It is not at all like to seeing pieces of a puzzle.

Just because he sees all frames at once does not mean he sees them all together. My goodness even us inferior human beings don’t do that. If the coach of my daughters basketball team is able to concentrate on the movement of all 10 players on the court in order to change plays and sustain game, what makes you think God is incapable of concentrating on more than one “frame” at a time to sustain creation?

He doesn’t need the knowledge of all states but the knowledge of current state to sustain the creation. God however cannot know the current state as he does not know the current time because this knowledge changes by time.

 

[Bahman]

I will change this “argument” with an analogous one, so that its gaps become clearer, if there is the will…

1. Creation needs to be known in its actual state to be preserved in its existence
2. The state of creation changes continuously
3. The knowledge of something is a representation of it
4. If an object changes continuously, then a true representation of it changes continuously
5. Therefore, if there is a knowledge of the actual state of creation, it changes continuously
6. God is immutable, therefore, If He knows, His knowledge is immutable
7. Therefore, God does not know the actual state of creation
8. Therefore, either there is an agent who knows and preserves creation or creation is not preserved in existence, or creation does not need to be known in order to be preserved in existence.
9. But creation still exists.
10. Therefore, either there is an agent who knows and preserves creation or creation does not need to be known in order to be preserved in existence.
11. But (1), therefore there is an agent who knows and preserves creation

Thank you. That is a good analyse with the exception of (1). Creation might not need a sustainer.

 

[Bahman]

**Catechism of the Catholic Church **addresses providence and secondary causes:

Providence and secondary causes

306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures’ co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God’s greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of co-operating in the accomplishment of his plan.

**307 **To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of “subduing” the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become “God’s fellow workers” and co-workers for his kingdom.170

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator. God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes: "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure."171 Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it. Drawn from nothingness by God’s power, wisdom and goodness, it can do nothing if it is cut off from its origin, for "without a Creator the creature vanishes."172 Still less can a creature attain its ultimate end without the help of God’s grace.173

168 Cf. Gen 1:26-28.
169 Cf. Col 1:24.
170 1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thes 3:2; Col 4:11.
171 Phil 2:13; cf. 1 Cor 12:6.
172 GS 36 § 3.
173 Cf. Mt 19:26; Jn 15:5; 14:13

I don’t understand how this is related to the topic.

 

[Bahman]

So, what can be the basis for this statement?:

How else God could act if he does not know what he is supposed to do.

We know that to sustain our human acts, we don’t need a mental representation of their actual state at every moment.

That is not true. We need to know the result of our actions before we act.

We don’t even need to have a comprehensive representation of our acts.

That is not true either. How otherwise we could act.

Further, we never have such comprehensive representation. Still, we act.

That is not true either. How we could act if we don’t know the result of our act.

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand how this is related to the topic.

Your statement is that: God cannot sustain the creation.
My post is on how this sustenance (providence) may be through secondary causes.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Thank you. That is a good analyse with the exception of (1). Creation might not need a sustainer.

This new statement would need to be proved with another argument. You should try.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

How else God could act if he does not know what he is supposed to do.

It seems that you think of God as if He was an infinite man, which is very absurd.

That is not true. We need to know the result of our actions before we act.

That is not true either. How otherwise we could act.

That is not true either. How we could act if we don’t know the result of our act.

How? Without a comprehensive representation of our acts and their results. You just need to pay attention to what you yourself do. Yesterday night I thought: Tomorrow morning I will dedicate two hours to study physics, and I selected the topic “Rotation in space”. I did it already. But, did I have a comprehensive representation of my action and its results when I made my sketchy plan? Of course not! Perhaps other persons would add some other details to their plans (like, I will study in the garden, seated in front of the pine tree, on the iron white chair; and I will be wearing my blue socks, my Oxford grey trousers and…), but still it would not be a comprehensive representation of the act. How could we have a comprehensive representation of our acts if we live in such a complex environment that at any moment we are not conscious of everything which surrounds us? Everything which is there, is present; but not everything is represented in our mind. As I said in a previous post: our actions encompass much more than the representation we might have of them.

Do you have a different experience?

 

[Bahman]

Your statement is that: God cannot sustain the creation.
My post is on how this sustenance (providence) may be through secondary causes.

That I understand but your post doesn’t help in regard to what is claimed here. In another word, I accept the fact that God needs the secondary causes to sustain creation but he cannot do that because he needs to sustain the only the actual state which is the state at current time, now, which he cannot know this state because the knowledge of that state at current time need changes in God knowledge which is not allowed.

 

[Bahman]

This new statement would need to be proved with another argument. You should try.

It is a hard to get that argument.

 

[Bahman]

It seems that you think of God as if He was an infinite man, which is very absurd.

That not correct. Any being needs to know prior to act. God is in timeless state hence he could have only one eternal act.

How? Without a comprehensive representation of our acts and their results. You just need to pay attention to what you yourself do. Yesterday night I thought: Tomorrow morning I will dedicate two hours to study physics, and I selected the topic “Rotation in space”. I did it already. But, did I have a comprehensive representation of my action and its results when I made my sketchy plan? Of course not! Perhaps other persons would add some other details to their plans (like, I will study in the garden, seated in front of the pine tree, on the iron white chair; and I will be wearing my blue socks, my Oxford grey trousers and…), but still it would not be a comprehensive representation of the act. How could we have a comprehensive representation of our acts if we live in such a complex environment that at any moment we are not conscious of everything which surrounds us? Everything which is there, is present; but not everything is represented in our mind. As I said in a previous post: our actions encompass much more than the representation we might have of them.

Do you have a different experience?

That is true that we might not need a comprehensive representation of our act because of complexity of our environment but how about God?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

It is a hard to get that argument.

No doubt, but…, this creation is what you know (or, at least, what you can know). On the other hand, you don’t know God; still, you dare to build your arguments as if you knew everything about Him. How is it?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

That is true that we might not need a comprehensive representation of our act because of complexity of our environment but how about God?

If you think that God is an infinite man, then you could think that He must know as we do, but including every detail, because of His infinite capacity. However, as I said, the idea that God is an infinite man is absurd. Besides, the fact that we can act without a comprehensive representation of our act refutes your first statement: It is not necessary to have comprehensive representations to be able to act. This is what we know. How about God? I don’t know, but certainly I don’t believe He needs any representation at all.

 

[MT1926]

The way God see creation is like seeing all frame of a movie together. It is not at all like to seeing pieces of a puzzle.

Boy you sure do like to argue don’t you? Fine with me but I don’t see the difference between a frame of a movie and a piece of a puzzle, they are both a picture which is part of a whole. I don’t see how you are allowed to assume God sees it like a movie and I can’t assume it is the same way we see an entire puzzle.

Anyway, I will give in again, since you are unwilling to see anyone’s point of view that doesn’t agree with yours. So back to your movie. I will state the same thing I stated before using your movie as an example. "Just because he sees all frames at once does not mean he sees them all together. My goodness even us inferior human beings don’t do that. " I know people who are capable of concentrating on 10 TV’s at the same time. Haven’t you ever seen the movie Rainman?

He doesn’t need the knowledge of all states but the knowledge of current state to sustain the creation. God however cannot know the current state as he does not know the current time because this knowledge changes by time.

I think you are starting to talk in circles. You need to give a better explanation. This makes no sense. If we logically follow this conclusion then what you are saying is a superior God can’t sustain the current state because he doesn’t know the current time. Is like saying we are incapable of accomplishing anything without a watch on our wrist.

Some of your other statements leads me to the conclusion that you are very confused. You might want to start listening to some of the posters on here instead of your own opinions.
Could you please explain why we need to know the results of our actions before we act? Because if this is true I must be very abnormal, probably 90% of what I know I have learned by jumping in with both feet with no clue what the result would be. Just curious do you remember the first time you told your heart to beat? I can’t recall knowing the result of that action, 18 days after I was conceived, but I am sure you do. However, I think I do recall what the result of putting a fork in the outlet would be before I did it. But I am not 100% sure, I think I might have ended up with some short term memory loss.

 

[Vico]

That I understand but your post doesn’t help in regard to what is claimed here. In another word, I accept the fact that God needs the secondary causes to sustain creation but he cannot do that because he needs to sustain the only the actual state which is the state at current time, now, which he cannot know this state because the knowledge of that state at current time need changes in God knowledge which is not allowed.

The primary cause does not have to manage each moment when it is delegated to a secondary cause.

Why do you think that God cannot know all that will come in time (which He created), from the eternal (which is of another order than time)?

 

[Bahman]

Boy you sure do like to argue don’t you? Fine with me but I don’t see the difference between a frame of a movie and a piece of a puzzle, they are both a picture which is part of a whole. I don’t see how you are allowed to assume God sees it like a movie and I can’t assume it is the same way we see an entire puzzle.

God knowledge of states of creation is like frames of a movie because states of creation are time ordered like frames of a movie.

Anyway, I will give in again, since you are unwilling to see anyone’s point of view that doesn’t agree with yours. So back to your movie. I will state the same thing I stated before using your movie as an example. "Just because he sees all frames at once does not mean he sees them all together. My goodness even us inferior human beings don’t do that. " I know people who are capable of concentrating on 10 TV’s at the same time. Haven’t you ever seen the movie Rainman?

If you accept my analogy then knowledge of all state of creation is like seeing all frames of movie at the same time. I didn’t watch that movie.

I think you are starting to talk in circles. You need to give a better explanation. This makes no sense. If we logically follow this conclusion then what you are saying is a superior God can’t sustain the current state because he doesn’t know the current time. Is like saying we are incapable of accomplishing anything without a watch on our wrist.

I am not talking in circle. To sustain the creation God needs to know the state of creation at current time which he cannot know because this knowledge is time dependent where God knowledge is changeless.

Some of your other statements leads me to the conclusion that you are very confused. You might want to start listening to some of the posters on here instead of your own opinions.

I am open to people opinions.

Could you please explain why we need to know the results of our actions before we act?

That is the very definition of decision. We decide and then act to reach the purposes. How could you decide if you have no purposes?

Because if this is true I must be very abnormal, probably 90% of what I know I have learned by jumping in with both feet with no clue what the result would be. Just curious do you remember the first time you told your heart to beat? I can’t recall knowing the result of that action, 18 days after I was conceived, but I am sure you do. However, I think I do recall what the result of putting a fork in the outlet would be before I did it. But I am not 100% sure, I think I might have ended up with some short term memory loss.

We learn from our action when the situation is not very clear but this does not apply to God because he knows everything.

 

[Bahman]

The primary cause does not have to manage each moment when it is delegated to a secondary cause.

Why do you think that God cannot know all that will come in time (which He created), from the eternal (which is of another order than time)?

Because the knowledge the state of creation at current time changes. God is however changeless hence his knowledge doesn’t change. The problem is that God cannot have this knowledge since this knowledge is changes by time whereas God’s knowledge is changeless.