How does God think if he is immutable?

[Gorgias]

you would have to acknowledge that there would be a time in which creation did not exist, but only in God’s mind, which means a change when creation came into existence. Now, this would be a change in God’s relation to creation. Before creation existed only in his mind. And then it existed in his mind and in existence. This implies there was a before. And implies at least an extrinsic change. But a change nonetheless which implies that there is a before creation.

A couple of thoughts: first, I think you’d have to define what you mean by “extrinsic change.” Since you’re talking about God’s nature and change, then it seems that what you mean is “well, not really a change to God’s nature, but a change in the vicinity of God’s nature.” If that’s the case, then you’re not really addressing the question of change vis-a-vis God’s nature, and therefore, you’re not really advancing the argument in any meaningful way, other than saying that change exists in the universe.

Second, though, your argument would say that immutability is impossible, by definition: since creation exists, and creation is constantly changing, then there is constantly “extrinsic change” to God’s nature; therefore, if your point holds, then God’s nature is “constantly changing” – that is, that creation’s very existence pushes and pulls and prods God’s nature into change. That doesn’t seem to hold up very well.

Finally, your argument seems to create a timeline in a context in which there is no temporal dimension. In eternity, there is no “before” and “after”; there is just the eternal now. In that eternal now, God created the universe. There was no temporal ‘before’ or ‘after’ until the universe was created, and the frame of reference for that temporality is creation, not God.

So, I’m not at all convinced that a ‘before and after’ analysis of creation holds up, nor that it implies a change in God’s nature.

 

[fisherman_carl]

A couple of thoughts: first, I think you’d have to define what you mean by “extrinsic change.” Since you’re talking about God’s nature and change, then it seems that what you mean is “well, not really a change to God’s nature, but a change in the vicinity of God’s nature.” If that’s the case, then you’re not really addressing the question of change vis-a-vis God’s nature, and therefore, you’re not really advancing the argument in any meaningful way, other than saying that change exists in the universe.

Extrinsic change is change that doesn’t happen to one’s internal or intrinsic nature, but is change in relation to oneself. For instance, if you had a son who was at one time smaller than you and then grew up and eventually was taller than you. This change isn’t happening because you intrinsically changed. It is change that happened in relation to you.

What does extrinsic change mean for God? Well, it is a good argument to say that God is in time. God may have been timeless before creation. However, after creation there is now this temporally existing creation that changes extrinsically to God. This means that God would now be in time, because the passage of time could be measured relative to God. To illustrate this, Imagine an unchanging rock floating in space. It can not change. However, imagine someone straps a clock to this rock. Now, we can see that even though the rock can not change it is in time because it now is in relation to this clock. The rock is there when the clock reaches 1, 2, 3, … etc. Thus, the rock is in time in relation to the clock. It would be the same for God. God was there at creation, and then there was Adam and Eve, and then there was the flood, etc. God is now in relation to a temporal entity, putting him in time. Even if God does not intrinsically change.

Second, though, your argument would say that immutability is impossible, by definition: since creation exists, and creation is constantly changing, then there is constantly “extrinsic change” to God’s nature; therefore, if your point holds, then God’s nature is “constantly changing” – that is, that creation’s very existence pushes and pulls and prods God’s nature into change. That doesn’t seem to hold up very well.

I don’t think that it is saying that immutability is impossible. God’s intrinsic nature is not changing. Now, under such a view his omniscience does imply that God is aware of tensed facts. If he wasn’t aware of them he wouldn’t be omniscient. For example, he is aware it is 3:01 pm. And, then he will be aware that it is 3:02 pm. Doesn’t God, an omniscient being know what time it is? If not then he wouldn’t know if it was now the moment of creation or the Jurassic period. This would imply that God’s knowledge about what is happening now would change in the current moment. Prior to creation nothing changed extrinsically to him so he would not need tensed knowledge. But, his intrinsic nature does not change. Who he is doesn’t change by tensed knowledge. It just means he is more perfect because he is omniscient.

Finally, your argument seems to create a timeline in a context in which there is no temporal dimension. In eternity, there is no “before” and “after”; there is just the eternal now. In that eternal now, God created the universe. There was no temporal ‘before’ or ‘after’ until the universe was created, and the frame of reference for that temporality is creation, not God.

So, I’m not at all convinced that a ‘before and after’ analysis of creation holds up, nor that it implies a change in God’s nature.

Well, it’s not really my argument, but Dr. William Lane Craig’s. And, it is only one theory. And, I am not saying it is right, but it does give pause for thought. But, at any rate, I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. Dr. Craig talks about the A theory of time and the B theory of time where time is tenseless. Are you advocating the B theory of time where God is outside of time and the present moment is really an illusion or our subjective experience to us. And, that all of time stays in existence. The past does not pass away and the future exists right now. And, God he sees this all of time at once? Thus, creation is really static to God because the entire timeline is present to God at once. It all stays in existence. This would also change the doctrine of creation since from God’s perspective creation always existed in relation to God in this eternal timeline. And, as I said before it also means that from God’s perspective evil is never really vanquished as it always exists before God in this eternal timeline that is always in existence before God. Since the past is just as real to God as any other moment. In fact there is no favored moment. Our present moment is just an illusion. Other periods of time would still be in existence and they would think their present is the present moment.

 

[Gorgias]

Extrinsic change is change that doesn’t happen to one’s internal or intrinsic nature, but is change in relation to oneself. For instance, if you had a son who was at one time smaller than you and then grew up and eventually was taller than you. This change isn’t happening because you intrinsically changed. It is change that happened in relation to you.

Then I’m not seeing how it relates to the question at hand. If God doesn’t change, but other things change, then we’re still saying that God’s nature is immutable!

What does extrinsic change mean for God? Well, it is a good argument to say that God is in time.

No, it’s a pretty horrible argument, IMHO.

God is eternal. God created the universe, which means He created time. He does not exist in time; time exists as His creation.

God may have been timeless before creation. However, after creation there is now this temporally existing creation that changes extrinsically to God. This means that God would now be in time, because the passage of time could be measured relative to God.

To illustrate this, Imagine an unchanging rock floating in space. It can not change. However, imagine someone straps a clock to this rock. Now, we can see that even though the rock can not change it is in time because it now is in relation to this clock. The rock is there when the clock reaches 1, 2, 3, … etc.

Umm… with all due respect, this is a pretty terrible example.

Time exists – with respect to the rock – even if an outside observer has no means to measure the passage of time. The rock is changing, regardless. Its atoms are subject to entropy; it’s subject to forces (gravity, etc); it absorbs (and emits) energy; and it’s in motion. It’s undergoing constant change, just as everything in the universe is.

When you strap the clock to the rock, all you’re doing is allowing an external observer to quantify the ‘change’ that the rock undergoes. You’re not affecting the change that’s happening, in any sense of the word! Moreover, the fact that there’s a clock strapped to the rock doesn’t imply that the rock’s change is due to the clock in any meaningful way! (Well… you can make that case, but only in ways that speak to ‘intrinsic’ change [sic]: the clock is imparting energy and momentum to the rock, and gravitational pull, etc, etc… and so, the rock is naturally changing in response to these interactions.)

Thus, the rock is in time in relation to the clock. It would be the same for God.

No: the rock and the clock both change, and are both within the temporal dimension. God is not.

God was there at creation, and then there was Adam and Eve, and then there was the flood, etc. God is now in relation to a temporal entity, putting him in time.

No – God’s relation to creation is as (unchanging, eternal) creator to (mutable, finite) creation. This does not mean that God is ‘in time’. He continues to just be, in an eternal Now.

I don’t think that it is saying that immutability is impossible. God’s intrinsic nature is not changing. Now, under such a view his omniscience does imply that God is aware of tensed facts. If he wasn’t aware of them he wouldn’t be omniscient. For example, he is aware it is 3:01 pm. And, then he will be aware that it is 3:02 pm. Doesn’t God, an omniscient being know what time it is?

uch:

No – yet again, you’re having problems with the nature of the temporal dimension. For God, it’s never 3:01pm or 3:02pm; He’s outside of creation, and therefore, he’s outside our temporal framework. A more accurate way to say it, perhaps, is that for God, it’s always 3:01pm and 3:02pm and 2/22/2016 and 12/25/0001. That is to say, all of creation is immediately present to Him; He does not experience creation sequentially, as we do. He experiences it – since He is outside of it – all at once. Therefore, time doesn’t ‘change’ for Him, as it does for us.

(Now, if what you want to ask is “doesn’t God, an omniscient being, know what time it is for us who live in the universe?”, then in a way, the answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Yes, He knows that you’re experiencing 12:16pm right now, just as He knows that you will experience 12:20pm shortly – in your frame of reference. But the answer is also ‘no’: you’re asking a question that’s so limited in its context (not just you, but you in this location and this moment in time as we’re experiencing it), that it’s almost meaningless. God knows you – and knows everything about you and everything you’ve experienced and everything you’re ‘going to’ experience: His knowledge is so vast that asking about one instant is almost asking too little.)

 

[Gorgias]

As much as I hate series of posts that continue on and on, here’s the second half of my reply to your post…
fisherman carl:

But, at any rate, I am not entirely sure what you are saying here. Dr. Craig talks about the A theory of time and the B theory of time where time is tenseless. Are you advocating the B theory of time where God is outside of time and the present moment is really an illusion or our subjective experience to us.

No: both theories of time operate inside the frame of reference of ‘the created universe.’ Whether one perceives time as tensed or tenseless, God is nevertheless outside of that frame of reference. You’re asking a different sort of question, here, I think: how does God perceive what we experience as ‘time’?

And, that all of time stays in existence. The past does not pass away and the future exists right now. And, God he sees this all of time at once? Thus, creation is really static to God because the entire timeline is present to God at once. It all stays in existence.

What do you mean by ‘static’? That seems to imply ‘no change’. That’s not what we’re saying. However, if by ‘static’ you mean that God sees all of creation immediately and timelessly, then yeah – but that doesn’t mean that God is not aware of our perspectives from within the context of creation and its frames of reference.

This would also change the doctrine of creation since from God’s perspective creation always existed in relation to God in this eternal timeline.

Not really sure what you mean here, but it seems to betray an error in the way you’re looking at things. “Eternal timeline”, in particular, seems an egregious oxymoron. Things are either ‘eternal’ or not; if eternal, then there’s no ‘timeline’ – they just are. So, you can’t posit a ‘timeline’ in God’s (eternal) existence, and then plot things that happen along that axis. It’s not like there was a ‘time’ in eternity without creation and a ‘time’ in eternity with creation (and, following this to its ‘logical conclusion’) and a ‘time’ in eternity after the end of creation. These notions of ‘time’ only exist within the context of creation.

And, as I said before it also means that from God’s perspective evil is never really vanquished as it always exists before God in this eternal timeline that is always in existence before God.

No – think bigger. What it means is that, from God’s perspective, evil is finite and is already vanquished. (We just haven’t experienced that total victory yet, from our perspective in ‘time’ in creation.)

Since the past is just as real to God as any other moment. In fact there is no favored moment. Our present moment is just an illusion.

Whoa – hold on a minute, cowboy! To say that “there is no favored moment” does not imply that “our present moment is just an illusion”! Our present moment is, in fact, not ‘just an illusion’ – it’s just that it happens to be one moment among countless many moments, and the one that we happen to be experiencing ‘now’. The perspective that we might hold to – that is, to perceive it as the only real moment (to use B-theory language) – is the only ‘illusion’. But, each moment is real, and is perceived differently by us and by God.

Other periods of time would still be in existence and they would think their present is the present moment.

Maybe, and maybe not. Either way, though, you’re talking about perceptions of real moments in time, from the perspective of a created being existing within the spatial and temporal constraints of the created universe. None of these implies that God experiences things in this way. To bring us back from this tangent, this means that our experience of creation does not color God’s, and neither does it imply anything about His immutability.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Then I’m not seeing how it relates to the question at hand. If God doesn’t change, but other things change, then we’re still saying that God’s nature is immutable!

No, it’s a pretty horrible argument, IMHO.

God is eternal. God created the universe, which means He created time. He does not exist in time; time exists as His creation.

Umm… with all due respect, this is a pretty terrible example.

Time exists – with respect to the rock – even if an outside observer has no means to measure the passage of time. The rock is changing, regardless. Its atoms are subject to entropy; it’s subject to forces (gravity, etc); it absorbs (and emits) energy; and it’s in motion. It’s undergoing constant change, just as everything in the universe is.

When you strap the clock to the rock, all you’re doing is allowing an external observer to quantify the ‘change’ that the rock undergoes. You’re not affecting the change that’s happening, in any sense of the word! Moreover, the fact that there’s a clock strapped to the rock doesn’t imply that the rock’s change is due to the clock in any meaningful way! (Well… you can make that case, but only in ways that speak to ‘intrinsic’ change [sic]: the clock is imparting energy and momentum to the rock, and gravitational pull, etc, etc… and so, the rock is naturally changing in response to these interactions.)

No: the rock and the clock both change, and are both within the temporal dimension. God is not.

No – God’s relation to creation is as (unchanging, eternal) creator to (mutable, finite) creation. This does not mean that God is ‘in time’. He continues to just be, in an eternal Now.

uch:

No – yet again, you’re having problems with the nature of the temporal dimension. For God, it’s never 3:01pm or 3:02pm; He’s outside of creation, and therefore, he’s outside our temporal framework. A more accurate way to say it, perhaps, is that for God, it’s always 3:01pm and 3:02pm and 2/22/2016 and 12/25/0001. That is to say, all of creation is immediately present to Him; He does not experience creation sequentially, as we do. He experiences it – since He is outside of it – all at once. Therefore, time doesn’t ‘change’ for Him, as it does for us.

(Now, if what you want to ask is “doesn’t God, an omniscient being, know what time it is for us who live in the universe?”, then in a way, the answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Yes, He knows that you’re experiencing 12:16pm right now, just as He knows that you will experience 12:20pm shortly – in your frame of reference. But the answer is also ‘no’: you’re asking a question that’s so limited in its context (not just you, but you in this location and this moment in time as we’re experiencing it), that it’s almost meaningless. God knows you – and knows everything about you and everything you’ve experienced and everything you’re ‘going to’ experience: His knowledge is so vast that asking about one instant is almost asking too little.)

You come across as pretty dismissive here. But, anyways, you never gave the rock example a fair treatment by introducing things that are just not there. For example, you talk about the rock changing. But, in this example I said the rock does not change. (It is immutable and atemporal). That is the whole point of the example is that it is an analogy to God. That is the whole point of using a rock in this analogy. (Also why God is often called a rock in the Bible). Do you understand what an analogy is?

Secondly, if the rock is unchanging it is not affected by the clock in any way, nor does the clock measure any change in the rock. So that is completely bogus to say that the clock is measuring a change in the rock. That has nothing to do with my analogy. You are just finding problems that are not there. Which means you are being dismissive without really understanding what I am saying.

Perhaps, using a rock isn’t the best idea. But, that is the analogy that Dr. Craig uses and I am not sure of a better one. Even the Bible uses it. Perhaps you can think of something better? When, I heard the analogy it made sense to me. Perhaps, you should listen to the link above to better understand what I am trying to say here. After all if you think I am doing such a poor job and have such a poor understanding then you should go to the horses mouth. I am sure that even you could learn something here as Dr. Craig has been researching this subject for many years and written books about it. God bless,

 

[fisherman_carl]

As much as I hate series of posts that continue on and on, here’s the second half of my reply to your post…

No: both theories of time operate inside the frame of reference of ‘the created universe.’ Whether one perceives time as tensed or tenseless, God is nevertheless outside of that frame of reference. You’re asking a different sort of question, here, I think: how does God perceive what we experience as ‘time’?

What do you mean by ‘static’? That seems to imply ‘no change’. That’s not what we’re saying. However, if by ‘static’ you mean that God sees all of creation immediately and timelessly, then yeah – but that doesn’t mean that God is not aware of our perspectives from within the context of creation and its frames of reference.

Not really sure what you mean here, but it seems to betray an error in the way you’re looking at things. “Eternal timeline”, in particular, seems an egregious oxymoron. Things are either ‘eternal’ or not; if eternal, then there’s no ‘timeline’ – they just are. So, you can’t posit a ‘timeline’ in God’s (eternal) existence, and then plot things that happen along that axis. It’s not like there was a ‘time’ in eternity without creation and a ‘time’ in eternity with creation (and, following this to its ‘logical conclusion’) and a ‘time’ in eternity after the end of creation. These notions of ‘time’ only exist within the context of creation.

By eternal timeline I mean that the timeline of creation (past, present, future) will have always existed with God (thus be eternal) since God would be present at every moment of time from all of eternity. Thus, there was never a moment when there was no creation or timeline of creation for God. And, the timeline (of creation) always existed and will always exist under the b theory of time. So, really there is no before Creation and after Creation. There is just a front edge to Creation on its timeline. But, it would have always existed.

No – think bigger. What it means is that, from God’s perspective, evil is finite and is already vanquished. (We just haven’t experienced that total victory yet, from our perspective in ‘time’ in creation.)

Whoa – hold on a minute, cowboy! To say that “there is no favored moment” does not imply that “our present moment is just an illusion”! Our present moment is, in fact, not ‘just an illusion’ – it’s just that it happens to be one moment among countless many moments, and the one that we happen to be experiencing ‘now’. The perspective that we might hold to – that is, to perceive it as the only real moment (to use B-theory language) – is the only ‘illusion’. But, each moment is real, and is perceived differently by us and by God.

Our present moment is not an illusion. But, it would be an illusion to say that our present moment is in fact the only present moment, or even the favored present moment. In fact our present moment is only one of an infinite number of possible present moments along the timeline that are equally real for those that are experiencing them. And, God would see all of them at once.

Maybe, and maybe not. Either way, though, you’re talking about perceptions of real moments in time, from the perspective of a created being existing within the spatial and temporal constraints of the created universe. None of these implies that God experiences things in this way. To bring us back from this tangent, this means that our experience of creation does not color God’s, and neither does it imply anything about His immutability.

Yes, I am talking about our subjective perception of time being somewhat illusory since we think of the present moment as the present moment. When in fact there would be many present moments all equally existing and valid at the same time under the b theory of time. The past does not die and the future is already existing under such a model. Thus, the entire timeline would be presently alive for lack of better word.

 

[fisherman_carl]

No: both theories of time operate inside the frame of reference of ‘the created universe.’ Whether one perceives time as tensed or tenseless, God is nevertheless outside of that frame of reference. You’re asking a different sort of question, here, I think: how does God perceive what we experience as ‘time’?

.

Yes, in both theories God himself is timeless or unaffected by the passage of time. However, I think that the difference in the a theory and the b theory is that in the a theory God becomes subject to extrinsic change through the passage of time of his creation, putting God in relation to time, to a changing present moment. Since under the a theory there is only one moment of time, the past has gone out of existence, and the future has not yet come. So even, if God can know what is going to happen and he has perfect recall of the past, the present moment is the only moment that actually exists. And, since the present moment is changing and that this is happening in relation to God, then God’s knowledge about what is happening in this present moment is also changing. Which would imply consecutive thoughts. At least that’s the argument I think Dr. Craig is making. Again, it would be better to get it from the horse’s mouth.

The a theory is the common sensical view of time, as we experience it. The idea that the past and future already exists now, under the b theory, is not something that is intuitively clear for us. But, under the b theory God’s knowledge about the present does not change because every moment of time, he sees all as existing at once.

Yes, I supposed God could see every moment of time under the a theory too, if he could perfectly see into the future, and have perfect recollection of the past. However, the present moment would still be different than the past and the future because it is the only one that actually exists.

 

[Gorgias]

By eternal timeline I mean that the timeline of creation (past, present, future) will have always existed with God (thus be eternal) since God would be present at every moment of time from all of eternity.

Again – frame of reference? I think this statement resolves itself (trivially!) if we’re a little more rigorous with the way that we talk. So…

In God’s frame of reference, which is timeless, creation doesn’t occupy a place on any sort of ‘timeline’ – and therefore, cannot be referred to as ‘always’, since ‘always’ implies a temporal extension that’s not present in this context.

On the other hand, within our frame of reference, since we can’t see outside of that frame, there’s no time that we can see God as having existed – and therefore, inside that framework, creation ‘always’ existed with God.

Stated that way, I don’t think there is any interesting or controversial claim to be made here.

Thus, there was never a moment when there was no creation or timeline of creation for God.

More to the point, in God’s frame of reference, there are no ‘moments’. So, saying it this way really doesn’t say anything, I would assert.

Our present moment is not an illusion. But, it would be an illusion to say that our present moment is in fact the only present moment, or even the favored present moment.

You’re talking from the ‘b’ perspective? There’s a lot more to be said here. Certainly, you have to account for a being’s ongoing perception of the ‘present moment’.

Yes, I am talking about our subjective perception of time being somewhat illusory since we think of the present moment as the present moment.

I think ‘subjective’ works better here than ‘illusory’.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, in both theories God himself is timeless or unaffected by the passage of time. However, I think that the difference in the a theory and the b theory is that in the a theory God becomes subject to extrinsic change through the passage of time of his creation, putting God in relation to time, to a changing present moment.

Of course, you would have to demonstrate that “being in relation to time” implies that God changes when time changes. The old “Xanthippe became a widow when Socrates died, so did Socrates change Xanthippe?” question…

 

[fisherman_carl]

I found this quote of St. Augustine.

In the eminence of thy ever-present eternity, thou precedest all times past, and extendest beyond all future times, for they are still to come — and when they have come, they will be past. But “Thou art always the Selfsame and thy years shall have no end.” Thy years neither go nor come; but ours both go and come in order that all separate moments may come to pass. All thy years stand together as one, since they are abiding. Nor do thy years past exclude the years to come because thy years do not pass away. All these years of ours shall be with thee, when all of them shall have ceased to be. Thy years are but a day, and thy day is not recurrent, but always today. Thy “today” yields not to tomorrow and does not follow yesterday. Thy “today” is eternity.[1]
— St. Augustine, Confessions, Book XI, Chapter XIII

 

[Wesrock]

Ok. Then, how do we interpret this passage?

“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” Eph 4:30

How an God be grieved if he can not experience emotion or suffering? What does that even mean?

It’s anthropomorphizing to a degree, that is, applying human attributes to God to try to explain him.

I have a book. Let’s say I’ve read it before, and I possess the ability to have it all in my mind at one time. In this book, there’s a character named Bob, and Bob does a lot of different things in the book, some good, some bad. If I could hold each moment in my mind at one time, not as a summary, but each moment individually all at once, I can say my disposition for Bob as he is on page 42 is not going to be the same disposition of Bob on page 156. Remember, in this example, I am NOT reading this book over time, but have all of it present in my head at once, in my memory. It’s possible for me to have two different dispositions to Bob at two different pages at the same time. I’m not talking about how my overall, summarized opinion of him changes over time, but my disposition at point A and my disposition at point B because, in my memory, I have both moments in my memory at once. They are both present in my mind right now. As such, there is no change. Both of those points are here in my head NOW. They will always be in my memory as NOW. There is no actual change in my state about Point A or Point B, as such, I am not changing BETWEEN my disposition at point A and my disposition at point B, as there is no between for me. That is how I am able to have two different opinions about Bob at different times in his life without ever changing, because both of those times are present to me at once, eternally. Now, I will never reread the book and change my opinion about Point A. Nor will I ever change my opinion about Point B. If I could change my opinion about either point, then I become mutable. But being disposed differently to two different points that are present to me at the same time eternally? That requires no change.

I apologize for my analogy being amorphous, sometimes more literal myself and a book, and then shifting to how it would be for God while keeping the analogy. I hope it’s not confusing.

Anyway, this isn’t to imply that God knows things *before *his happen, for God can only know what is currently in being. However, since God is eternal, and all moments of being are present to him in one great now. To us, it seems like before and after. But to God, there is no before or after in his experience.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I was trying to comprehend how God could think if he is immutable. How does God respond to events in time? If God is in time or out of time would effect how God thinks. I was wondering how God could be in relation to us without having consecutive thoughts, where one thought precedes another in order of time. Does God have all thoughts simultaneously from eternity, such that his thought life does not change?

However, I was reading another post on CAF from way back. He talked about a cause can be ordered, not in time, but in order of effect. This got me thinking about God’s thoughts. If God is timeless and sees all of time at once, then in this eternal ‘now’ his thoughts could still be ordered, but not in order of time, but in effect.

To see this there is the illustration of the footprint in the sand. There is no order of time in the cause of the footprint since the foot pushing down on the sand and the sand being pushed own occur simultaneously. Yet, there is still an order of cause and effect. Similarly, a lamp on the desk is simultaneously being held up by the desk, the floor, and the earth, down to a first cause, not in time, but in order of causes.

Thus, could not God’s thoughts be ordered, not in time, but in cause such that they occur simultaneously, but in an order? This would mean God is still immutable in his thoughts since they do not change in time. However, it also means God’s thoughts are ordered according to cause and effect.

Thus, in how God relates to his creation since he is in the eternal now, he sees all of time present to him at once and can therefore act or respond to events all at once. And, he can do this according to an order, yet an order that is simultaneous, such that there is no change in time.

Am I on to something here?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I was trying to comprehend how God could think if he is immutable. How does God respond to events in time? If God is in time or out of time would effect how God thinks. I was wondering how God could be in relation to us without having consecutive thoughts, where one thought precedes another in order of time. Does God have all thoughts simultaneously from eternity, such that his thought life does not change?

However, I was reading another post on CAF from way back. He talked about a cause can be ordered, not in time, but in order of effect. This got me thinking about God’s thoughts. If God is timeless and sees all of time at once, then in this eternal ‘now’ his thoughts could still be ordered, but not in order of time, but in effect.

To see this there is the illustration of the footprint in the sand. There is no order of time in the cause of the footprint since the foot pushing down on the sand and the sand being pushed own occur simultaneously. Yet, there is still an order of cause and effect. Similarly, a lamp on the desk is simultaneously being held up by the desk, the floor, and the earth, down to a first cause, not in time, but in order of causes.

Thus, could not God’s thoughts be ordered, not in time, but in cause such that they occur simultaneously, but in an order? This would mean God is still immutable in his thoughts since they do not change in time. However, it also means God’s thoughts are ordered according to cause and effect.

Thus, in how God relates to his creation since he is in the eternal now, he sees all of time present to him at once and can therefore act or respond to events all at once. And, he can do this according to an order, yet an order that is simultaneous, such that there is no change in time.

Am I on to something here?

Thoughts ordered, but not in time?

I propose some questions to you:

• If some thoughts are ordered, but not in time; would they be ordered in space?
• You need to distinguish between thoughts depending on their “content”. But…, would you distinguish between God and His thoughts?
• At a given moment my table existed; at another moment it did not exist. If the corresponding thoughts exist simultaneously, which of them expresses the truth?
• Assuming we can attribute thoughts to God, can we talk about truth and falseness in relation to them? What would make one of those thoughts true?
• Shouldn’t there be the creatures, some creatures’ thoughts about the creatures, the divine thoughts about the creatures, the divine thoughts about the thoughts of the creatures, the divine thoughts about those divine thoughts, etcetera? What would be the difference between one kind of thoughts and another?

 

[fisherman_carl]

Thoughts ordered, but not in time?

I propose some questions to you:

• If some thoughts are ordered, but not in time; would they be ordered in space?

No. How could thoughts be ordered in space? I don’t understand. I am talking about a hierarchical order. An order from first cause. For example, God thought ‘Let there be light’ and then there was light. God’s thought and the creation of light occurred simultaneously since one is the cause of the other, not in time, but in order of cause.

• You need to distinguish between thoughts depending on their “content”. But…, would you distinguish between God and His thoughts?

I’m not sure what you mean here.

• At a given moment my table existed; at another moment it did not exist. If the corresponding thoughts exist simultaneously, which of them expresses the truth?

What you are talking about here are tensed events. That is events that change according to time. However, if God is outside of time and can see all events in time at once then that is how his thoughts could also be all at once. Yet, even though his thoughts occurred all at once they could still be ordered.

One of those thoughts would have to be about the order of events in time since events in time need to follow in a certain order. Otherwise you would have events occurring out of order. For instance, you might have the creation event occurring after today’s breakfast. Thus, there has to be a certain logical order that God would have thought of such that the execution of these events occurred in order of their proper sequence in time.

• Assuming we can attribute thoughts to God, can we talk about truth and falseness in relation to them? What would make one of those thoughts true?

I’m not sure what you are asking. What would make them true is God since only God can create truth.

• Shouldn’t there be the creatures, some creatures’ thoughts about the creatures, the divine thoughts about the creatures, the divine thoughts about the thoughts of the creatures, the divine thoughts about those divine thoughts, etcetera? What would be the difference between one kind of thoughts and another?

Not sure what you are asking here. What is it you are asking me here? What do you believe about God’s thoughts?

 

[fisherman_carl]

God does not have emotions in the way that humans do.

God does not think – that is, ‘ratiocinate’ – as humans do. We have to go from one thought to another, and at the end of the process, our outlook has changed. God does not change; and He does not think in that way. He simply knows.

Good approach. But, since He does not think as we do, there’s no contradiction to say that He does not emote as we do.

You said that God does not think, but he simply knows. However, just knowing implies passivity. How then can God act? For instance, when he says ‘Let there be light’, how does just knowing something cause light? Wouldn’t he have to actively will that there be light, which is more than just knowledge, but a thinking and willing of there to be light?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

No. How could thoughts be ordered in space? I don’t understand. I am talking about a hierarchical order. An order from first cause. For example, God thought ‘Let there be light’ and then there was light. God’s thought and the creation of light occurred simultaneously since one is the cause of the other, not in time, but in order of cause.

I’m not sure what you mean here.

What you are talking about here are tensed events. That is events that change according to time. However, if God is outside of time and can see all events in time at once then that is how his thoughts could also be all at once. Yet, even though his thoughts occurred all at once they could still be ordered.

One of those thoughts would have to be about the order of events in time since events in time need to follow in a certain order. Otherwise you would have events occurring out of order. For instance, you might have the creation event occurring after today’s breakfast. Thus, there has to be a certain logical order that God would have thought of such that the execution of these events occurred in order of their proper sequence in time.

I’m not sure what you are asking. What would make them true is God since only God can create truth.

Not sure what you are asking here. What is it you are asking me here? What do you believe about God’s thoughts?

Hi Carl,

Please look in the Summa Theologiae about God’s simplicity, and let me know what do you think about it and the idea of attributing an ordered series of distinct thoughts to Him.

I will respond to your questions later.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

What do you believe about God’s thoughts?

I think that even though the ability to have thoughts is a great prerogative we humans have, it becomes a misery if we want to attribute it to God.

Our knowledge of things becomes more powerful as we go on. For example, there are some quantities that we call “scalars” and others that we call “vectors”; but if we advance some more steps we could embrace both of them within another concept which we call “tensors”: the scalars are tensors of order zero, and the vectors are tensors of first order; and there are tensors of higher order. But, is that all? Have we come to an end in this respect. Hard for me to say. Nevertheless, if God knows those quantities, does He know them as “scalars”, “vectors”, “tensors” or something else?

No. How could thoughts be ordered in space? I don’t understand. I am talking about a hierarchical order. An order from first cause. For example, God thought ‘Let there be light’ and then there was light. God’s thought and the creation of light occurred simultaneously since one is the cause of the other, not in time, but in order of cause.

You can order objects hierarchically in space; or you can order them hierarchically in time; but you cannot order them simply hierarchically.

In your opinion, can God think on what is simply possible? If so, how could He avoid it from becoming real?

I’m not sure what you mean here.

This has to do with God’s simplicity. If you could order God’s thoughts hierarchically, then they should be distinct from each other. God should be able to establish the same distinction; but then He should distinguish Himself from His thoughts. By thinking like that, you would be introducing an infinite complexity in God.

What you are talking about here are tensed events. That is events that change according to time. However, if God is outside of time and can see all events in time at once then that is how his thoughts could also be all at once. Yet, even though his thoughts occurred all at once they could still be ordered.

One of those thoughts would have to be about the order of events in time since events in time need to follow in a certain order. Otherwise you would have events occurring out of order. For instance, you might have the creation event occurring after today’s breakfast. Thus, there has to be a certain logical order that God would have thought of such that the execution of these events occurred in order of their proper sequence in time.

How would you order hierarchically this simultaneous thoughts:

JuanFlorencio’s table exists
JuanFlorencio’s table does not exist?

I’m not sure what you are asking. What would make them true is God since only God can create truth.
fisherman carl;13717420:

So, is there anything false at all, Carl?
fisherman carl;13717420:

Not sure what you are asking here. What is it you are asking me here?

I foresaw that you would say God’s thoughts cause creatures. Think on that while you read my comment and my question.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I think that even though the ability to have thoughts is a great prerogative we humans have, it becomes a misery if we want to attribute it to God.

Then how do you interpret this scripture passage?

“How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand.” (Ps 139:17-18)

Our knowledge of things becomes more powerful as we go on. For example, there are some quantities that we call “scalars” and others that we call “vectors”; but if we advance some more steps we could embrace both of them within another concept which we call “tensors”: the scalars are tensors of order zero, and the vectors are tensors of first order; and there are tensors of higher order. But, is that all? Have we come to an end in this respect. Hard for me to say. Nevertheless, if God knows those quantities, does He know them as “scalars”, “vectors”, “tensors” or something else?

You can order objects hierarchically in space; or you can order them hierarchically in time; but you cannot order them simply hierarchically.

Yes, you can. Dr. Feser talks about a hierarchical order of causes showing that God is the cause of everything in existence at every moment. God is not in space. Therefore, him being the cause is not rooted in being in space or time.

In your opinion, can God think on what is simply possible? If so, how could He avoid it from becoming real?

I do not know. But, I suppose wouldn’t God’s will be a factor? I mean he would have to will it to be real. If he didn’t will it to be real then it wouldn’t. I don’t know. Perhaps his only thoughts are on what is real. But, doesn’t he desire for us to change? Is that not a possibility. He can see our potential to become fully human, even if we don’t reach it?

This has to do with God’s simplicity. If you could order God’s thoughts hierarchically, then they should be distinct from each other. God should be able to establish the same distinction; but then He should distinguish Himself from His thoughts. By thinking like that, you would be introducing an infinite complexity in God.

Yet, talking about distinctions, we believe that the Word is distinct from the Father. My understanding of the doctrine of simplicity is that God is not composed of parts. Since parts can be divided. However, this does not mean that God himself does not have complex thoughts or is complex. After all, we can scarcely comprehend him. If he was simple in every way then he would be easy to understand. Obviously divine simplicity has a particular meaning, just that he is not composed of parts. But, not being composed of parts that can be divided is not saying that God does not have attributes that can be distinct at least conceptually. For instance, God is love, He is just, He is omnipotent, He is omnipresent, He is … etc. We can ascribe these distinct attributes to God. We can also say by faith that God is made up of 3 distinct Persons that each possess the one divine nature. So, there are distinctions in God, despite him not being composed of divisible parts. The doctrine of divine simplicity is there Because if he was composed of divisible parts then he would need an explanation for how those parts came together.

 

[fisherman_carl]

How would you order hierarchically this simultaneous thoughts:

JuanFlorencio’s table exists
JuanFlorencio’s table does not exist?

It would be a logical contradiction for both to be true at the same time. However, they could be true at different times. If God is present at every moment of time at once then for him such things would occur concurrently from his point of view. Yet, they would still be ordered in time. Such that they are not a contradiction within the time line. God’s mind could easily make that distinction if we can. Just like a reader reading a book could be aware that on page 37 there was a table, but then on page 87 this table was destroyed, without it being a logical contradiction in their mind.

…

Really, though, do you not agree that all of our thoughts on this are conjecture and inadequate as Scripture says, “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.”? (Isa 55:9)

And elsewhere it says,

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

“For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
“Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." (Rom 11:33-36)

 

[fisherman_carl]

Thoughts are not divisible. They can be conceptually distinct from one another. But, they are immaterial and not composed of parts that can be divided. So I do not see how God having thoughts would violate the doctrine of simplicity.

Also, how would you explain God speaking to us if he didn’t have thoughts? Should not God’s words attributed to him in Scripture be distinct from one another? Does each of God’s distinct words represent distinct thoughts? Yet, you say this would introduce infinite complexity?