Nature of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alyosha76
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Alyosha76

Guest
I had a question that occurred to me when I was listening to a lecture on Aristotles idea of the prime mover. Aristotle said the prime mover or God is unchanged and unchangeable. He claimed that the unmoved mover only contemplates himself. Aristotle believed that if God was to think a thought about anything outside himself then that would mean he would change. My question is how does this idea reconcile with our Christian God? Do we believe God changes since he is able to observe changing matter? Thank you
 
I had a question that occurred to me when I was listening to a lecture on Aristotles idea of the prime mover. Aristotle said the prime mover or God is unchanged and unchangeable. He claimed that the unmoved mover only contemplates himself. Aristotle believed that if God was to think a thought about anything outside himself then that would mean he would change. My question is how does this idea reconcile with our Christian God? Do we believe God changes since he is able to observe changing matter? Thank you
If God were within time, then you might be able to argue that the observation of changes would itself be a change in God. However, God is outside of time, and experiences what we call time as an omnipresent “Now.” As such, all the changes in time have always been equally present to God from all of eternity. If everything has always been present to God, then God would not change as a result of what we perceive as the flow of time.
 
If God were within time, then you might be able to argue that the observation of changes would itself be a change in God. However, God is outside of time, and experiences what we call time as an omnipresent “Now.” As such, all the changes in time have always been equally present to God from all of eternity. If everything has always been present to God, then God would not change as a result of what we perceive as the flow of time.
One criticism of such a view might be that it might mean that all the events of time must necessarily be fixed and thus we don’t have free will. Since if God’s nature does not change such that his nature requires that all his relationships to all events to not change then those events never had the possibility to be different in the first place. And it also brings into question whether God himself has free will. How would you answer this challenge?

One way might be to say that all events in time look fixed when looking at them from another point in time (like looking at the past) regardless if they occurred with free will or not. So that free will could still be possible even if it appears fixed when looking at the whole timeline and comparing that to an unchanged God.

This may be a mystery that we can not expect to understand with our limitations.
 
I had a question that occurred to me when I was listening to a lecture on Aristotles idea of the prime mover. Aristotle said the prime mover or God is unchanged and unchangeable. He claimed that the unmoved mover only contemplates himself. Aristotle believed that if God was to think a thought about anything outside himself then that would mean he would change. My question is how does this idea reconcile with our Christian God? Do we believe God changes since he is able to observe changing matter? Thank you
I think Aristotle’s reasoning if I remember was something along the lines of the perfect could only contemplate perfection and therefore it can only contemplate itself. But of course if perfection also includes perfect love and love requires a beloved then it must necessarily require contemplating the good will of others. You can not say if Aristotle’s God loves. But the Christian God is Triunion of love. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are by nature lovers. And therefore have the capacity to care about other less perfect beings such as us.

My understanding is that God doesn’t think or reason to a conclusion, since that would imply change. but that he simply knows all. Humans reason to a conclusion. But God already knows the complete set of answers to the complete set of questions.
 
One criticism of such a view might be that it might mean that all the events of time must necessarily be fixed and thus we don’t have free will. Since if God’s nature does not change such that his nature requires that all his relationships to all events to not change then those events never had the possibility to be different in the first place. And it also brings into question whether God himself has free will. How would you answer this challenge?
God’s eternal experience outside of time is still predicated on our decisions within time. If I chose to eat pie for breakfast tomorrow, God will, for all of eternity, experience me eating pie tomorrow morning. That is what He would have “always” experienced. If, on the other hand, I chose to eat cereal tomorrow morning, then He would have “always” experienced me eating cereal.

The problem is that, in trying to describe these things, we apply temporal language to an experience that is without time. The language doesn’t fit, it doesn’t mesh with the reality. Unfortunately, due to the fact that we exist within time, it’s the only way our minds can comprehend and order things.

This inability is why I put “always” in quotations before. In reality, the concept behind the world “always” doesn’t apply to God, because it describes a time-based reality. I could also say that God has experienced whichever choice I make eternally, but again, our minds are not capable of comprehending the reality implied by the word. We cannot conceive of eternal existence. So, for most people, when they hear eternal their mind interprets it as “for all time,” or, “since the beginning of God’s existence.” This isn’t anyone fault, it’s just that we can’t understand it any other way. In reality, God did not have a “beginning,” and His experience of “eternity” is something we just cannot conceive of.

This does not, however, imply that we are not in control of our actions. As I said before, God’s timelessness allows Him to experience all of what we perceive as the “past, present, and future,” simultaneously. From our perspective, this means that He has “always known” what we were going to do; but this characterization is again lacking because it assigns a temporal dimension to the knowledge. ("Always, and “known” both indicating what we would consider ‘the past’.) From God’s perspective, His knowledge of what our “future” choices will be is based on His direct observation of our decisions. God knows what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow because to Him, I am currently eating it. This does not remove my ability to make a decision, as whatever decision I make dictates what God experiences.

People who argue that God’s knowledge implies a lack of free will are simply failing to account for the timelessness of God’s existence, and the nature of what true Omnipotence means. This isn’t necessarily their fault. These are very complex, heavy subjects that are completely foreign to our entire experience of existence. They are so foreign to us that there is not word in any of the languages on our planet that can do the difference justice. The best we can do is try to explain it to them, and hope that the seeds are planted which will eventually blossom into understanding.
This may be a mystery that we can not expect to understand with our limitations.
Unfortunately, this is true. I certainly hope to be able to experience it one day though.
 
I had a question that occurred to me when I was listening to a lecture on Aristotles idea of the prime mover. Aristotle said the prime mover or God is unchanged and unchangeable. He claimed that the unmoved mover only contemplates himself. Aristotle believed that if God was to think a thought about anything outside himself then that would mean he would change. My question is how does this idea reconcile with our Christian God? Do we believe God changes since he is able to observe changing matter? Thank you
This quandary is resolved when we consider that God is a Trinity, and that one Person of that Trinity shares a human nature with His divine nature - that is to say, that humanity, through the Incarnate Son, shares in the Godhead just as the Godhead shares in human affairs. It’s a sort of dialectic between two opposite poles allowing union between the two, but at the same time allowing both to be fully themselves.
 
God’s eternal experience outside of time is still predicated on our decisions within time. If I chose to eat pie for breakfast tomorrow, God will, for all of eternity, experience me eating pie tomorrow morning. That is what He would have “always” experienced. If, on the other hand, I chose to eat cereal tomorrow morning, then He would have “always” experienced me eating cereal.
Yes, but if God is by nature unchanging such that even his knowledge must be unchanging then it is hard to say that you had free choice to choose either. Or to put it another way if God’s knowledge can not change by nature then his knowledge must be, rather than just an awareness of what happened in the past, present, future timeline, it must be fixed according to his nature. That is his knowledge could never have had the possibility to be anything else. Because his unchanging nature could not allow it to be anything else. And if his knowledge never had the possibility to be anything else then neither would the events in the timeline, including what you had for breakfast.
The problem is that, in trying to describe these things, we apply temporal language to an experience that is without time. The language doesn’t fit, it doesn’t mesh with the reality. Unfortunately, due to the fact that we exist within time, it’s the only way our minds can comprehend and order things.
This inability is why I put “always” in quotations before. In reality, the concept behind the world “always” doesn’t apply to God, because it describes a time-based reality. I could also say that God has experienced whichever choice I make eternally, but again, our minds are not capable of comprehending the reality implied by the word. We cannot conceive of eternal existence. So, for most people, when they hear eternal their mind interprets it as “for all time,” or, “since the beginning of God’s existence.” This isn’t anyone fault, it’s just that we can’t understand it any other way. In reality, God did not have a “beginning,” and His experience of “eternity” is something we just cannot conceive of.
This does not, however, imply that we are not in control of our actions. As I said before, God’s timelessness allows Him to experience all of what we perceive as the “past, present, and future,” simultaneously. From our perspective, this means that He has “always known” what we were going to do; but this characterization is again lacking because it assigns a temporal dimension to the knowledge. ("Always, and “known” both indicating what we would consider ‘the past’.) From God’s perspective, His knowledge of what our “future” choices will be is based on His direct observation of our decisions. God knows what I will eat for breakfast tomorrow because to Him, I am currently eating it. This does not remove my ability to make a decision, as whatever decision I make dictates what God experiences.
People who argue that God’s knowledge implies a lack of free will are simply failing to account for the timelessness of God’s existence, and the nature of what true Omnipotence means. This isn’t necessarily their fault. These are very complex, heavy subjects that are completely foreign to our entire experience of existence. They are so foreign to us that there is not word in any of the languages on our planet that can do the difference justice. The best we can do is try to explain it to them, and hope that the seeds are planted which will eventually blossom into understanding.
Unfortunately, this is true. I certainly hope to be able to experience it one day though.
Yes, knowledge of something doesn’t normally mean one caused it to happen. I can know for instance that yesterday the sun came up, but knowing that didn’t cause it to happen. I can know with reasonable certainty the sun will come up tommorow, but that knowledge does not cause it to happen. However, I am not saying that God’s foreknowlege must cause events to happen simply because he knows them. The difference with God’s knowledge is that if God’s knowledge by nature cannot change, then this is different than just my having knowledge of the future. My knowledge can change. So my knowledge of the future does not necessarily have a bearing on the future possibilities. However, in the case of God his knowledge cannot change because of his nature. Does his knowledge flow out of his nature? . That means from all Eternity the events of time must fall into line with God’s nature or God’s nature must fall in line with the events of time. So the question is do the events of time write God’s nature or does God’s nature write the events of time?

If I can get you to agree from this that God is simply beyond our ability to understand then my final point is proven.
 
Yes, but if God is by nature unchanging such that even his knowledge must be unchanging then it is hard to say that you had free choice to choose either. Or to put it another way if God’s knowledge can not change by nature then his knowledge must be, rather than just an awareness of what happened in the past, present, future timeline, it must be fixed according to his nature. That is his knowledge could never have had the possibility to be anything else. Because his unchanging nature could not allow it to be anything else. And if his knowledge never had the possibility to be anything else then neither would the events in the timeline, including what you had for breakfast.

Yes, knowledge of something doesn’t normally mean one caused it to happen. I can know for instance that yesterday the sun came up, but knowing that didn’t cause it to happen. I can know with reasonable certainty the sun will come up tommorow, but that knowledge does not cause it to happen. However, I am not saying that God’s foreknowlege must cause events to happen simply because he knows them. The difference with God’s knowledge is that if God’s knowledge by nature cannot change, then this is different than just my having knowledge of the future. My knowledge can change. So my knowledge of the future does not necessarily have a bearing on the future possibilities. However, in the case of God his knowledge cannot change because of his nature. Does his knowledge flow out of his nature? . That means from all Eternity the events of time must fall into line with God’s nature or God’s nature must fall in line with the events of time. So the question is do the events of time write God’s nature or does God’s nature write the events of time?

If I can get you to agree from this that God is simply beyond our ability to understand then my final point is proven.
The only way I can see right now to get out of the dilemma is to say that God’s knowledge has the theoretical possibility to have been different, or it is not fixed on a particular event or outcome on the timeline, but that his knowledge doesn’t change because it already knows all events that actually occurred.

Or to put another way we could imagine a different reality or world where God has a different set of knowledge in which events happened differently. We could imagine many possible worlds or realities in which God has a different set of knowledge in each about different possible events in each. But, he has the knowledge that he does about this particular world or reality based in the actual events in them. This means his knowledge could theoretically change in a different reality. Thus his nature would not determine those events that do happen, but his knowledge is shaped by the particular reality that exists.
 
… Thus his nature would not determine those events that do happen, but his knowledge is shaped by the particular reality that exists, (without his nature being shaped by that knowledge).
 
… Thus his nature would not determine those events that do happen, but his knowledge is shaped by the particular reality that exists, (without his nature being shaped by that knowledge, because it is not essential to his nature that you had pie for breakfast).
Conversely, if you say that God’s knowledge must be the same in every possible world or reality then you would be effectively saying that there is only one possible world or reality, which would effectively remove free will again. You would be saying it is God’s nature that you had pie for breakfast. 🙂
 
:twocents:

God’s eternal unchanging nature exists outside of time and is in every of all moments.
This does not make creation fixed and therefore as dead as is our past relative to where we currently find ourselves in existence.
Rather, as this moment exists, real, here and now, so do they all, from the begininning to the end, one in God’s infinite vision of the totality that He brings into existence.
It all revolves around God, not around the individual reality of our experience here and now. We revolve around Him.
 
I thank all of you for your posts. They were very helpful. The error I made was placing God within the flow of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top