Immaterial God cannot know anything

[Bahman]

Material is a limiting factor. It plants a being at a particular time and space. An immaterial essence is not limited in such a way, and God’s immaterial essence is also equal to pure and total existence. All other beings are a limited existence, they possess it in a lesser degree than God does.

Plus the other flaws in the logic pointed out by other users.

Immaterial is not formless. Nor is it nothing.

Does God has parts? No. Hence it is formless.

 

[Beryllos]

Does God has parts? No. Hence it is formless.

God is one thing which is everything. Not in the sense of pantheism, but as the Catechism teaches:
CCC 102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time. (Reference: St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 103, 4, 1: PL 37, 1378; cf. Ps 104; Jn 1:1.)​

 

[Wesrock]

Does God has parts? No. Hence it is formless.

How so?

 

[Rhubarb]

Something which is structured means that it is made of parts and these parts are connected in an organized way. Hence something which is structured has a shape.

Again, “parts” need not be physical things with a shape. Your argument is trading on an ambiguity of language.

 

[porthos11]

First of all you evade to answer my question so I repeat it again: How could you distinguish the difference between knowledge of two distinct concepts if they are shapeless?

They have shape. In fact any concept occupies some space in our brain through wiring of neurons. There is a rewiring process inside our brain any time that we learn something new.

They have shape: no wiring inside brain means no knowledge.

The shapes of the wirings and signals of the brain are just that: the shapes of the wiring and signalling of the brain. When you perceive those shapes, you perceive neurons, tissues and electricity. Those are patterns that may, shall we say, represent the knowledge, but they are not the knowledge or the concept itself.

You’re trying to equate the media with the concept. When we talk of a concept, such as Justice, there is no shape. Justice is not a set of neurons and signals in the brain, although the brain will fire in a certain way when thinking of it. Justice is something that exists as a concept, not as a set of neurons and signals.

Yes, we can easily recognize them after we learn about them but the process of learning requires rewiring. No rewiring means not learning.

No. We are talking about concepts and how they occupy different shape inside our brains. A shapeless mind cannot know anything since knowledge is structured. Returning to my original question: How different concepts could be distinguishable if they don’t have different shapes?

So you need to explain how a shapeless mind could distinguish between two different concepts?

No I don’t have to explain how a shapeless mind could distinguish between two concepts. My own mind is shapeless, and can distinguish shapeless concepts just fine.

And before you even try, no, the mind is not the same as the brain.

That is not a limitation but an advantage over your concept of God.

No, it’s not. Our concept of God, his simplicity, eternity and knowledge, does not conflict with anything at all. God is a Being who sustains existence itself, and is in fact existence itself. Knowledge is in his very nature, and he does not require a brain or structure, because all Knowledge is present to him. A brain and structure is required for finite creatures. But one who occupies Eternity in absolute simplicity does not have this issue. To God, knowledge is simple and eternal as well, which is why Christians have a doctrine of the Trinity.

Yes, that I knew. But an absolutely simple thing cannot be omniscient.

Prove this. We are not talking merely of an absolutely simple being, but also an absolutely eternal being.

This is a set of claims without any support. God is knowledge! What this does ever mean? How God could distinguish between different concepts if his knowledge is shapeless?

And this should tell you that since you do not even understand what Catholics believe about God, you should learn that first before trying to refute it. None of what I cited is without support; these are things that have been settled on in Catholic theology. You cannot wrap around your head that God IS Knowledge, and yet you try to refute the Christian understanding.

This is part of the Christian definition of God. God does not HAVE Knowledge. He IS Knowledge. If you want to try to use Catholic definitions to try and refute our concept of God, then you cannot invent or scale down premises, as you seem wont to do.

No P4 is not erroneous. That is my claim which is consistent with what I am defining, You need to define knowledge in theological sphere and show that it is possible when God’s mind is shapeless.

Yes it is. It is absolutely erroneous because you are trying to use Catholic definitions to “prove” your point, but when it comes to putting another premise, you insist on using human knowledge as your point of reference, instead of proferring what Catholics actually believe about God. Human knowledge is structured. But God’s knowledge isn’t.

God’s knowledge has no structure means that his knowledge is shapeless. What this does mean? God doesn’t know anything.

No. It means God knows absolutely everything. All things are present to him, and just as with all things God, his knowledge has no parts. That his knowledge has no structure does not mean God’s knowledge is nonexistent. It means his knowledge is absolute.

That is already been answered.

So my argument follows and your argument is nonsense.

And I reject your conclusion. This is not your first thread where your premises are defective.

If you want to put forth a fair, logical argument, then you must use Catholic definitions as your axioms to prove us wrong, but you’re only using a mishmash of convenient premises, such as your use, definition and limitation of “knowledge”. Man’s knowledge is not God’s knowledge so saying “knowledge is structured” as if God’s knowledge is linear or complex is not fair game, since Catholics distinguish between human knowledge and divine knowledge.

 

[Gorgias]

Those are patterns that may, shall we say, represent the knowledge, but they are not the knowledge or the concept itself.

You’re trying to equate the media with the concept.

Precisely. It’s like attempting to say that the ‘shape’ of Beethoven’s Fifth is the shape of the 8-track or cassette or CD or speaker system or musical instrument through which we are able to listen to the music. Patently absurd.

 

[Bahman]

How so?

You mentioned that immaterial God is not formless and I question how could God have form if he has no part.

 

[Bahman]

Again, “parts” need not be physical things with a shape. Your argument is trading on an ambiguity of language.

Yes, parts could be immaterial. So?

 

[Bahman]

The shapes of the wirings and signals of the brain are just that: the shapes of the wiring and signalling of the brain. When you perceive those shapes, you perceive neurons, tissues and electricity. Those are patterns that may, shall we say, represent the knowledge, but they are not the knowledge or the concept itself.

The concepts are stored inside our brains through the wiring of neurons. Perceiving a concept is manifestation of neurons firing. We don’t need anything else.

You’re trying to equate the media with the concept. When we talk of a concept, such as Justice, there is no shape. Justice is not a set of neurons and signals in the brain, although the brain will fire in a certain way when thinking of it. Justice is something that exists as a concept, not as a set of neurons and signals.

I am not confusing media with concepts. Please read the previous comment.

No I don’t have to explain how a shapeless mind could distinguish between two concepts. My own mind is shapeless, and can distinguish shapeless concepts just fine.

I am afraid that you need to explain how your mind could distinguish between two different concepts which are shapeless.

And before you even try, no, the mind is not the same as the brain.

I know the difference between brain and mind. I have to confess that I am puzzled between two pictures where you don’t have mind in the first one and have mind in the second one. Experiencing a concept is the manifestation of neurons firing in the first picture and mind experiences what is the result of neurons firing in the second picture.

No, it’s not. Our concept of God, his simplicity, eternity and knowledge, does not conflict with anything at all. God is a Being who sustains existence itself, and is in fact existence itself. Knowledge is in his very nature, and he does not require a brain or structure, because all Knowledge is present to him. A brain and structure is required for finite creatures. But one who occupies Eternity in absolute simplicity does not have this issue. To God, knowledge is simple and eternal as well, which is why Christians have a doctrine of the Trinity.

Your God does not have a brain so you need to explain how knowledge could be stored in his shapeless mind. You cannot evade the problem by simply saying that the knowledge is present to him since it is a part of a nature.

Prove this. We are not talking merely of an absolutely simple being, but also an absolutely eternal being.

Simple. Knowledge is structured and it implements complexity. More complex you become when you know more. An omniscient being is absolutely complex.

And this should tell you that since you do not even understand what Catholics believe about God, you should learn that first before trying to refute it. None of what I cited is without support; these are things that have been settled on in Catholic theology. You cannot wrap around your head that God IS Knowledge, and yet you try to refute the Christian understanding.

I know enough but what you say just doesn’t make any sense to me. God cannot be omniscient and simple at the same time since knowledge is structured and requires complexity.

This is part of the Christian definition of God. God does not HAVE Knowledge. He IS Knowledge. If you want to try to use Catholic definitions to try and refute our concept of God, then you cannot invent or scale down premises, as you seem wont to do.

I can refute it simply. Knowledge is structured and has shape,

Yes it is. It is absolutely erroneous because you are trying to use Catholic definitions to “prove” your point, but when it comes to putting another premise, you insist on using human knowledge as your point of reference, instead of proferring what Catholics actually believe about God. Human knowledge is structured. But God’s knowledge isn’t.

How God could differentiate between two concepts when his knowledge is not structured?

No. It means God knows absolutely everything. All things are present to him, and just as with all things God, his knowledge has no parts. That his knowledge has no structure does not mean God’s knowledge is nonexistent. It means his knowledge is absolute.

Please answer the previous question.

And I reject your conclusion. This is not your first thread where your premises are defective.

I hope I am more clear by now.

 

[MT1926]

Simple. Knowledge is structured and it implements complexity. More complex you become when you know more. An omniscient being is absolutely complex.

Sorry to butt in but you kind of confused me on these 2 points.

How do we become more complex when we know more? Are you speaking of the physical matter of our brains?

I can refute it simply. Knowledge is structured and has shape,

Can you elaborate on this concept? From your other statements it seems you are defining knowledge as it has to be stored somewhere. I thought knowledge was simple the belief in something that a majority believe to be true and being justified by that belief. Where does structure and shape come in?

It seems we are trying to apply the things we know to this concept. Just Imagine having this same conversation 70 years ago. Don’t know if this is entirely true but for the purpose of this conversation this is an example of one of the first computers.

“The first computer made was the ENIAC. It was massive compared to modern PC standards. It contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered joints. It weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8 feet (2.4 m) by 3 feet (0.9 m) by 100 feet (30 m), took up 1800 square feet (167 m²), and consumed 150 kW of power. (name removed by moderator)ut was possible from an IBM card reader, while an IBM card punch was used for output. These cards could be used to produce printed output offline using an IBM accounting machine, probably the IBM 405.”

It doesn’t say but I would guess it stored kilobytes of knowledge. So a person 70 years ago would say knowledge has structure and it takes 1800 sqft to store 1 Kb of knowledge, therefore it is not possible… fast forward 70 years to the present where we are able to store a billion times this amount of knowledge and put it in the palm of our hands. Even though it has changed it’s structure and shape and is incredibly smaller, knowledge still has to have structure as you stated.

I know I might be off track here and you probably don’t agree, but just taking the progress we have made in the past 70 years, how do we known what we know today could even come close to what knowledge truly is?

 

[porthos11]

The concepts are stored inside our brains through the wiring of neurons. Perceiving a concept is manifestation of neurons firing. We don’t need anything else.

I am not confusing media with concepts. Please read the previous comment.

But perceiving is not the same as the concept. Justice, for example, exists whether or not anyone perceives it.

I am afraid that you need to explain how your mind could distinguish between two different concepts which are shapeless.

Justice and mercy are two distinct, shapeless concepts. When you see a brain’s representation of a person perceiving these concepts you seeing the shape and other physical properties of the brain and its neurons, not the shape of justice and mercy.

I know the difference between brain and mind. I have to confess that I am puzzled between two pictures where you don’t have mind in the first one and have mind in the second one. Experiencing a concept is the manifestation of neurons firing in the first picture and mind experiences what is the result of neurons firing in the second picture.

Your God does not have a brain so you need to explain how knowledge could be stored in his shapeless mind. You cannot evade the problem by simply saying that the knowledge is present to him since it is a part of a nature.

No we don’t have to evate this problem. You need to in order for your argument to hold water, but we are bound by no such thing. God does not need a brain, and this is the whole point of debunking your argument. You are trying to force God into a certain kind of box by inventing an artificial limitation on an infinite being, that is, to have knowledge, one must have a brain. God’s Knowledge is not separate from him, it IS him. It is is very being.

Simple. Knowledge is structured and it implements complexity. More complex you become when you know more. An omniscient being is absolutely complex.

And I counter that, for God it isn’t. God is knowledge, so God’s knowledge is simple. In fact, the reason God is omniscient is because he and is knowledge is simple, not complex.

I can refute it simply. Knowledge is structured and has shape,

And you are wrong. This is true only for limited human knowledge, since man lives in time and space.

How God could differentiate between two concepts when his knowledge is not structured?

If we concede that God distinguishes between concepts (I’m not certain if this is something admitted in Catholic thought), then it’s only because all knowledge exists in him. Complexity and spatial is a temporal issue, and God is not a temporal being.

The general problem with your thought, and your attempts to attack God is that you’re not using Catholic thought about God. Your mistake is applying human limitations to God (such as knowledge requiring a brain, or that since human knowledge is complex, so must God’s).

We reject all of those, so you are therefore required to postulate premises according to Catholic thought before you can try to debunk God according to Catholic thought. Since we reject your premises (God’s knowledge is complex; God needs a brain), we also reject your argument as erroneous.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Here it is the argument:

1. God is immaterial
2. Immaterial things doesn’t have shape
3. From (1) and (2) we can deduce that God is shapeless
4. Knowledge is structured
5. From (4) we can deduce that knowledge has shape
6. From (3) and (5) we can deduce that immaterial God cannot have any knowledge

Premise 5 does not follow from premise 4. Knowledge has shape? What kind of shape does knowledge have? Lol.

If knowledge had shape then it would be amazing that I could get it into my head. If I thought of a horse does that thought take the shape of a horse in my head? Lol. Actually, thoughts and ideas are immaterial. They have no shape. And thus God who is immateria has thoughts.

 

[Vico]

Here it is the argument:

1. God is immaterial
2. Immaterial things doesn’t have shape
3. From (1) and (2) we can deduce that God is shapeless
4. Knowledge is structured
5. From (4) we can deduce that knowledge has shape
6. From (3) and (5) we can deduce that immaterial God cannot have any knowledge

Correction: “don’t have shape”. (This implies no physical or spatial shape.)

The sensible shape of a thing is called morphe and the intelligible idea of a thing is idea. Aristotle holds that form is both morphe and idea. Aristotle holds form is idea only. I remember in class, we studied Plato and the teacher used the phrase “thoughts are things” to help us remember about idea. For Plato, there are disembodied immaterial things. Now, Aquinas did not adopt Plato or Aristotle or Avicenna or Averroes, but utilized some of their metaphysics. He is closer to Aristotle, but not a materialist, and he rejected universal hylemorphism (from Aristotle).

St. Thomas Aquinas states in Summa Theologica:

Question 14. God’s knowledge,
Article 1. Whether there is knowledge [Scientia]?

Objection 3. Further, all knowledge is universal, or particular. But in God there is no universal or particular (3, 5). Therefore in God there is not knowledge.

**Reply to Objection 3. **Knowledge is according to the mode of the one who knows; for the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Now since the mode of the divine essence is higher than that of creatures, divine knowledge does not exist in God after the mode of created knowledge, so as to be universal or particular, or habitual, or potential, or existing according to any such mode.

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm

 

[Bahman]

Sorry to butt in but you kind of confused me on these 2 points.

How do we become more complex when we know more? Are you speaking of the physical matter of our brains?

Yes. Neurons have richer connectivity in mind of people who know more.

Can you elaborate on this concept? From your other statements it seems you are defining knowledge as it has to be stored somewhere. I thought knowledge was simple the belief in something that a majority believe to be true and being justified by that belief. Where does structure and shape come in?

Knowledge is stored through connectivity of neurons.

It seems we are trying to apply the things we know to this concept. Just Imagine having this same conversation 70 years ago. Don’t know if this is entirely true but for the purpose of this conversation this is an example of one of the first computers.

“The first computer made was the ENIAC. It was massive compared to modern PC standards. It contained 17,468 vacuum tubes, 7,200 crystal diodes, 1,500 relays, 70,000 resistors, 10,000 capacitors and around 5 million hand-soldered joints. It weighed 30 short tons (27 t), was roughly 8 feet (2.4 m) by 3 feet (0.9 m) by 100 feet (30 m), took up 1800 square feet (167 m²), and consumed 150 kW of power. (name removed by moderator)ut was possible from an IBM card reader, while an IBM card punch was used for output. These cards could be used to produce printed output offline using an IBM accounting machine, probably the IBM 405.”

It doesn’t say but I would guess it stored kilobytes of knowledge. So a person 70 years ago would say knowledge has structure and it takes 1800 sqft to store 1 Kb of knowledge, therefore it is not possible… fast forward 70 years to the present where we are able to store a billion times this amount of knowledge and put it in the palm of our hands. Even though it has changed it’s structure and shape and is incredibly smaller, knowledge still has to have structure as you stated.

I know I might be off track here and you probably don’t agree, but just taking the progress we have made in the past 70 years, how do we known what we know today could even come close to what knowledge truly is?

Knowledge is simply a set of consistent concepts.

 

[Bahman]

But perceiving is not the same as the concept. Justice, for example, exists whether or not anyone perceives it.

The concept of justice is stored inside our brain as an idea. Objective knowledge as we know only exist inside our heads,

Justice and mercy are two distinct, shapeless concepts. When you see a brain’s representation of a person perceiving these concepts you seeing the shape and other physical properties of the brain and its neurons, not the shape of justice and mercy.

We can in principle observe justice in an image of our brains.

No we don’t have to evate this problem. You need to in order for your argument to hold water, but we are bound by no such thing. God does not need a brain, and this is the whole point of debunking your argument. You are trying to force God into a certain kind of box by inventing an artificial limitation on an infinite being, that is, to have knowledge, one must have a brain. God’s Knowledge is not separate from him, it IS him. It is is very being.

So you are defending a thesis in which there is a God which is simple and shapeless mind, knowing every shapeless concepts!?

And I counter that, for God it isn’t. God is knowledge, so God’s knowledge is simple. In fact, the reason God is omniscient is because he and is knowledge is simple, not complex.

This means that sum of all knowledge, what God knows as omniscient, is simpler than its part which is obviously wrong.

And you are wrong. This is true only for limited human knowledge, since man lives in time and space.

Please read previous comments.

If we concede that God distinguishes between concepts (I’m not certain if this is something admitted in Catholic thought), then it’s only because all knowledge exists in him. Complexity and spatial is a temporal issue, and God is not a temporal being.

Again, this means that sum of all knowledge is simpler than its part!

The general problem with your thought, and your attempts to attack God is that you’re not using Catholic thought about God. Your mistake is applying human limitations to God (such as knowledge requiring a brain, or that since human knowledge is complex, so must God’s).

I am not making such a mistake. Why we human cannot be omniscient when God’s knowledge is simple!? We can of course understand simpler thing easier.

We reject all of those, so you are therefore required to postulate premises according to Catholic thought before you can try to debunk God according to Catholic thought. Since we reject your premises (God’s knowledge is complex; God needs a brain), we also reject your argument as erroneous.

How God could comprehend us if our knowledge is complex and his is simple?

 

[Bahman]

Premise 5 does not follow from premise 4. Knowledge has shape? What kind of shape does knowledge have? Lol.

If knowledge had shape then it would be amazing that I could get it into my head. If I thought of a horse does that thought take the shape of a horse in my head? Lol. Actually, thoughts and ideas are immaterial. They have no shape. And thus God who is immateria has thoughts.

Concepts do exist objectively through wiring of neurons inside our heads. You want to see them? No problem. We just need a scan of your brain.

 

[MT1926]

Yes. Neurons have richer connectivity in mind of people who know more.

Knowledge is stored through connectivity of neurons.

Knowledge is simply a set of consistent concepts.

A little more detail would have been nice. You do realize we aren’t a bunch of kids here that will believe every one sentence response you have with nothing to back it up.

From your statements I deduct that you believe:

“Knowledge is simply a set of consistent concepts, that are stored through connectivity of neurons that become richer as more knowledge is obtained.”

Therefor, from your answers you believe that “only” neurons can store knowledge.
Since you didn’t even address my computer analogy I am guessing you further believe that computers don’t store knowledge either.

I think I will stick with my original question I asked:
“How do we know what we know could even come close to what knowledge truly is?”

Which I think is just a dumbed down version of this:

Correction: “don’t have shape”. (This implies no physical or spatial shape.)

The sensible shape of a thing is called morphe and the intelligible idea of a thing is idea. Aristotle holds that form is both morphe and idea. Aristotle holds form is idea only. I remember in class, we studied Plato and the teacher used the phrase “thoughts are things” to help us remember about idea. For Plato, there are disembodied immaterial things. Now, Aquinas did not adopt Plato or Aristotle or Avicenna or Averroes, but utilized some of their metaphysics. He is closer to Aristotle, but not a materialist, and he rejected universal hylemorphism (from Aristotle).

St. Thomas Aquinas states in Summa Theologica:

Question 14. God’s knowledge,
Article 1. Whether there is knowledge [Scientia]?

Objection 3. Further, all knowledge is universal, or particular. But in God there is no universal or particular (3, 5). Therefore in God there is not knowledge.

**Reply to Objection 3. **Knowledge is according to the mode of the one who knows; for the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Now since the mode of the divine essence is higher than that of creatures, divine knowledge does not exist in God after the mode of created knowledge, so as to be universal or particular, or habitual, or potential, or existing according to any such mode.

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm

 

[porthos11]

Concepts do exist objectively through wiring of neurons inside our heads. You want to see them? No problem. We just need a scan of your brain.

And that’s where I’m calling you out. The scan of your brain shows you the shape of your brain and its constituent parts. You cannot take a brain scan and say “there’s the concept of justice”. The shapes you’re referring to are the shapes of the brain, not the shape of the concepts.

The concepts themselves are immaterial. That’s why I’m saying you’re conflating the concept with the media.

 

[utunumsint]

And that’s where I’m calling you out. The scan of your brain shows you the shape of your brain and its constituent parts. You cannot take a brain scan and say “there’s the concept of justice”. The shapes you’re referring to are the shapes of the brain, not the shape of the concepts.

The concepts themselves are immaterial. That’s why I’m saying you’re conflating the concept with the media.

Well said. This is the heart of the problem.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Bahman]

A little more detail would have been nice. You do realize we aren’t a bunch of kids here that will believe every one sentence response you have with nothing to back it up.

From your statements I deduct that you believe:

“Knowledge is simply a set of consistent concepts, that are stored through connectivity of neurons that become richer as more knowledge is obtained.”

Correct. Moreover, we could have the subjective experience of a concepts whenever the related neurons fire.

Therefor, from your answers you believe that “only” neurons can store knowledge.

Since you didn’t even address my computer analogy I am guessing you further believe that computers don’t store knowledge either.

No your computer can store knowledge, it just cannot have the subjective experience what is stored.

I think I will stick with my original question I asked:
“How do we know what we know could even come close to what knowledge truly is?”

Which I think is just a dumbed down version of this:

Knowledge is the set of consistence concepts.