Is God Experienced?

[spockrates]

spockrates:

Yeah, yeah! You might be right. But if you are, does that mean omniscience isn’t knowing everything, since God would not know the experience of one’s hate?

The experience that God gains through creation was always part of God. For this reason, I believe that the reason for creation must be an inevitable reflection of God’s unchanging essence. The infinite God must have the wisdom that is gained by the experience of creation, it is impossible that the infinite God would not have this wisdom. Creation must exist for the wisdom that is gained by creation to exist.

As a fan of science fiction, I’d say the experience of the making an android would not make the engineer privy to the emotions the android herself feels. These sensations might be completely different from those felt by her biological maker.

But to address your point, I think that hate and evil are merely tools that are necessary to gain wisdom, but there is nothing in hatred or evil to be desired.

Makes sense!

 

[Gorgias]

How about a different example, such as an angel, who has not fallen? Would you agree it would not know what it feels like to hate, feel shame, feel guilty, or even feel physical pain?

Same answer, different kind of being. An angel is a purely spiritual being, and therefore, it does not have physical experiences, on the basis of its nature.

On the other hand, angels have infused knowledge, granted them by God. So, angels do ‘know’, and in a way different than humans know.

I mean, what does omniscience mean?

God knows all things that can be known. Not “that can be known by slugs” or “that can be known by humans” or “that can be known by angels.” Just “all things that can be known.” Full stop.

Consider omnipotence. Does it mean God can do anything? If we ask if God can make a weight heavier than he can lift, we’d say, no. God can only do what is good and in his nature to do.

Is there power in sin? Is there power in “the lack of good” (which is what we mean by ‘evil’)? I would say no. Therefore, the claim that God “only does what is good and in his nature” does not imply a lack of power in Him. Therefore, yes… omnipotent, even if there’s no rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.

And “stuffing” is also an error in spelling!

Well, if Mary wasn’t a good Thanksgiving cook, then maybe Jesus knew the suffering of bad stuffing…

 

[spockrates]

God is so vastly, infinitely, superior to us that it’s just plain hard to know what He knows. And “in Him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28) He knows more about us than we do, and, of course, He created the very passions and desires you mention. And we’re made in His image. And when we see Jesus we see the Father, such that everything Jesus did was how God would act, how God did act, if He were human. And Jesus demonstrated plenty of passion. Lust is just normal sexual desire twisted and perverted and over-dwelt upon; it’s to make pleasure our god even if the pleasure, in itself, is not sinful. Same with gluttony. Guilt and shame are the natural reactions to doing wrong-God couldn’t experience them but could certainly know what they are-and why they would occur. We can know “what God is”, BTW, but not because we’re naturally capable of it but because we’re given that knowledge by Him via the Beatific Vision. This is sort of the reverse of how God may know what’s going on in us without actually experiencing it due to His own nature being opposed to it. He’s above it all; He knows everything, and more; what more can we say?

Yeah, yeah! I see that these be true:

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

(Isaiah 55:8-9)

“Truly, You are a God who hides Himself, O God of Israel, Savior!”

(Isaiah 45:15)

Yet, This makes me wonder:

For, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

(1 Corinthians 2:16)

I mean, if God wants to reveal the truth about what he knows, then by asking the questions and searching for the answers my eyes just might see it for the first time. But even if they don’t, the time isn’t wasted! Right? For St. Paul recommends:

Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

(Philippians 4:8)

 

[spockrates]

@Gorgias

So, let’s see on what we can agree at this point: We might ask, “Can God make a Satan as powerful as himself? If he cannot, does that mean he’s not all-powerful?”

The answer is that’s the wrong question! Right? Instead of asking, “Can he?” one should ask, “Would he?” Since God wouldn’t do that, we are correct in defining omnipotence as God having the power to do whatever is in his nature to do. We might even say, “Omnipotence is never power for power’s sake. Rather, it’s power for love’s sake.” Because love is a necessary attribute of God.

Can we start by agreeing we agree on this so far?

 

[Gorgias]

The answer is that’s the wrong question! Right? Instead of asking, “Can he?” one should ask, “Would he?” Since God wouldn’t do that, we are correct in defining omnipotence as God having the power to do whatever is in his nature to do.

Can we start by agreeing we agree on this so far?

I’m not sure. At least, inasmuch as your answer seems to imply “there are limits on God’s power, and therefore, He really isn’t omnipotent.”

I would agree that it’s the wrong question, however. The correct question, IMHO, is “would we say that there is ‘power’ in things that are outside the source of all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful Divinity?”. I would answer that there isn’t power in sin and evil and in anything outside of God. Therefore, God is omnipotent_, by definition. (And yes, I recognize that my definition necessarily leads to this conclusion. Yet, I assert that this is the proper definition of God. After all, by defining the color ‘blue’ as what it is, I’m not creating an illogical tautology – I’m simply affirming what blue is!)

So, by affirming God’s nature, we’re not limiting God’s grasp on omnipotence – we’re understanding what omnipotence really means…!

 

[spockrates]

spockrates:

The answer is that’s the wrong question! Right? Instead of asking, “Can he?” one should ask, “Would he?” Since God wouldn’t do that, we are correct in defining omnipotence as God having the power to do whatever is in his nature to do.

Can we start by agreeing we agree on this so far?

I’m not sure. At least, inasmuch as your answer seems to imply “there are limits on God’s power, and therefore, He really isn’t omnipotent.”

I would agree that it’s the wrong question, however. The correct question, IMHO, is “would we say that there is ‘power’ in things that are outside the source of all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful Divinity?”. I would answer that there isn’t power in sin and evil and in anything outside of God. Therefore, God is omnipotent_, by definition. (And yes, I recognize that my definition necessarily leads to this conclusion. Yet, I assert that this is the proper definition of God. After all, by defining the color ‘blue’ as what it is, I’m not creating an illogical tautology – I’m simply affirming what blue is!)

So, by affirming God’s nature, we’re not limiting God’s grasp on omnipotence – we’re understanding what omnipotence really means…!

Another possibility: The limits to God’s power are self-imposed.

Consider God’s mercy. Satan disobeyed God. God has the power and every right to destroy him. Yet, he shows mercy. Human beings disobey God. God has the power and every right to destroy them. But he shows mercy.

I’m thinking that choosing to limit his power by not doing what he has the power and every right to do in no way limits the power God has. It would in no way be sin for God to treat us as we deserve, yet he chooses to not do what he has the power to do. He chooses to show mercy instead of exercising his power.

What do you think?