Soul does not need sustainer

[STT]

This argument has two parts. This is due to the fact that knowledge of states of beings are needed in order to sustain them. This knowledge is either eternal or temporal. We argue that this knowledge cannot be eternal and cannot be obtained temporally because we are able to decide.

This knowledge (what God sees eternally so called foreknowledge) cannot be eternal: We first assume that the knowledge of our decisions exists eternally. This knowledge must be unique. This knowledge however depends on our knowledge of future decision since we can always do opposite or similar of what is revealed to us. This is against uniqueness of the knowledge. Therefore this knowledge cannot exist eternally.

This knowledge cannot be temporal: This require that God sees our decision at the point of decision or predict our decision beforehand. The first requires that we should be internally open to God. This is problematic since God must see how we decide which this requires that the process of decision to be causal. We know that our decision is uncaused-cause. Therefore God cannot see our decision at the spot. The latter is not possible too since the decision is not predictable by definition.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ; Omniscience and Divine Foreknowledge

 

[STT]

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ; Omniscience and Divine Foreknowledge

Could you please engage into a discussion instead of providing a mere link? How could I understand what is your point?

 

[NeedImprovement]

The link isn’t “mere” if you would’ve bothered to read the article.

I also posted the link as much for anyone else who might’ve read the OP.

I think it might prove beneficial to ask yourself why you don’t have very many replies to date. Are people too used to being subjected to the same old same old ?

I’m not the brightest light out there, and you probably aren’t going to like it, but if you really want my opinion: Quite bluntly, the OP does not appear to be the product of clear thinking. It’s all over the map, and this, erratically.

Some of what you have written quite easily implies that God is not God.

Regardless of whether this stems from being uninformed, I believe a positive suggestion would be for you to put in a greater effort to respect the decorum of these forums.

Catholics believe in God, and the patience of many of us gets sorely tried when we are subjected to insults against our faith, and against God, particularly if the insults should stem from obstinate and/or illogical ignorance.

For example, some people would interpret your title of this thread “Soul does not need sustainer” as “We do not need God.” Nothing could be further from the truth ! . . .whether you believe it or not. God is sustaining you right now - regardless of what you may be thinking.

Maybe you should consider changing your approach ?

For everybody else: Father John Hardon puts it this way in his Modern Catholic Dictionary

OMNISCIENCE.

God’s knowledge of all things. Revelation discloses that the wisdom of God is without measure (Psalm 146:5). And the Church teaches that his knowledge is infinite.

The primary object of divine cognition is God himself, whom he knows immediately, that is, without any medium by which he apprehends his nature. He knows himself through himself.

The secondary objects of divine knowledge are everything else, namely the purely possible, the real, and the conditionally future. He knows all that is merely possible by what is called the knowledge of simple intelligence. This means that, in comprehending his infinite imitability and his omnipotence, God knows therein the whole sphere of the possible.

He knows all real things in the past, present, and the future by his knowledge of vision. When God, in his self-consciousness, beholds his infinite operative power, he knows therein all that he, as the main effective cause, actually comprehends, i.e., all reality. The difference between past, present, and future does not exist for the divine knowledge, since for God all is simultaneously present.

By the same knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. As taught by the Church, “All things are naked and open to His eyes, even those things that will happen through the free actions of creatures” (Denzinger 3003). The future free actions foreseen by God follow infallibly not because God substitutes his will for the free wills of his creatures but because he does not interfere with the freedom that he foresees creatures will exercise. (Etym. Latin omnis, all + scire, to know.)

 

[Vico]

This argument has two parts. This is due to the fact that knowledge of states of beings are needed in order to sustain them. This knowledge is either eternal or temporal. We argue that this knowledge cannot be eternal and cannot be obtained temporally because we are able to decide.

This knowledge (what God sees eternally so called foreknowledge) cannot be eternal: We first assume that the knowledge of our decisions exists eternally. This knowledge must be unique. This knowledge however depends on our knowledge of future decision since we can always do opposite or similar of what is revealed to us. This is against uniqueness of the knowledge. Therefore this knowledge cannot exist eternally.

This knowledge cannot be temporal: This require that God sees our decision at the point of decision or predict our decision beforehand. The first requires that we should be internally open to God. This is problematic since God must see how we decide which this requires that the process of decision to be causal. We know that our decision is uncaused-cause. Therefore God cannot see our decision at the spot. The latter is not possible too since the decision is not predictable by definition.

Knowledge of creation from the eternal is possible. Try understanding the concept of the unreality of time – McTaggart C series.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/mctaggart/

 

[STT]

The link isn’t “mere” if you would’ve bothered to read the article.

Thanks for the link. I will read it later.

I also posted the link as much for anyone else who might’ve read the OP.

That is alright. It would be nicer if you could provide an argument against OP.

I think it might prove beneficial to ask yourself why you don’t have very many replies to date. Are people too used to being subjected to the same old same old ?

Perhaps people didn’t understand my argument. Did you?

I’m not the brightest light out there, and you probably aren’t going to like it, but if you really want my opinion: Quite bluntly, the OP does not appear to be the product of clear thinking. It’s all over the map, and this, erratically.

This is getting us nowhere. You need to provide a solid argument against OP.

Some of what you have written quite easily implies that God is not God.

No. It just means that God could not have foreknowledge and therefore cannot sustain thing. Hence things are self-sustained.

Regardless of whether this stems from being uninformed, I believe a positive suggestion would be for you to put in a greater effort to respect the decorum of these forums.

I don’t think that I said anything against decorum of these forums.

Catholics believe in God, and the patience of many of us gets sorely tried when we are subjected to insults against our faith, and against God, particularly if the insults should stem from obstinate and/or illogical ignorance.

I think that is you who do not respect decorum of these forum considering the bold part.

For example, some people would interpret your title of this thread “Soul does not need sustainer” as “We do not need God.” Nothing could be further from the truth ! . . .whether you believe it or not. God is sustaining you right now - regardless of what you may be thinking.

God by definition is the creator not sustainer.

Maybe you should consider changing your approach?

I am here to discuss things with people. Asking to change my approach is similar to asking to don’t think and discuss things.

 

[STT]

Knowledge of creation from the eternal is possible. Try understanding the concept of the unreality of time – McTaggart C series.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/mctaggart/

I don’t understand how that follow (the bold part) assuming that time is unreal.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It would appear you’re still skirting around learning the Church’s definitions.By refusing to read any linked articles which other members post you actually place yourself at a disadvantage ,yet remain intent on posting unsubstantiated, somewhat incoherent anti-Catholic sentiment in a Catholic forum. .:doh2:

Apologetics forums are intended to help inform us and to lead us to the Truth. When they work properly, we all learn from them. These Apologetics forums are not here for people who wish to mock the Catholic faith and to make up their own rules, then try to develop some sort of sport out of arguing - that, would fall more into the Back Fence and Clubhouse forums categories.

So you say -

God by definition is the creator not sustainer.

St. Thomas Aquinas says that God is first mover, first cause, the sustainer, the cause of excellence, the source of harmony. (I’m not going to waste my time linking any more articles which you will quite likely never read).

Shall we believe St. Thomas’ definition of God, or yours? . . .They are quite opposite.

 

[NeedImprovement]

For everyone else:

To say that God is not sustainer, is to empty the concept of “divine providence” of all its content and meaning.

All Christians *“get” * this.

As President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary - Daniel L. Akin points out in his book A Theology for the Church , while quoting St. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury:

Anselm stated that “only an unreasonable mind can doubt that all created things flourish and persist in their existence as long as they do, because they are sustained by what gave them existence in the first place.” God the Creator is, therefore, God the sustainer. Aquinas, citing Hebrews 11:3, concluded that God’s creatures are all sustained by the Lord himself. God is the primary cause of preservation in the world, yet “there are some created beings that are preservers of others” in the sense of secondary causation. To deny the doctrine of divine providence is “especially harmful to the human race, for if divine providence is taken away, no reverence for or fear of God based on truth will remain among men.”

 

[Vico]

I don’t understand how that follow (the bold part) assuming that time is unreal.

What is the bold part?

 

[STT]

It would appear you’re still skirting around learning the Church’s definitions.By refusing to read any linked articles which other members post you actually place yourself at a disadvantage ,yet remain intent on posting unsubstantiated, somewhat incoherent anti-Catholic sentiment in a Catholic forum. .:doh2:

Apologetics forums are intended to help inform us and to lead us to the Truth. When they work properly, we all learn from them. These Apologetics forums are not here for people who wish to mock the Catholic faith and to make up their own rules, then try to develop some sort of sport out of arguing - that, would fall more into the Back Fence and Clubhouse forums categories.

So you say -

St. Thomas Aquinas says that God is first mover, first cause, the sustainer, the cause of excellence, the source of harmony. (I’m not going to waste my time linking any more articles which you will quite likely never read).

Shall we believe St. Thomas’ definition of God, or yours? . . .They are quite opposite.

Did you understand my argument? Could we please focus on OP and see if there is any mistake there?

 

[STT]

What is the bold part?

“Knowledge of creation from the eternal is possible.”

 

[Gorgias]

Could we please focus on OP and see if there is any mistake there?

Don’t worry… there are.

The fundamental problem here, I think, is that you’re simply repeating the assertions you’ve made in other threads, which we’ve already refuted and debated with you. The fact that you asserted them previously doesn’t mean that you can use them as the grounds of future arguments.

With that in mind…

This knowledge (what God sees eternally so called foreknowledge) cannot be eternal: We first assume that the knowledge of our decisions exists eternally. This knowledge must be unique. This knowledge however depends on our knowledge of future decision since we can always do opposite or similar of what is revealed to us.

You’ve attempted that argument before. If you don’t possess “knowledge of future decisions” (and, honestly, you don’t), then there’s no opportunity to “do opposite of what is revealed.” Therefore, there’s no contradiction here: human lack of foreknowledge does not thwart God’s eternal foreknowledge.

This knowledge cannot be temporal: This require that God sees our decision at the point of decision or predict our decision beforehand.

You’ve tried this one, too, and unsuccessfully. God’s knowledge is not based on observation, nor does it exist temporally ‘beforehand’.

This is problematic since God must see how we decide

No. God’s knowledge does not proceed from observation (in the way that human knowledge often does).

We know that our decision is uncaused-cause.

This doesn’t make sense. Worse, it’s just baldly asserted, without justification.

So, in summary: none of your claims hold up here, nor do they justify your conclusion.

 

[STT]

You’ve attempted that argument before. If you don’t possess “knowledge of future decisions” (and, honestly, you don’t), then there’s no opportunity to “do opposite of what is revealed.” Therefore, there’s no contradiction here: human lack of foreknowledge does not thwart God’s eternal foreknowledge.

It does. You just don’t want to accept the argument.

You’ve tried this one, too, and unsuccessfully. God’s knowledge is not based on observation, nor does it exist temporally ‘beforehand’.

Well, that there should be a way that God gain the knowledge of our actions. It has to be by direct observation if it is not eternal.

No. God’s knowledge does not proceed from observation (in the way that human knowledge often does).

The problem is that you don’t accept the argument against foreknowledge.

This doesn’t make sense. Worse, it’s just baldly asserted, without justification.

Well, you just want to disagree with me unconsciously. Are we supposed to break the chain of causality in order to be free? How we could do that if we are not uncaused-cause?

 

[Gorgias]

It does. You just don’t want to accept the argument.

No, it really doesn’t. Your argument is of the form “if the moon is made of green cheese, then Martians exist.” We keep pointing out that the moon isn’t made of green cheese – which means that your conclusion doesn’t follow – but you refuse to see that your logic doesn’t work.

Since knowledge of future events isn’t accessible to us, your premise fails. Therefore, your consequence fails. Therefore, any argument you make, based on that assertion… fails to hold.

Well, that there should be a way that God gain the knowledge of our actions.

Again, you’re having problems with philosophical foundation. If God has to gain knowledge, then it means that there are multiple states to God – at least one in which He has less knowledge, and at least one in which He has more knowledge. If this were the case, then He would not be God – that is, we posit that divine omniscience is necessary. Therefore, in order for God to be ‘God’, He must eternally be perfect. In other words, if he needs to gain knowledge (through observation or some other process), then he’s not God; and, if He’s God, then the perfection of that knowledge is eternally present in him. (See how easy that works? )

It has to be by direct observation if it is not eternal.

You’re the one who’s claiming it’s not eternal, not us.

Well, you just want to disagree with me unconsciously.

Nah, not really. I’m not trolling these boards hoping that you’ll come up with more indefensible arguments…

Are we supposed to break the chain of causality in order to be free? How we could do that if we are not uncaused-cause?

This seems like a non sequitur to me. At the very least, you’ve moved on to a different notion without helping us understand where you’re coming from…

 

[STT]

No, it really doesn’t. Your argument is of the form “if the moon is made of green cheese, then Martians exist.” We keep pointing out that the moon isn’t made of green cheese – which means that your conclusion doesn’t follow – but you refuse to see that your logic doesn’t work.

Since knowledge of future events isn’t accessible to us, your premise fails. Therefore, your consequence fails. Therefore, any argument you make, based on that assertion… fails to hold.

We will come back to this later.

Again, you’re having problems with philosophical foundation. If God has to gain knowledge, then it means that there are multiple states to God – at least one in which He has less knowledge, and at least one in which He has more knowledge. If this were the case, then He would not be God – that is, we posit that divine omniscience is necessary. Therefore, in order for God to be ‘God’, He must eternally be perfect. In other words, if he needs to gain knowledge (through observation or some other process), then he’s not God; and, if He’s God, then the perfection of that knowledge is eternally present in him. (See how easy that works? )

Why God should have the knowledge of future? He can create and lets the creation runs on its own. Do you have an argument against such a God?

You’re the one who’s claiming it’s not eternal, not us.

You could have at least said that that is the only solution if a God without foreknowledge is supposed to know our decision!

Nah, not really. I’m not trolling these boards hoping that you’ll come up with more indefensible arguments…

How could you know? Have you checked your subconsciousness?

This seems like a non sequitur to me. At the very least, you’ve moved on to a different notion without helping us understand where you’re coming from…

That is not correct. Are you a part of a chain of causality or you can change it?

 

[Gorgias]

Why God should have the knowledge of future?

Because He is the creator of all creation. It is not in the “future” for him (just for us). It is not hidden from him (but only hidden to us). The question is not “why should God know the future?”, but rather, “why would we presume that He does not know it?”

He can create and lets the creation runs on its own. Do you have an argument against such a God?

Yes. The god you’re proposing is the god of deism – the “divine clockmaker” who simply creates and then disassociates from his creation. This is not the God that Christians posit. If you want to argue for the limitations of the deist god, we’ll agree with you that those are exactly the limitations of that system – but we’re not gonna agree with you that you’re discussing the God we posit.

You could have at least said that that is the only solution if a God without foreknowledge is supposed to know our decision!

Why should I argue for a point that I’m not asserting?

How could you know? Have you checked your subconsciousness?

Well, then, how could you know? Have you checked my subconscious?

That is not correct. Are you a part of a chain of causality or you can change it?

Are you asking about determinism vs free will, then? That doesn’t come into bear in this discussion, given the claim about God’s eternal knowledge.

 

[Vico]

“Knowledge of creation from the eternal is possible.”

The primary concepts are that God is unchanging and omniscient.

 

[STT]

Because He is the creator of all creation. It is not in the “future” for him (just for us). It is not hidden from him (but only hidden to us). The question is not “why should God know the future?”, but rather, “why would we presume that He does not know it?”

Because of the paradox I raised.

Yes. The god you’re proposing is the god of deism – the “divine clockmaker” who simply creates and then disassociates from his creation. This is not the God that Christians posit. If you want to argue for the limitations of the deist god, we’ll agree with you that those are exactly the limitations of that system – but we’re not gonna agree with you that you’re discussing the God we posit.

That could be the only option unless you resolve the paradox.

Are you asking about determinism vs free will, then? That doesn’t come into bear in this discussion, given the claim about God’s eternal knowledge.

Yes, it comes to discussion if God has not foreknowledge and requires knowledge to sustain the creation. The problem is that you don’t accept the paradox.

 

[STT]

The primary concepts are that God is unchanging and omniscient.

Well, I am raising a question against omniscient. Do you understand it? Do you want that we work on it?