Quick Question ..

[jochoa]

You are correct, that if God created the universe, then He must exist in time. He just doesn’t necessarily exist in the same time as us.

Excellent words, my friend!

Have you ponder any greater definition to the use of “exist” in the declaration?

From my understanding/analysis, the person of God, the Father, thoughtfully exists in the future, where He is thinking of what our souls will freely choose to do, and physically existing in the same time as the present to our physical persons. But since His physical being never physically changes, it can be stated that He is only Spirit, and He exists outside of time.

 

[JDaniel]

Aquinas says the angels don’t know the future. See Summa Theologica
Question 57, Article 3

Therefore, they do not start with the fullness of knowledge.
They acquire knowledge. Of course God could reveal the future to them, but this is not part of their nature, it is development of knowledge, and would they know all the future?

What would angels do if they knew everything? Seems like they’d have nothing to do, just stand there like statues. That can’t bring happiness.

Just because the quote comes from a book called* Teaching of the Catholic Church* doesn’t make it true. It must pass all the tests or the author erred.
Also,
… I find it hard to believe the Church has ever made a pronouncement on this issue. Sounds more like the author’s speculation.

Empther:

“12. Angels do not know the future; they do not know the secret thoughts of other rational creatures; they do not know the mysteries of grace, unless such things be revealed freely, either by God or by other rational creatures.” - ibid.

“Our twelfth theorem is clear by its very enunciation. Angelic knowledge is not only of abstract things but of concrete things. The future free acts of created rational beings are not knowable to a created intellect. God alone contemplates them with infallible security of vision in the light of his eternity. For the same reasons which make it impossible for a spirit to act directly on the will of any rational creature we may say that the secret thoughts of the heart of man or the mind of a spirit are hidden, unless freely revealed by the one who thinks the thought. In every thought there is an act of will, because I think when I will and I think what I will, but the hiddenness of the will covers my very thoughts. The mysteries of grace are the decision, not of a created will, but of the will of God. A fortiori it will ever be far beyond a created spirit’s ken to find out what God is thinking, unless God be pleased to reveal his thoughts.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Ch. VIII: The Angels, p. 263, The Macmillan Company, 1962.
You might want to check this out with your local Priest, if you can keep from arguing with him.

God bless,
jd

 

[Partinobodycula]

Okay, I went back and reread my previous post, and I must admit that if anyone was able to make sense of that post, then you’re a better man than I am. I guess quantum mechanics is not something to try to explain in a few short paragraphs, unless perhaps you’re on a physics website. If anyone did understand the gist of what I was saying, please explain it to the person sitting next to you. Sometimes things appear so simple to me that I don’t realize that others are going to look at it and go:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

But trust me, the logic of it was simply brilliant.

Have you ponder any greater definition to the use of “exist” in the declaration?

jochoa, as a solipsist I am open to pondering most anything, so yes I have pondered what the word “exist” means, as it pertains to me, you, and God. And the profound answer that I have come up with is… I don’t know. Which of course is why I’m a solipsist. I could assume to know, and walk by faith, as Christians, Jews, and Muslims do, but instead of assuming that I know the truth, I admit that I don’t, and still walk by faith. The difference between a solipsist and a theist is, that a theist assumes that he knows the truth, a solipsist assumes that he doesn’t.

 

[jochoa]

Okay, I went back and reread my previous post, and I must admit that if anyone was able to make sense of that post, then you’re a better man than I am. I guess quantum mechanics is not something to try to explain in a few short paragraphs, unless perhaps you’re on a physics website. If anyone did understand the gist of what I was saying, please explain it to the person sitting next to you. Sometimes things appear so simple to me that I don’t realize that others are going to look at it and go:

http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k591/Partinobodycular/DuhPic2.jpg

But trust me, the logic of it was simply brilliant.

jochoa, as a solipsist I am open to pondering most anything, so yes I have pondered what the word “exist” means, as it pertains to me, you, and God. And the profound answer that I have come up with is… I don’t know. Which of course is why I’m a solipsist. I could assume to know, and walk by faith, as Christians, Jews, and Muslims do, but instead of assuming that I know the truth, I admit that I don’t, and still walk by faith. The difference between a solipsist and a theist is, that a theist assumes that he knows the truth, a solipsist assumes that he doesn’t.

Thank you very much for sharing extended thoughts!

 

[LegoGE1947]

Okay, I went back and reread my previous post, and I must admit that if anyone was able to make sense of that post, then you’re a better man than I am. I guess quantum mechanics is not something to try to explain in a few short paragraphs, unless perhaps you’re on a physics website. If anyone did understand the gist of what I was saying, please explain it to the person sitting next to you. Sometimes things appear so simple to me that I don’t realize that others are going to look at it and go:

http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k591/Partinobodycular/DuhPic2.jpg

But trust me, the logic of it was simply brilliant.

jochoa, as a solipsist I am open to pondering most anything, so yes I have pondered what the word “exist” means, as it pertains to me, you, and God. And the profound answer that I have come up with is… I don’t know. Which of course is why I’m a solipsist. I could assume to know, and walk by faith, as Christians, Jews, and Muslims do, but instead of assuming that I know the truth, I admit that I don’t, and still walk by faith. The difference between a solipsist and a theist is, that a theist assumes that he knows the truth, a solipsist assumes that he doesn’t.

Perhaps we could get Scott Pelley of CBS Evening News to help you ponder!

 

[Gorgias]

If anyone did understand the gist of what I was saying, please explain it to the person sitting next to you.

Were you truly a solipsist, you would presume the futility of explaining things to minds that you aren’t convinced even exist…

But trust me, the logic of it was simply brilliant.

The only thing I didn’t ‘get’ was your assertion of quantum effects on the macro level. How can “(t)he world that we see as reality… have multiple realities, each with their own concept of time”? Unless, of course, you simply mean that, at the quantum level, there are multiple realities, but at the macro level, one ‘reality’ exists…?

 

[empther]

Empther:
“12. Angels do not know the future; :bigyikes: they do not know the secret thoughts of other rational creatures; they do not know the mysteries of grace, unless such things be revealed freely, either by God or by other rational creatures.” - ibid.
“Our twelfth theorem is clear by its very enunciation. Angelic knowledge is not only of abstract things but of concrete things. The future free acts of created rational beings are not knowable to a created intellect. God alone contemplates them with infallible security of vision in the light of his eternity. For the same reasons which make it impossible for a spirit to act directly on the will of any rational creature we may say that the secret thoughts of the heart of man or the mind of a spirit are hidden, unless freely revealed by the one who thinks the thought. In every thought there is an act of will, because I think when I will and I think what I will, but the hiddenness of the will covers my very thoughts. The mysteries of grace are the decision, not of a created will, but of the will of God. A fortiori it will ever be far beyond a created spirit’s ken to find out what God is thinking, unless God be pleased to reveal his thoughts.” - The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Vol I, Ch. VIII: The Angels, p. 263, The Macmillan Company, 1962.
You might want to check this out with your local Priest, if you can keep from arguing with him.

I see.
So the angels must learn the future as it becomes the present? They increase their knowledge? They change? They exist in time?
This is what I’ve been saying all along.

And apparently it conflicts with:

1. The angelic mind starts with fulness of knowledge, and it is not, like the human mind, subject to gradual development.

in the same “Teaching of the Catholic Church”, probably written by one of the other 18 authors.
Has any committee ever done perfect work?

 

[Partinobodycula]

Were you truly a solipsist, you would presume the futility of explaining things to minds that you aren’t convinced even exist…

Yes, I am a true solipsist. All Solipsism means is that nothing can be known to exist outside of one’s own mind. When it comes to whether or not to interact with the world, it is somewhat irrelevant where the world comes from. To choose not to interact would be comparable to a child sticking their fingers in their ears and repeating “la la la la la, I can’t hear you.” So choosing not to interact would be irrational. Attempting to explain things may indeed be futile, but it is not therefore irrational.

How can “(t)he world that we see as reality… have multiple realities, each with their own concept of time”? Unless, of course, you simply mean that, at the quantum level, there are multiple realities, but at the macro level, one ‘reality’ exists…?

Basically what I was trying to explain is that according to quantum physics, if you can isolate a group of particles from the macroworld, then they will exist in a state of superposition. Meaning that they will be in all possible states at the same time. Thus inside this little group of particles, inside this bubble, the concept of time has no meaning, because everything occurs at once. This is how quantum physics actually describes our world at the micro level. At the very smallest scales our world is not as absolute as it might appear. Time inside such a quantum bubble would be very different from time outside the bubble. I was hoping to show that it’s not that God does not experience time, but simply that He would have a different concept of time then we have. For us, time begins when our universe was formed, but there may be another dimension of time in which God exists, which preceded and encompasses ours.

Some interpretations of QM suggest that there are indeed many different worlds, and that every possible version of reality actually exists. Other interpretations however suggest that from all the possible realities only one actually emerges. It’s impossible at the moment to say which interpretation is correct. But for our purposes in this discussion, which interpretation is ultimately true, is irrelevant. If God created the world, then He did so using the laws of QM. These laws appear to show that reality is not purely deterministic, there is some level of observer interaction required. The observer is an active participant. If a God wanted to create a world with free will, this is very much what that world would look like.

If God created us inside some quantum bubble, then from our perspective inside the bubble our world is not set in stone, we have the ability to choose. But on the other hand, from God’s perspective, the world would be completely and profoundly different. What we see, and what God sees, would not be the same thing. God would know every choice that we could make, and He would also know the choices that we ultimately will make. This isn’t merely a metaphysical statement, it is ultimately the logical result of QM. God would know the end from the beginning.

 

[JDaniel]

I see.
So the angels must learn the future as it becomes the present? They increase their knowledge? They change? They exist in time?
This is what I’ve been saying all along.

Empther:

No. You are assuming that angels pick stuff up “down the road.” That’s not what is said. If they know a future thing, it is precisely because they had it imparted to them at the precise moment when all knowledge was imparted to them - instantaneously with their creation. Now it is you that is “anthropomorphizing,” don’t you think?

And apparently it conflicts with:

in the same “Teaching of the Catholic Church”, probably written by one of the other 18 authors.
Has any committee ever done perfect work?

Not a committee. The people were selected, and each performed his/her own task. But, in their case, neither God nor the Holy Spirit were present to make sure they didn’t impart falsity. And, the Magisterium was no doubt out of session, too. And, the Nihil obstat and Imprimatur were fraudulently obtained, probably by forged signatures, I suppose.

Look, Empther: it’s a tough concept for anyone to happily grasp hold of - including me. But, there’s plenty of considered thought behind it.

Remember also: the angels were Created sequentially prior to the Creation of the Universe. In that case, they were before Time began. How, then, (and more importantly, “why,” would God, at some later point in their duration, immerse them, sort of, but not completely, in Time and not give them physical bodies? We’re in Time because we’re intertwined with the physical and motion. Angels are not.

God bless,
jd

 

[Colm_Cille]

Firstly, I must apologise for the sporadic nature of my posts here recently. I have a lot of other commitments at the present time and it can be difficult to keep on top of everything.

Secondly, I would like to thank everybody for responding to the thread in the manner they have. I read most of the replies as they were posted, but having read them all again tonight I think I will have to devote some considerable thinking time to this issue before forming a hypothesis, never mind a conclusion. I particularly enjoyed reading post #20 (though it evoked a strong sense of cognitive dissonance), #15, #10, #13, #12, & #4. I think I’ll write a more developed response to several of the points raised in the coming days.

Thanks again, to everybody.