Philosophy: Does God Think?

[mikeledes]

God, as a personal being, has intellect. But does he think? What does God mean when he says “My thoughts are not your thoughts…?” Is he trying to make the incomprehensible comprehensible to us or does he really think? Thinking is linear and thus presupposes that the one engaging in this activity is subject to time. God is not subject to time.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

God, as a personal being, has intellect. But does he think? What does God mean when he says “My thoughts are not your thoughts…?” Is he trying to make the incomprehensible comprehensible to us or does he really think? Thinking is linear and thus presupposes that the one engaging in this activity is subject to time. God is not subject to time.

God Bless,
Michael

Not all thought is linear. See the comment immediately before yours.

 

[mikeledes]

Not all thought is linear. See the comment immediately before yours.

Oh great , now I’m being dragged into this discussion. Can’t a man put his :twocents: and be left alone.

Can you explain “diffusive consciousness”?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Truthstalker]

The OP defined thinking as linear with respect to time. I assume you are challenging the definition. Otherwise you are saying that artists do not think.

 

[john_doran]

You have not demonstrated the part about “regardless of the direction of that procession” [through time]. Would you do that please? Thank you.

i’m not sure i understand…if you accept that time is a continuum or dimension that is composed of a series of points, then what difference could it possibly make which “direction” one travels along that continuum?

if i walk to my door from my couch, i have to take 15 steps; when i turn around and walk back to my couch, i have to take 15 steps again. the distance from my couch to my door is 15ft, and i have to pass through each of those feet irrespective of the direction of my travel.
Ani Ibi:

You are talking about linear time. Will temporal thinking always be a procession through a series of points in time if time is not linear but multidimensional? See what I mean?

if a temporal dimension is more than a single, mathematical, extensionless point, then it will be composed of at least two points (and, thus, have extension), and passing along that dimension will involve proceeding from one of those points to the other(s)…

but perhaps i’m missing your point.

 

[Verbum]

His Truthstalker,

God is one simple, timeless act. He is a conscious being, but he does not have to go from one step to another,as we do, in thinking. He knows everything at once and together.

Verbum

 

[Keikiolu]

Thinking involves taking logical steps in time towards a goal or purpose of more clarity of thought. By this definition God does not think.

1. He is outside time and therefore nothing He does is sequential.
   Therefore He does not think.

Rubish.

Everything He does is outside YOUR time, not His.

Just as a person can non-sequentially (in reading order) read, change, etc, the information in a book,… God can “interject” His thinking into our time, which is His book.

1. Thinking implies an intellectual movement from an imperfect state to a more perfect state. God always fully realizes everything and is already perfect. There is no movement in God. God is simple and He has no imperfect state. So He cannot think.

God is perfect, and His “thinking” has to do what it is that He does, which, as far as we can tell, is to bring us, his creatures toward Him in love, while we remain within our “time”, which is not His time.

Nice try though…!!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Truthstalker:

The OP defined thinking as linear with respect to time.

I questioned that definition.

Truthstalker:

I assume you are challenging the definition.

OK, challenged.

Truthstalker:

Otherwise you are saying that artists do not think.

A linear way of thinking would give us that result, yes.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mikeledes:

Oh great , now I’m being dragged into this discussion. Can’t a man put his :twocents: and be left alone.

We have 2 cents over there from the gentleman with the red face … ameebeemurbee… do I have 50 cents? 50 cents? ameebeemurbee… from the lady with the tonguey smile? 50 cents? murbeemeemurbee… going once…

Can you explain “diffusive consciousness”?

:yup: I can.

:doh2: D-oh! You want me to explain diffusive consciousness right now? OK. A simple answer – the one given to me – is this:

Assume an artist shares a garage with her husband and there are unsorted tools, wheelbarrows, paintbrushes, canvasses, and so on all over the garage. Assume husband and wife are poor and can’t afford racks, boxes, drawers, closets, and so on to sort things.

The artist wife can take a mental snapshot of the entire garage and know where each item is. The husband can move her paintbrushes out of his way and the next day, the wife can find the paintbrushes by what is missing from her first snapshot.

The artist thinks in a non-linear way. Often non-artists are very frustrated in conversations with artists because, when artists try to explain their work, they use a kind of shorthand which are word-images of whole fields of thought. That’s why artists have to learn linear thinking in order to co-exist with non-artists.

The operative concept is snapshot. Artists think in snapshots. They learn in snapshots. They create in snapshots.

Sometimes they think, learn, and create in the linear mode, working through problems step by step. But when they are on a roll, they work in snapshots.

 

[mikeledes]

We have 2 cents over there from the gentleman with the red face … ameebeemurbee… do I have 50 cents? 50 cents? ameebeemurbee… from the lady with the tonguey smile? 50 cents? murbeemeemurbee… going once…

Before I respond, l have to do this first.

Man, you need some serious help. I think this one can only come out with prayer and fasting.

To all the readers, let this be a warning to you. Do not delve too deeply into philosophy or you will lose your mind! :hypno: Pray for this poor soul!

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

i’m not sure i understand…if you accept that time is a continuum or dimension that is composed of a series of points

I don’t necessarily accept that time is a continuum or dimension that is composed of a series of points. It is possible to have points which are arranged in a volume for example, rather than in a line.
john doran:

then what difference could it possibly make which “direction” one travels along that continuum?

A series of points is linear because it has a start point and an end point and a length in between which could equal zero or be greater than zero.

The direction in which we travel along that length makes a difference to what we can know.

Ordinarily we start a story at the beginning. And then we know more and more as we progress through the middle to the end.

The flexiverse article to which I linked demonstrates that the Big Bang cannot be known by us.

So, if we want to know the universe (the middle), then we cannot start at the beginning. We have to start at the end (where we are) and move backwards.
john doran:

if i walk to my door from my couch, i have to take 15 steps;

Yes. That is linear.
john doran:

when i turn around and walk back to my couch, i have to take 15 steps again.

That is linear.
john doran:

the distance from my couch to my door is 15ft, and i have to pass through each of those feet irrespective of the direction of my travel.

In space, we can go backward and forward along a line.

We speak of the arrow of time (human time) which is also linear. We can only go forward in time. But I have shown on another thread that it may be possible for us to go backward in time. I think that was the Null-A thread.
john doran:

if a temporal dimension is more than a single, mathematical, extensionless point then it will be composed of at least two points

Two points make a line. Length.
john doran:

but perhaps i’m missing your point.

Well you missed the points in the second line. Width.

And you missed the points in the third line. Height.

Human consciousness can handle the following in terms of space:

• point
• length
• width
• height

And the following in terms of time:

• point
• length

Our consciousness cannot handle pre-Big-Bang conditions of space and time, where time was one or more additional dimensions of space. No doubt God could handle those extra dimensions of space-time. Because He was there.

The point is, as Keikolu said, linear time is a subset of God’s time. God’s time is not a subset of linear time.

Moreover linear thinking is a subset of God’s thinking. God’s thinking is not a subset of linear thinking.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Before I respond, l have to do this first.

Man, you need some serious help. I think this one can only come out with prayer and fasting.

To all the readers, let this be a warning to you. Do not delve too deeply into philosophy or you will lose your mind! :hypno: Pray for this poor soul! God Bless,
Michael

Thanks for the support, chum. :crying: I’ve already admitted that I went completely round the bend on Truthstalker’s Null-A thread. What’s this then? Salt in the wound?



That having been said, have you read Foucault on Madness and Civilization? This isn’t a good link, but Foucault is the place to start in examining madness.

Freudian development of therapeutic listening was… undertaken under such circumstances and in such a relationship that it “can unravel some of the forms of madness [but] it remains a stranger to the sovereign enterprise of unreason. It can neither liberate nor transcribe, nor most certainly explain, what is essential in this enterprise”

The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.’
Carl Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections

‘In order to be able to draw a limit to thought, we should have to find both sides of the limit thinkable (i.e. we should have to be able to think what cannot be thought). It will therefore only be in language that the limit can be drawn, and what lies on the other side of the limit will simply be nonsense.’
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus LogicoPhilosphicus

Deleuze also has things to say on sense and nonsense, drawing from Lewis Carroll’s Jaberwocky. Hard to find a link to his work though. I usually don’t link to wikipedia, but there’s not a lot out there on Deleuze.

Deleuze claims… that genuine thinking is a violent confrontation with reality, an involuntary rupture of established categories… Truth changes what we think; it alters what we think is possible… Reason is always a region carved out of the irrational—not sheltered from the irrational at all, but traversed by it and only defined by a particular kind of relationship among irrational factors. Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift…

More on nonsense genre writers.

Likely mikeledes’ comments on my needing serious help and my response are both off topic. I will start another thread on reason and unreason. Technically, reason and unreason should fit into this thread, but I have a feeling where this is going. So another thread it is.

 

[john_doran]

I don’t necessarily accept that time is a continuum or dimension that is composed of a series of points. It is possible to have points which are arranged in a volume for example, rather than in a line.

but a volume is simply the “space” occupied by a given shape defined by co-ordinates along three linear dimensions. which means that a volume is, simplistically, a collection of points within some defined topological space.
Ani Ibi:

A series of points is linear because it has a start point and an end point and a length in between which could equal zero or be greater than zero.

The direction in which we travel along that length makes a difference to what we can know.

Ordinarily we start a story at the beginning. And then we know more and more as we progress through the middle to the end.

The flexiverse article to which I linked demonstrates that the Big Bang cannot be known by us.

So, if we want to know the universe (the middle), then we cannot start at the beginning. We have to start at the end (where we are) and move backwards.

i am unsure as to what you think this has to do with the fact that, backward or forward, the acquisition of knowledge in this way can be measured by some series of temporal points that are occupied sequentially.
Ani Ibi:

We speak of the arrow of time (human time) which is also linear. We can only go forward in time. But I have shown on another thread that it may be possible for us to go backward in time. I think that was the Null-A thread.

that’s a long thread that i don’t feel like mining for this proof, but i’d be interested to see it if you could reproduce it here; by my lights, going “backward” in time is self-contradictory.
Ani Ibi:

Well you missed the points in the second line. Width.

And you missed the points in the third line. Height.

Human consciousness can handle the following in terms of space:

• point
• length
• width
• height
  And the following in terms of time:
• point
• length

with the exception of “point”, each of these are linear extensions, and travel along any of them will involve the occupation of a sequence of (not necessarily consecutive) points.
Ani Ibi:

Our consciousness cannot handle pre-Big-Bang conditions of space and time, where time was one or more additional dimensions of space. No doubt God could handle those extra dimensions of space-time. Because He was there.

The point is, as Keikolu said, linear time is a subset of God’s time. God’s time is not a subset of linear time.

Moreover linear thinking is a subset of God’s thinking. God’s thinking is not a subset of linear thinking.

again, i don’t understand the significance of these observations…

i think perhaps you’re too focused on the geometry of “linearity” and the “line” as a consecutive series of points, so that “linear” progression along a line can be characterized by progression through (Pn, Pn+1, Pn+2, Pn+3…Pn+n).

but the current issue has got nothing to do with the occupation of a consecutive series of points along a sinlge continuum; what matters when it comes to the idea of the temporality inherent in the notion of discursive thought is that the act of thinking can be described as a set ***of more than one ***temporal point, wherever those points happen to fall in whatever manifold of however many dimensions you please.

in other words, god’s time cannot consist of more than one point, at least according to the traditional (boethian) definition of eternity, so any act that must be described by a set of more than one point is not something that god can do.

is that a bit more clear?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

but a volume is simply the “space” occupied by a given shape defined by co-ordinates along three linear dimensions. which means that a volume is, simplistically, a collection of points within some defined topological space.

OK.
john doran:

i am unsure as to what you think this has to do with the fact that, backward or forward, the acquisition of knowledge in this way can be measured by some series of temporal points that are occupied sequentially.

Knowledge which can be measured over some series of temporal points that are occupied sequentially is human knowledge. Human knowledge is a subset of Divine knowledge.
john doran:

that’s a long thread that i don’t feel like mining for this proof, but i’d be interested to see it if you could reproduce it here; by my lights, going “backward” in time is self-contradictory.

Fair enough. It’s posted there.
john doran:

with the exception of “point”, each of these are linear extensions, and travel along any of them will involve the occupation of a sequence of (not necessarily consecutive) points.

With the exception of point, each of them are linear extensions.

But length and width define space.

And length, width, and height define volume.

No, there will not be a sequence of points in space or in volume. There will only be a sequence of points in a line.
john doran:

again, i don’t understand the significance of these observations…

Fair enough.
john doran:

i think perhaps you’re too focused on the geometry of “linearity” and the “line” as a consecutive series of points, so that “linear” progression along a line can be characterized by progression through (Pn, Pn+1, Pn+2, Pn+3…Pn+n).

Truthstalker:

Thinking involves taking logical steps in time towards a goal or purpose of more clarity of thought. By this definition God does not think.

Truthstalker:

No, because the definition of thinking provided limits it to the time-bound. Pun intended. To those bound by time. Thinking is linear. God’s thought is simultaneous, fully realized, transcendent.

The focus was not mine. I was responding to the focus.

I proposed that not all time is linear.

I also proposed that not all thinking is linear.

God may transcend linear time, but but that doesn’t mean that he cannot think. He just may not think in a linear mode.
john doran:

but the current issue has got nothing to do with the occupation of a consecutive series of points along a sinlge continuum; what matters when it comes to the idea of the temporality inherent in the notion of discursive thought is that the act of thinking can be described as a set ***of more than one ***temporal point, wherever those points happen to fall in whatever manifold of however many dimensions you please.

Claims were made that thinking is linear. I responded to those claims.
john doran:

in other words, god’s time cannot consist of more than one point, at least according to the traditional (boethian) definition of eternity, so any act that must be described by a set of more than one point is not something that god can do.

You have my attention. Would you link to the Boethian definition of eternity and give a quote so that we can follow what you are saying in context please? That would be helpful. Thank you.
john doran:

is that a bit more clear?

Not yet. Let’s see what you understood from Boethius and I’ll try to follow what you are saying. OK?

 

[john_doran]

Knowledge which can be measured over some series of temporal points that are occupied sequentially is human knowledge. Human knowledge is a subset of Divine knowledge.

well, to the extent that human knowledge-acquisition is discursive and divine knowledge is not, i agree. other than that, i don’t know what this means.
Ani Ibi:

No, there will not be a sequence of points in space or in volume. There will only be a sequence of points in a line.

???

the points in a volume can be used to define any geometric shape at all.

again, you’re way too focused on this (visual) idea of linear and non-linear thinking; it has nothing to do with the position and order of the points in a configuration-space, but only the number of those points: any thought will require either one or more than one temproal point to describe it; since god only exists at one point (see boethius, below), god is only capable of performing the former kind of act.
Ani Ibi:

The focus was not mine. I was responding to the focus.

I proposed that not all time is linear.

I also proposed that not all thinking is linear.

God may transcend linear time, but but that doesn’t mean that he cannot think. He just may not think in a linear mode.

see above: the point is not that god cannot think because thinking is “linear”; it is that god cannot have any thought that requires more than one temporal point to describe it, whether that thought is non-linear or otherwise.
Ani Ibi:

You have my attention. Would you link to the Boethian definition of eternity and give a quote so that we can follow what you are saying in context please? That would be helpful. Thank you.

it’s from his consolation of philosophy:

Boethius:

Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life.

which is why aquinas says that god is pure act - there is no progression of before and after in him, no progression from potency to act; if there were any kind of time in god, then there would be something that he does at one point that he does not do at another, or something he doesn’t do at one point that he then does at another.

god’s existence is like a mathematical point - without extension. which means that he cannot do anything that has extension, like think a thought that takes place over more than one temporal point.

 

[cpayne]

god’s existence is like a mathematical point - without extension. which means that he cannot do anything that has extension, like think a thought that takes place over more than one temporal point.

Simultaneous contemplation of a thought that does take place over more than one temporal point would be fine, however, right? This is the problem that keeps getting pointed out from the OP: the too-restrictive definition of thinking. I would count this type of simultaneous contemplation of all temporal points as thinking; which implies that the existence of anything depends on God thinking of its complete existence at all times. God is thinking all the time, in other words, but just not sequentially. (“Upholding all things by the Logos of His power”) Isn’t this what Aquinas means by Active Intellect? (what John Doran was referring to)

 

[john_doran]

God is thinking all the time, in other words, but just not sequentially. (“Upholding all things by the Logos of His power”)

right: god knows all at once and forever, every true proposition and no false ones. he is thinking about everything all the time.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

the points in a volume can be used to define any geometric shape at all.

Yes. But if they are sequential then please say what the sequence is.
john doran:

again, you’re way too focused on this (visual) idea of linear and non-linear thinking;

John, the point of giving you two quotes from Truthstalker is that the OP gave a definition of thinking as linear. I did not.
john doran:

see above: the point is not that god cannot think because thinking is “linear”; it is that god cannot have any thought that requires more than one temporal point to describe it, whether that thought is non-linear or otherwise.

I understand what you have said and am waiting your explanation of Boethius which I believe comes next.

Eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life.

How does this demonstrate that “God cannot have any thought that requires more than one temporal point to describe it”?

Can you give me a link to the Boethius source please so that I can get the context? And can you step me through your line of reasoning – so that I can follow you – starting with the premise that “eternity, then, is the complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life” and ending with “God’s thoughts are one temporal point”? Thank you.
john doran:

which is why aquinas says that god is pure act

Yes. I like this. God is verbiness.

- there is no progression of before and after in him, no progression from potency to act; if there were any kind of time in god, then there would be something that he does at one point that he does not do at another, or something he doesn’t do at one point that he then does at another.

Well, you say any kind of time. Did Aquinas know that time could be space? That time could be non-linear?

There could be a kind of time in which everything God does is simultaneous. And that would be non-linear time.
john doran:

god’s existence is like a mathematical point - without extension. which means that he cannot do anything that has extension, like think a thought that takes place over more than one temporal point.

Yes, I am following your logic. Still not sure about the first premise that God’s existence is like a mathematical point. The Jesuits say: God in all things. If God’s existence is like a mathematical point then that point – even if it were outside the world – would have to extend to all points in the world and you have just said that He can’t do that. So how does God get into all points in the world?

In any case, some sort of slide has happened in your line of reasoning between God’s thoughts and God’s existence. Is there a relationship between the two that is important? Or can we just limit ourselves to God’s thoughts?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

cpayne:

Simultaneous contemplation of a thought that does take place over more than one temporal point would be fine, however, right?

In my books, yes.

cpayne:

This is the problem that keeps getting pointed out from the OP: the too-restrictive definition of thinking.

Whew! Yes.

cpayne:

I would count this type of simultaneous contemplation of all temporal points as thinking; which implies that the existence of anything depends on God thinking of its complete existence at all times.

OK.

cpayne:

God is thinking all the time, in other words, but just not sequentially.

Whew! Nice.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

right: god knows all at once and forever, every true proposition and no false ones. he is thinking about everything all the time.

But just not sequentially, right?