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

[Wesrock]

We could not have any dynamic in creation if all states are sustained at once in God perspective. This is true because all states of creation should always exist in our perspective which is problematic.

No. Just because all states are present in eternity to God does not necessitate that they must persist in the temporal realm forever.

 

[Bahman]

No. It would not necessitate that all states must perpetually exist in time if, outside of time, God provides what is needed for them to be in existence within time.

Who take care of that (bold part)?

 

[Wesrock]

Who take care of that (bold part)?

I edited my post to something a little clearer, but I’m not sure what you’re asking, as the sentence you quoted seems to answer the question in the first word: “God.”

 

[Bahman]

No. Just because all states are present in eternity to God does not necessitate that they must persist in the temporal realm forever.

The states of creation do not have any dynamic in God perspective if they are all actual. How then they could have a proper dynamic in temporal framework?

 

[Wesrock]

The states of creation do not have any dynamic in God perspective if they are all actual. How then they could have a proper dynamic in temporal framework?

I’m not sure how all being present before God at once in eternity prevents them from passing in and out of existence in a temporal sequence. That requirement does not follow. God knows each and every moment that IS. He knows their sequence. He knows how they relate. He knows how I change, my own dynamic, by knowing each and all of these states together.

fisherman carl made a good point in his topic of inquiry on how God may think. There are different ways to talk about priority. There is of course priority in time. This event occurred first. This later. God knows that about all of creation, but he doesn’t experience it in his eternity as we do. To his being, there is only the all encompassing now.

But there are other orders of priority. There is the “first among equals” sense. That first is not temporal before, but hierarchically above.

There is also the first in order of dependence. A cause and effect may happen simultaneously. For example, the brick breaks the glass. The cause, the brick’s atoms pressing against the glass’ atoms, and the effect, the glass’ atoms being pushed apart, happens at the same time. We would say the breaking of the glass is dependent on the brick making contact. We would not say the brick making contact is dependent on the glass breaking. We can also consider a lamp suspended from the ceiling by a chain of links. The lamp is dependent on the link it’s attached to, which is dependent on the next link, which is dependent on the next link, and so on. The bottom link is dependent on the top link for suspension. The top link is not dependent on the bottom. I’m sure we can nitpick these examples to death, but rather than focus only on this example, we can see that you can have a first in order of dependence in simultaneous events.

As such, and while I can’t know the mind of God, we can see possible ways in which order and dependencies of temporally sequential events may exist simultaneously in the mind of God.

Anyway, I may have digressed from the question exactly. But it still isn’t clear to me why God can’t sustain each state independently in his eternal NOW and for creation to still be dynamic.

 

[MT1926]

We have a purpose after we decide to reach a specific result.

Thank you.

Everything means all things that could be known. Knowledge of current state of creation is something that God cannot have because of the reason which was discussed.

It was nice talking with you Bahman but I think we are beating a dead horse. I don’t see you agreeing with any of us and you haven’t given us any reason to agree with you so far.

Now you changed our answer yet again to it being both purpose and result. Which I disagree with. If I say I am going to do this, just for the heck of it, even though I have no idea what might happen, it negates your response. Unless you are going to change your answer to me having no purpose is still having a purpose and not knowing the result is the specific result I am trying to reach.

I have read 3 posts so far that stated you are contradicting yourself and all 3 times you did not make any defense you just stated you did not contradict yourself.

Finally, in your mind you have given a reason why God cannot have “knowledge of current state of creation”, be you have yet to prove to the rest of us why he cannot.

God Bless

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Bahman,

You missed post #59

 

[Bahman]

I’m not sure how all being present before God at once in eternity prevents them from passing in and out of existence in a temporal sequence.

That is the problem.

That requirement does not follow. God knows each and every moment that IS. He knows their sequence. He knows how they relate. He knows how I change, my own dynamic, by knowing each and all of these states together.

God cannot still sustain the creation granting all this knowledge because he needs the knowledge of current time which he cannot have.

fisherman carl made a good point in his topic of inquiry on how God may think. There are different ways to talk about priority. There is of course priority in time. This event occurred first. This later. God knows that about all of creation, but he doesn’t experience it in his eternity as we do. To his being, there is only the all encompassing now.

The key issue is the knowledge of current time which God does not have.

But there are other orders of priority. There is the “first among equals” sense. That first is not temporal before, but hierarchically above.

There is also the first in order of dependence. A cause and effect may happen simultaneously. For example, the brick breaks the glass. The cause, the brick’s atoms pressing against the glass’ atoms, and the effect, the glass’ atoms being pushed apart, happens at the same time. We would say the breaking of the glass is dependent on the brick making contact. We would not say the brick making contact is dependent on the glass breaking. We can also consider a lamp suspended from the ceiling by a chain of links. The lamp is dependent on the link it’s attached to, which is dependent on the next link, which is dependent on the next link, and so on. The bottom link is dependent on the top link for suspension. The top link is not dependent on the bottom. I’m sure we can nitpick these examples to death, but rather than focus only on this example, we can see that you can have a first in order of dependence in simultaneous events.

As such, and while I can’t know the mind of God, we can see possible ways in which order and dependencies of temporally sequential events may exist simultaneously in the mind of God.

Anyway, I may have digressed from the question exactly. But it still isn’t clear to me why God can’t sustain each state independently in his eternal NOW and for creation to still be dynamic.

One needs to focus on the idea that only one of state of creation is actual at the current time.

 

[Bahman]

It was nice talking with you Bahman but I think we are beating a dead horse. I don’t see you agreeing with any of us and you haven’t given us any reason to agree with you so far.

Now you changed our answer yet again to it being both purpose and result. Which I disagree with. If I say I am going to do this, just for the heck of it, even though I have no idea what might happen, it negates your response. Unless you are going to change your answer to me having no purpose is still having a purpose and not knowing the result is the specific result I am trying to reach.

I have read 3 posts so far that stated you are contradicting yourself and all 3 times you did not make any defense you just stated you did not contradict yourself.

Finally, in your mind you have given a reason why God cannot have “knowledge of current state of creation”, be you have yet to prove to the rest of us why he cannot.

God Bless

The idea is very simple but you need to use your imagination a little. All states of creation are actual from God perspective. Only one of this state is actual in temporal perspective. The problem is that we cannot merge these two perspectives together and have a proper dynamic in creation.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,

You missed post #59

I read that post but it don’t really add anything to our discussion.

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand. Could you please elaborate?

The idea is that the Holy Trinity acts as universal cause, laying out creation’s plan and, part of creation, creates true secondary causes that execute the plan. All those causes are ordered to their end though provenance.

 

[MT1926]

The problem is that we cannot merge these two perspectives together and have a proper dynamic in creation.

Bingo!!! We can’t, but God can! I am sure several here will back me on this.

Until you can prove God cannot do this you have no ground to stand on.

You need to remember you are the OP it is up to you to prove why he cannot other wise you are asking us to disprove your opinions. Which you have already proven is not possible.

God Bless.

 

[Bahman]

The idea is that the Holy Trinity acts as universal cause, laying out creation’s plan and, part of creation, creates true secondary causes that execute the plan. All those causes are ordered to their end though provenance.

You are not really providing a solution to the problem we have by saying that God execute the plan through the secondary cause.

 

[Bahman]

Bingo!!! We can’t, but God can! I am sure several here will back me on this.

I included God when I said “WE”. I cannot help you to understand the problem if you put any effort to understand the situation. I mean it, this is something which is logically impossible.

Until you can prove God cannot do this you have no ground to stand on.

You need to remember you are the OP it is up to you to prove why he cannot other wise you are asking us to disprove your opinions. Which you have already proven is not possible.

God Bless.

I already provide two ways to argue that we are dealing with something which logically impossible.

First argument: All states of creation are actual from God perspective. Only one of this state is actual in temporal perspective. The problem is that we cannot merge these two perspectives together and have a proper dynamic in creation.

Second argument: Only one state of creation is actual from temporal perspective which is at current time. The current time changes. God cannot know the current time because he is changeless and cannot have knowledge of changeable things like current time.

 

[MT1926]

I included God when I said “WE”. I cannot help you to understand the problem if you put any effort to understand the situation. I mean it, this is something which is logically impossible.

I am actually hurt by this accusation. I think I have put quite a bit of effort to try to come up with situations and lines of reasoning which disprove your line of thinking. Just because you can dismiss my examples without giving it another thought in no way proves I am not putting forward any effort.

I already provide two ways to argue that we are dealing with something which logically impossible.

First argument: All states of creation are actual from God perspective. Only one of this state is actual in temporal perspective. The problem is that we cannot merge these two perspectives together and have a proper dynamic in creation.

Second argument: Only one state of creation is actual from temporal perspective which is at current time. The current time changes. God cannot know the current time because he is changeless and cannot have knowledge of changeable things like current time.

Yes you provided 2 “arguments”. But you have yet to give any type of evidence to prove they are “logically possible”. I think the point you are missing is the fact you are talking to a bunch of Catholics who do not believe God is bound by human rules and time. Therefore, your “2 arguments” are not “logically possible” to the rest of us.

God Bless

 

[Bahman]

I am actually hurt by this accusation. I think I have put quite a bit of effort to try to come up with situations and lines of reasoning which disprove your line of thinking. Just because you can dismiss my examples without giving it another thought in no way proves I am not putting forward any effort.

I am sorry if I hurt you. I really didn’t mean it.

Yes you provided 2 “arguments”. But you have yet to give any type of evidence to prove they are “logically possible”. I think the point you are missing is the fact you are talking to a bunch of Catholics who do not believe God is bound by human rules and time. Therefore, your “2 arguments” are not “logically possible” to the rest of us.

God Bless

In two arguments I really tried my best to show you that the act of sustaining the creation is logically impossible. I don’t really know where do you lack the understanding. Do you agree with my arguments? The problem is that you simply dismiss my both arguments without providing a counter example or argument. So I cannot help it more unless you change your approach and engage to discussion.

 

[Wesrock]

: pilatewashingofhands:

 

[davidv]

I am sorry if I hurt you. I really didn’t mean it.

In two arguments I really tried my best to show you that the act of sustaining the creation is logically impossible. I don’t really know where do you lack the understanding.

Why do you think understanding is lacking. Disagreement does not mean lack of understanding.

Do you agree with my arguments?

No. Your arguments are incomplete at best and at worst are logically invalid, including a combination of question begging and non sequitur.

The problem is that you simply dismiss my both arguments without providing a counter example or argument.

This is absolutely not true. Your arguments were dismissed because of there illogic.

So I cannot help it more unless you change your approach and engage to discussion.

Likewise. You have yet to respond to the weaknesses of your arguments with anything other than bare assertions.

 

[Vico]

You are not really providing a solution to the problem we have by saying that God execute the plan through the secondary cause.

So you are excluding secondary causes then? That will not work for Christianity.

You can read Summa Theologica Pat I, Q22 here on providence: particularly Article 3. Whether God has immediate providence over everything?

newadvent.org/summa/1022.htm

 

[Bahman]

Why do you think understanding is lacking. Disagreement does not mean lack of understanding.

I can understand that through your response.

No. Your arguments are incomplete at best and at worst are logically invalid, including a combination of question begging and non sequitur.

I have heard that before. You need to explain why my argument is question begging and non squirter otherwise no-one is going to by your claim.

This is absolutely not true. Your arguments were dismissed because of there illogic.

Again, you need to show that.

Likewise. You have yet to respond to the weaknesses of your arguments with anything other than bare assertions.

That is not true.