Simplicity of God and knowledge

[quaestio45]

Yes. You got it.

Huh… well I for one must admit that this one stumps me. For the justification I had for the mind being able to hold thoughts within itself was that it wasn’t absolutely simple… but a pure act God is…

I may have to admit that this argument is correct, actually. I don’t think theres much of a way I can refute it without contradicting myself in one of my former posts on the last thread.

 

[JimG]

The human intellect is a faculty of the spiritual soul, which is non-material. The intellect discerns the essence of things by abstraction–that is, by taking all the particulars out of sensory perception, so it can work with an abstract idea, which is non-material. Thus, the working of the mind on knowledge can not be ‘structured’ in the way physical objects have structure.

In the same way, God is a non-material, spiritual being. He knows by directly perceiving the essence of all things, (which He created in the first place.)

 

[kapp19]

I see based on your explanation of “structure” what is going on. The post above this gets to the heart of it. God possesses knowledge of things through His own Essence, in which all other essences are contained, and the cause of which are contained in Himself. To know things is to know causes, no? This is wisdom.

You will find ample material for reflection on this in Thomas’ discussion of the knowledge that humans have, vis-a-vis angels (who do not know by abstraction), and God, Who knows through Himself.

-K

 

[jochoa]

God is simple. Knowledge is structured (which means it is not simple). So God is either knowledge (because it has to be simple) or has knowledge (which means He has a body)? None of these cases can be correct.

OR…
God is both, knowledge and has a body, and you are not comprehending the position of being timeless.

In timeless existence, knowledge does not have to be structured. One can jump from beginning to end and back to beginning without any change.

 

[STT]

The human intellect is a faculty of the spiritual soul, which is non-material. The intellect discerns the essence of things by abstraction–that is, by taking all the particulars out of sensory perception, so it can work with an abstract idea, which is non-material. Thus, the working of the mind on knowledge can not be ‘structured’ in the way physical objects have structure.

I am not talking about intellect but knowledge.

In the same way, God is a non-material, spiritual being. He knows by directly perceiving the essence of all things, (which He created in the first place.)

I am not talking about foreknowledge.

 

[STT]

I see based on your explanation of “structure” what is going on. The post above this gets to the heart of it.

No that post fail to address the objection.

God possesses knowledge of things through His own Essence,

Isn’t the essence of God is simple?

 

[STT]

OR…
God is both, knowledge and has a body, and you are not comprehending the position of being timeless.

In timeless existence, knowledge does not have to be structured. One can jump from beginning to end and back to beginning without any change.

How being timeless resolve the situation?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

God has the knowledge and power to create the universe and life, not simple.

Isn’t the essence of God is simple?

God loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself, simple.

Jesus died for you and everyone else, this must mean he loves us as he loves himself.

 

[jochoa]

How being timeless resolve the situation?

Timeliness limits knowledge to being structured, while knowledge outside of time grants knowledge to be either structured or unstructured without changing.

For example, consider the sole act of replying to this discussion.

If you were to think about what you want to reply, you can edit what you want to reply without changing anything until the instance you begin to type your reply.

The knowledge of your response can go from structured to unstructured and back without changing. It isn’t until you begin typing that the knowledge of your response becomes subject to change, and becomes limited to structured.

Furthermore, from my perspective, it isn’t until you submit your reply that your knowledge becomes subject to change.

 

[STT]

Timeliness limits knowledge to being structured, while knowledge outside of time grants knowledge to be either structured or unstructured without changing.

For example, consider the sole act of replying to this discussion.

If you were to think about what you want to reply, you can edit what you want to reply without changing anything until the instance you begin to type your reply.

The knowledge of your response can go from structured to unstructured and back without changing. It isn’t until you begin typing that the knowledge of your response becomes subject to change, and becomes limited to structured.

Furthermore, from my perspective, it isn’t until you submit your reply that your knowledge becomes subject to change.

Don’t you think in terms of propositions?

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Timeliness limits knowledge to being structured, while knowledge outside of time grants knowledge to be either structured or unstructured without changing.

For example, consider the sole act of replying to this discussion.

If you were to think about what you want to reply, you can edit what you want to reply without changing anything until the instance you begin to type your reply.

The knowledge of your response can go from structured to unstructured and back without changing. It isn’t until you begin typing that the knowledge of your response becomes subject to change, and becomes limited to structured.

Furthermore, from my perspective, it isn’t until you submit your reply that your knowledge becomes subject to change.

Don’t you think in terms of propositions?

Would you please state your objection in other words?

I am sharing that outside of time, it is possible to think in propositions/with structure and to think without structure/not in propositions, while remaining simple and unchanging.

 

[STT]

Would you please state your objection in other words?

I am sharing that outside of time, it is possible to think in propositions/with structure and to think without structure/not in propositions, while remaining simple and unchanging.

Could you please give an example of the second one (what is bolded)?

 

[jochoa]

jochoa:

Would you please state your objection in other words?

I am sharing that outside of time, it is possible to think in propositions/with structure and to think without structure/not in propositions, while remaining simple and unchanging.

Could you please give an example of the second one (what is bolded)?

It can be recognized in the designing and construction of a building. During the designing phase, an architect can design/think without structure in that s/he can think, plan, adjust, readjust, scrap, bring back any aspect of the design all without physically changing anything. Proposed plans can change without any physical changes occurring.

Another means to recognize this is to place yourself in the position of the Creator of everything.

If you were the person who created everything, prior to creating anything, what would be your greatest creation and what would be the logical plan to attain your greatest creation?

 

[quaestio45]

It can be recognized in the designing and construction of a building. During the designing phase, an architect can design/think without structure in that s/he can think, plan, adjust, readjust, scrap, bring back any aspect of the design all without physically changing anything. Proposed plans can change without any physical changes occurring.

Another means to recognize this is to place yourself in the position of the Creator of everything.

If you were the person who created everything, prior to creating anything, what would be your greatest creation and what would be the logical plan to attain your greatest creation?

I think you might be misinterpreting what STT means by structure. Structure is composition plus formality in his terms. Now the question being asked is how can God hold within himself multiple different ideas, like in knowledge (which would mean composition in consciousness) whilst remaining absolutely simple at the same time.

 

[jochoa]

I think you might be misinterpreting what STT means by structure. Structure is composition plus formality in his terms. Now the question being asked is how can God hold within himself multiple different ideas, like in knowledge (which would mean composition in consciousness) whilst remaining absolutely simple at the same time.

Thank you for attempting to clarify! You helped me realize that I don’t understand what STT is trying to communicate.

I don’t understand “composition plus formality.”

I perceive that given the context of the Creator of everything prior to creating anything, God can hold within himself multiple different ideas, while remaining simple.

 

[quaestio45]

I perceive that given the context of the Creator of everything prior to creating anything, God can hold within himself multiple different ideas, while remaining simple.

But that seems to me exactly the problem, I think. If God holds multiple distinct things within him (such as consciousness) then there is plurality in his being. As such, theres composition, which contridicts divine simplicity, yes?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Another means to recognize this is to place yourself in the position of the Creator of everything.

I believe there is one truth so great; possibly; even God could do nothing greater.

Here is a childlike and yet profound way to test the power of the greatest commandments; when looking for a purpose for the creation of the universe and life.

Before the creation of the universe began, imagine God the Father, Son and Holy spirit looking out into the vast empty void of space. They are thinking, we have the power to create anything we want, what is the greatest good thing that we can create?

God could create all the stars and planets and be the supreme builder. He could create plants; and be the unsurpassed gardener. God could create the animal kingdom; and be the best farmer. God could create children in his own image and be the greatest father. Can God create anything greater than children in his own image?

God could love each and everyone of his children as he loves himself. Can there be any greater purpose to create children in your own image? Could God love us more than he loves himself?

Could there be any greater purpose for God to create the universe and life?

What greatest purpose could God give us?

We cannot love God as we love ourselves, because that would bring God down to our level, so we have the greatest commandment to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. If God loves everyone as he loves himself, we are given the second greatest commandment to do likewise.

Could the creation of the universe hang and depend on the greatest commandments?

Just a collection of words to challenge the mind to think, search for something greater.

 

[jochoa]

But that seems to me exactly the problem, I think. If God holds multiple distinct things within him (such as consciousness) then there is plurality in his being. As such, theres composition, which contridicts divine simplicity, yes?

Yet, the awesome wonder of God is that God is simply a plurality in a singularity, AKA the Holy Trinity!

What we may perceive as complexity, is still simple with God.

Perhaps consider two things:

1. How do you propose the universe began?
2. What would be your greatest creation, if you were the person who created everything?

 

[quaestio45]

Yet, the awesome wonder of God is that God is simply a plurality in a singularity, AKA the Holy Trinity!

But we can find explantion for the need of a trinity in a purely simple entity that is pure act (for a pure act being must be complete in things such as love, one may say for example, but that requires a lover, a thing loved, and the love itself. That can only be completed with a trinity, however. Thus, God must be a trinity). I’m not entirely sure how we can explain plurality in knowledge unless we call total knowledge simple (to which I would have massive disagreements with, of course).

Perhaps consider two things:

1. How do you propose the universe began?
2. What would be your greatest creation, if you were the person who created everything?

Those are questions that would trouble an atheist and agnostic, perhaps, but how does that play into the question of the seeming contradiction between God’s knowledge and simplicity?

 

[jochoa]

Party Time, Eric! Amen & Alleluia!

The greatest creation of God is definitely others that love as He loves, and the universe definitely depends on the greatest commandments!