The act creation is logically impossible

[Bahman]

To complete the argument one need the definition omniscience and omnipotent:

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
Omnipotent is having unlimited power to perform any act which is logically possible.

1. Creation is the state of existence but created, in another it was not existed before the act creation hence its knowledge didn’t exist
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed hence nothing can be created
4. The act creation is logically impossible

 

[ColdComfort]

To complete the argument one need the definition omniscience and omnipotent:

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
Omnipotent is having unlimited power to perform any act which is logically possible.

1. Creation is the state of existence but created, in another it was not existed before the act creation hence its knowledge didn’t exist
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed hence nothing can be created
4. The act creation is logically impossible

That’s as bad as it gets. God’s knowledge includes what we would perceive as future events. But of course His knowledge of everything is eternally present to Him. His knowledge does not change with the creation.

 

[Bahman]

That’s as bad as it gets. God’s knowledge includes what we would perceive as future events. But of course His knowledge of everything is eternally present to Him. His knowledge does not change with the creation.

We play an important role in future using our free will so God could not know about future events.

 

[mytruepower2]

To complete the argument one need the definition omniscience and omnipotent:

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
Omnipotent is having unlimited power to perform any act which is logically possible.

1. Creation is the state of existence but created, in another it was not existed before the act creation hence its knowledge didn’t exist
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed hence nothing can be created
4. The act creation is logically impossible

Several problems here.

Your definition of “Omniscience”: Omniscience -is not- “the capacity to know everything that there is to know.” It is “The capacity to know only and all true things.”

Premise 1: This is based on a false understanding of time. Time -itself- is a creation, and therefore, there is no “before” the universe was created in that sense. So it’s not proper to say that “its knowledge (of the universe) didn’t exist (prior to the creation of the universe.)”

Premise 2: No, no additional knowledge is added to God by the creation of time and space. God acts only once; eternally and simultaneously. Everything that he creates, has created, will create, or could create, if he chose to, is known non-propositionally by God in an -eternal- way, not as a result of things that exist in time.

Premise 3: I agree with the first half of premise 3, but the problem is that you’re attempting to hide a mini-syllogism in it by adding that little bit on the end “hence nothing can be created.” That is a conclusion, and it belongs -at the end- of a separate argument. This conclusion, therefore, simply hasn’t been proved.

Conclusion: Finally, since the first definition, and all three premises are so weak, I think it’s safe to say that this argument is not a sound one.

 

[edwest2]

We play an important role in future using our free will so God could not know about future events.

God knows all. You will never get a message from God telling you what “free will” choices you will make next week. He knows already. God exists outside of time. At the point of Creation, time was created. In the book of Revelation, time ends.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

First think, then act. First think about yourself because you need to know how you think.
My God first introspected. He reached self-knowledge. This self-knowledge is the conceptual space, the Logos. Parable: the Logos is an open cube i.e., a cube without its 6 faces. In this cube there is the concept of creation. According to this concept God created the 6 faces of the cube, complementing it.

The Logos is begotten of the introspection of God. The Son of God, who is that Logos, is eternal. Time is in the 6 faces: the 6 days of creation. The Son is the 7th day. As you can see, the 3-D cube is altogether higher than its 2-D faces, it beholds them completely. Again, that was a parable: the Logos is in fact non-spatial.

 

[mytruepower2]

First think, then act. First think about yourself because you need to know how you think.
My God first introspected. He reached self-knowledge. This self-knowledge is the conceptual space, the Logos. Parable: the Logos is an open cube i.e., a cube without its 6 faces. In this cube there is the concept of creation. According to this concept God created the 6 faces of the cube, complementing it.

The Logos is begotten of the introspection of God. The Son of God, who is that Logos, is eternal. Time is in the 6 faces: the 6 days of creation. The Son is the 7th day. As you can see, the 3-D cube is altogether higher than its 2-D faces, it beholds them completely. Again, that was a parable: the Logos is in fact non-spatial.

That was exceptionally difficult to decipher, but I more or less agree. The only things I take slight issue with are the words “reached” and “introspection.” “Reached,” because it seems to imply that something about God fundamentally changed, which is impossible, and “introspection” because it seems to imply that God has an “inner” and “outer” mind, as we do. I don’t agree with that.

Still, if by “reached,” you mean “eternally attains,” and if by “introspection,” you mean "thought about himself,"even these are not -problems,- and I agree with you completely.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Still, if by “reached,” you mean “eternally attains,” and if by “introspection,” you mean "thought about himself,"even these are not -problems,- and I agree with you completely.

Yes. The problem is, it completely destroys the Holy Trinity. Father = existence itself, object, Rock. Son = concept of existence, concept, Word.

If Father = Son i.e., if existence = concept of existence then all that is = concept of existence. In particular, concept of non-existence = concept of existence. Since concept of non-existence is, this would mean that the concept of non-existence applies to itself i.e., the concept of non-existence is not. Contradiction.

Is Father = Spirit? By no means. Spirit = truth itself, Light. Spirit = truth of “I AM”, when Father saw that he knew Himself.

Father is most high.

 

[mytruepower2]

Yes. The problem is, it completely destroys the Holy Trinity. Father = existence itself, object, Rock. Son = concept of existence, concept, Word.

If Father = Son i.e., if existence = concept of existence then all that is = concept of existence. In particular, concept of non-existence = concept of existence. Since concept of non-existence is, this would mean that the concept of non-existence applies to itself i.e., the concept of non-existence is not. Contradiction.

Is Father = Spirit? By no means. Spirit = truth itself, Light. Spirit = truth of “I AM”, when Father saw that he knew Himself.

Father is most high.

I’m starting to see a couple of problems here, starting with the view that the Holy Spirit = truth itself. This seems to imply that it would be improper for either of the other persons of the trinity to refer to themselves as “truth,” yet Jesus does this. I also think it’s rather hazardous to claim that Jesus is a concept.

I know what you’re trying to say. This is Logos Christology, and I think it’s still perfectly supportable these days. Still, the trinity is not destroyed, even if it turned out that the relationship between the persons was different than we expected. The only necessary elements are that the three persons exist, and be related to each other in different ways, while all sharing the same nature. As long as that’s the case, the Trinity would still be a viable belief, and would still be logically-supportable, even if it turned out that we’d gotten some of their precise relationships wrong.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Spirit:

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4.23, 24)

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, (Romans 9.1)

It is the Spirit who is the cause of your being convinced when you see truth. He bears witness.

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14.17)

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: (John 15.26)

The Spirit testifies, bears witness.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. (1 John 5.6)

That the three are one is a forgery of Saint Jerome.

Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, (Hebrews 10.15)

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8.16)

Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. (Acts 20.23)

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Revelation 19.10)

There are 3 elements. Existence, concept, truth. You handle existence. You hear concept. You see truth. This is a parable.

Existence is above. Consider your computer monitor. At different times it is still that monitor. The concept of monitor is in those different objects. But the concept of monitor is none of those monitors for otherwise it would be not = to itself. This relation of concepts to objects is not unlike the relation of existence itself to everything.

Take different concepts e.g., the concepts of existence & that of non-existence. They are different because the latter applies to no thing. They both exist because existence is in them, at different times as it were. Again this is a parable.

Existence itself is qualitatively different from both truth & concept. They are not given to the same inner senses. Time & space are not qualitatively different: the ray, in a CRT, hits only one spot at a time. This is why your senses’ experiences are yours. You are your hand. You are your eyes etc. But the 6 days are the antithesis of the 7th.

The Son of God = concept of existence. Only existence could beget him: synthesis of antithesis of thesis. Jesus is Son of God inward & Son of Man outward.

 

[Bahman]

Your definition of “Omniscience”: Omniscience -is not- “the capacity to know everything that there is to know.” It is “The capacity to know only and all true things.”

Your definition does add much to my definition but I can accept it.

Premise 1: This is based on a false understanding of time. Time -itself- is a creation, and therefore, there is no “before” the universe was created in that sense. So it’s not proper to say that “its knowledge (of the universe) didn’t exist (prior to the creation of the universe.)”

Time is not something real so it could not be created. It is rate at which things change, without things, no change, no time. The act creation and existence of God lies at the same point since God is in state of timeless. So you are correct to say that there was not any before. I changed the first primes accordingly.

Premise 2: No, no additional knowledge is added to God by the creation of time and space. God acts only once; eternally and simultaneously. Everything that he creates, has created, will create, or could create, if he chose to, is known non-propositionally by God in an -eternal- way, not as a result of things that exist in time.

It is more than time and space. God creation also include things and beings among them beings have free will. Knowledge of actions of beings leads to determinism which is not acceptable so this primes is correct. If you wish we can discuss it.

Here is the new argument:

1. Creation is the state of existence but created
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed and act creation requires omniscience change
4. The act creation is logically impossible

 

[Bahman]

God knows all. You will never get a message from God telling you what “free will” choices you will make next week. He knows already. God exists outside of time. At the point of Creation, time was created. In the book of Revelation, time ends.

Peace,
Ed

Knowledge of our actions leads to determinism.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

Time is not something real so it could not be created.

Would you believe that the Bible demonstrably teaches us that time loops? That our déjà vus are no illusion but a clearer experience of reality? That those who shall not enter the cube of the 7th day shall fall asleep in their dream of the faces of the 6 days, only to dream that very same dream again & again? That those who are worthy, in blinking their eyes / falling asleep in the cube, dream 2 alternating dreams? In the one they are the 2 witnesses clothed in sackcloth / 6 candlesticks / 5 wise virgins. In the other, a lucid dream, they are 6 angels / man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. Christ is the 7th and the 7. Both dreams are one in the end: the 6th day of the 1000 years marriage supper of the witnesses with their angels in Christ, they are now one, they were separated during the first 5 days but both are there. The 7th angel wakes them up in the 7th day were they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven & continue their business as usual.

In regard to determinism, if you know yourself you know what you want. To do what you want to do is freedom. Self-knowledge is not given to one who is lawless for he would not do what he does: contradiction.

 

[Bahman]

My God first introspected. He reached self-knowledge. This self-knowledge is the conceptual space, the Logos. Parable: the Logos is an open cube i.e., a cube without its 6 faces. In this cube there is the concept of creation. According to this concept God created the 6 faces of the cube, complementing it.

This is logically impossible in state of timeless. The act of creation and God existence is at the same point hence there is no before for anything. There is no room left for God to introspect first then perform creation since only one action is allowed in timeless state. So either God had the self-knowledge or not. After creation either God is in state of timeless which means that it cannot perform the second action namely introspection or it is in state of time which can. Whether God in state of time could have self-knowledge through introspection is subject of discussion.

 

[Ryuji_Yamazaki]

only one action is allowed in timeless state

Time is only our manner of experiencing causality. A theorem is caused by an axiom. None are in time.

We are talking about eternal causality here. The 6 faces are caused by the knowledge of the concept i.e., plan of the 6 faces. The knowledge of that plan, being a concept, is in the realm of concepts i.e., in the cube. But the cube i.e., the Word is caused by the eternal introspection of the Rock.

You experience the above as time because we are now dreaming the 6 faces.

 

[mytruepower2]

Time is not something real so it could not be created. It is rate at which things change, without things, no change, no time. The act creation and existence of God lies at the same point since God is in state of timeless. So you are correct to say that there was not any before. I changed the first primes accordingly.

No, time is certainly -not- the rate at which things change, but the -means- by which things -are able- to change. This is why I said this premise rests on a false understanding of time. There are currently two prominent time theories; the tensed theory and the tenseless theory. I hold to the tenseless view myself, in which many things that we assume to be true of time are indeed illusory, because all times are equally real. However, on this view, time still has a starting point and an ending point, just as a strand of spaghetti does. Time, as we know it, came into existence at the beginning of the universe, and was causally created by God. Therefore, though God is -causally- prior to the universe, there is no -temporal state prior to the universe, in which God would lack knowledge of the universe.

It is more than time and space. God creation also include things and beings among them beings have free will. Knowledge of actions of beings leads to determinism which is not acceptable so this primes is correct. If you wish we can discuss it.

Knowledge of actions certainly doesn’t result in determinism being true. It just means that you’re able to know what you’ve done.

Here is the new argument:

1. Creation is the state of existence but created
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed and act creation requires omniscience change
4. The act creation is logically impossible

Here’s the thing. This is an argument (with only minor alterations) that I’ve used, in the past, to argue against those who propound the view of Dr. William Lane Craig of God’s relationship to time; namely, that he was timeless without the universe, but entered into time at the moment of creation. This view is logically-incoherent, because it involves a change in God, to such a state where he would no longer be causally-sufficient to effect the change.

However, on the view that God is timeless without the universe, and also timeless -with- the universe (the view I hold,) there is no need for God’s knowledge to change with respect to tenses (this, by the way, applies to premise 2 and the second half of premise 3. I agree with premise 1 now.) This is for three reasons.

First, that God’s position relative to created things hasn’t changed. His knowledge of creating and interacting with creation would be the same while time was active as it was at any point in eternity. There’s no sense of “soon, I -will- create creation,” or “I created creation -yesterday,-” because God is not in time, even when the universe is, or seems to be.

Secondly, God’s knowledge isn’t even propositional in this sense. He knows everything; not as a series of limitless facts, but as a single, united whole. God’s knowledge is an all-encompassing understanding of the Truth, but it doesn’t change, in this sense, with alterations to “what is.”

Third, I don’t really see how creating the universe alters “what is,” without assuming a sort of meta time, in which God would exist. Only in that sense could God’s eternal actions, which have existed eternally, and will exist eternally, cause any sort of change in the state of “what is” outside of time. So, while this kind of argument is good for refuting errors, it’s still not strong enough to reject creation by.

P.S.:Thank you for posting this, however. It’s given me something complex and intelligent to engage with, and I always find that fun.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

To complete the argument one need the definition omniscience and omnipotent:

Omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there is to know.
Omnipotent is having unlimited power to perform any act which is logically possible.

1. Creation is the state of existence but created, in another it was not existed before the act creation hence its knowledge didn’t exist
2. The act creation needs omnipotent, this act changes state of omniscience since it requires the extra knowledge of creation
3. Omniscience cannot be changed hence nothing can be created
4. The act creation is logically impossible

Yet here we all are.

I think you fell at your first point. It does not need to be true that you cannot have knowledge of something that you have yet to create. As a creative type of person I have knowledge of the things I wish to create but I cannot make all, due to other factors, (like I don’t have time). So most of my knowledge is of things which do not exist yet. A small proportion actually make it into existence.

 

[Bahman]

No, time is certainly -not- the rate at which things change, but the -means- by which things -are able- to change.

To me time is not a real thing. The only reality that we cannot deny is that we experience events. We attach a time to new events so called now, past in my opinion is dead and future does not exist. What we feel about time is illusory thing related to rate at which we comprehend events.

There are currently two prominent time theories; the tensed theory and the tenseless theory. I hold to the tenseless view myself, in which many things that we assume to be true of time are indeed illusory, because all times are equally real.

Thank you very much for referencing two theories. I read about them and found them interesting.

However, on this view, time still has a starting point and an ending point, just as a strand of spaghetti does. Time, as we know it, came into existence at the beginning of the universe, and was causally created by God. Therefore, though God is -causally- prior to the universe, there is no -temporal state prior to the universe, in which God would lack knowledge of the universe.

To me time cannot be created since it is not real. Once creation is performed events occurs which means there is a concept of time. Can you imagine the creation of only time and nothing else?

Knowledge of actions certainly doesn’t result in determinism being true. It just means that you’re able to know what you’ve done.

I meant that God knowledge of our action leads to determinism. The argument is in fact very simple: Creation is made of things (moves based on laws of nature) and beings (who decide but God knows their decisions). This means state of creation can be know in a latter time given state creation in earlier time which leads to determinism.

Here’s the thing. This is an argument (with only minor alterations) that I’ve used, in the past, to argue against those who propound the view of Dr. William Lane Craig of God’s relationship to time; namely, that he was timeless without the universe, but entered into time at the moment of creation. This view is logically-incoherent, because it involves a change in God, to such a state where he would no longer be causally-sufficient to effect the change.

God performed creation in timeless state and then get involved with the changes namely entered into time.

However, on the view that God is timeless without the universe, and also timeless -with- the universe (the view I hold,) there is no need for God’s knowledge to change with respect to tenses (this, by the way, applies to premise 2 and the second half of premise 3. I agree with premise 1 now.) This is for three reasons.

State of creation is subject to change. Future does not exist which means that the knowledge related to it should be updated which means that omniscience is subject to change.

Secondly, God’s knowledge isn’t even propositional in this sense. He knows everything; not as a series of limitless facts, but as a single, united whole. God’s knowledge is an all-encompassing understanding of the Truth, but it doesn’t change, in this sense, with alterations to “what is.”

This is against free will, at least in my opinion God could not know our decisions hence cannot know the truth.

 

[Bahman]

Yet here we all are.

I think you fell at your first point. It does not need to be true that you cannot have knowledge of something that you have yet to create. As a creative type of person I have knowledge of the things I wish to create but I cannot make all, due to other factors, (like I don’t have time). So most of my knowledge is of things which do not exist yet. A small proportion actually make it into existence.

Accepting that God does not know our decisions there is large proportion of truth that has to come true otherwise everything is known and we fall in trap of determinism.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Of course it is illogical, that is why it is an Article of Faith!

Linus2nd