The greatest coincidence

[Gorgias]

It is a little confusion but you can get the idea. There are two things here: (1) What should be created according to our decisions and (2) What should be created according to what God knows. The knowledge of God should be exactly what it should be in order to sustain creation according to our decisions. The question is where the knowledge of God about our decisions comes from? You can say that this knowledge is eternal. In this case we have the greatest coincidence. This knowledge cannot comes from observing our decision since God’s knowledge would depend on our decision which this is problematic.

Oh. You’re just having problems with God’s foreknowledge, then?

It seems you’re asking “how does God know things that are, from our perspective, ‘in the future’ and therefore unknown to us?”

The answer, of course, is that God doesn’t share our limitations. He experiences all of His creation immediately; by that, I mean it in both it’s common understandings: God experiences everything without mediation, and He experiences it timelessly.

Now, the way you’ve phrased it is a bit odd – we, as humans, strictly speaking, don’t “create” anything. (Certainly, we take existing things (which have their ultimate origin in God) and make other things from them… but we don’t “create”. Only God “creates” in this sense.)

So, you’re asking what we “create” and what God “creates”. God has already created. Now He sustains. Therefore, what we do – that is, the actions we take – have effects which occur ‘naturally’. We cause them to happen. God doesn’t have to do anything supernatural to make them happen.

However, your question, in a very direct way, makes an incorrect assumption. You’ve suggested that God’s knowledge comes by way of ‘observation.’ Again, you’re anthropomorphizing God. God doesn’t know by means ‘observation’, since that would imply that God has to learn. That’s not correct, of course. Rather, God knows. Simply.

 

[Wesrock]

I agree. Now here is the problem (the greatest coincidence): What should be created according to our decisions with what should be created according to what God knows.

I would suggest that God also knows things as they happen. But it’s not like the neurons of a body where sensation travels from the fingers to the brain, bounces around there for a bit, and then neurons fire a reaction from the brain back to the fingers, such that a time lag results between sensing and action (this depiction is crude, I know). God knows and acts at once.

And that’s not even getting into His eternity…

 

[rinnie]

I agree. Now here is the problem (the greatest coincidence): What should be created according to our decisions with what should be created according to what God knows.

Well to begin with what should be created if our will is united to God is everything Good. And it is impossible to know everything God knows so the second part is not even an option.

 

[STT]

It is a little confusion but you can get the idea. There are two things here: (1) What should be created according to our decisions and (2) What should be created according to what God knows. The knowledge of God should be exactly what it should be in order to sustain creation according to our decisions. The question is where the knowledge of God about our decisions comes from? You can say that this knowledge is eternal. In this case we have the greatest coincidence. This knowledge cannot comes from observing our decision since God’s knowledge would depend on our decision which this is problematic.

That was a good push but even if what you claim is true then God should be internally in such a state that sees our decision on the spot. This means that self is not a closed system which is no good, our decision should be private at the moment we make the decision.

 

[STT]

Oh. You’re just having problems with God’s foreknowledge, then?

It seems you’re asking “how does God know things that are, from our perspective, ‘in the future’ and therefore unknown to us?”

The answer, of course, is that God doesn’t share our limitations. He experiences all of His creation immediately; by that, I mean it in both it’s common understandings: God experiences everything without mediation, and He experiences it timelessly.

There is a unique configuration of everything in the universes in term of time. What we are going to decide is also unique. The problem is that our decisions are temporal therefore they cannot be experienced timelessly.

Now, the way you’ve phrased it is a bit odd – we, as humans, strictly speaking, don’t “create” anything. (Certainly, we take existing things (which have their ultimate origin in God) and make other things from them… but we don’t “create”. Only God “creates” in this sense.)

So, you’re asking what we “create” and what God “creates”. God has already created. Now He sustains. Therefore, what we do – that is, the actions we take – have effects which occur ‘naturally’. We cause them to happen. God doesn’t have to do anything supernatural to make them happen.

However, your question, in a very direct way, makes an incorrect assumption. You’ve suggested that God’s knowledge comes by way of ‘observation.’ Again, you’re anthropomorphizing God. God doesn’t know by means ‘observation’, since that would imply that God has to learn. That’s not correct, of course. Rather, God knows. Simply.

I am not anthropomorphizing God.

 

[Gorgias]

That was a good push but even if what you claim is true then God should be internally in such a state that sees our decision on the spot. This means that self is not a closed system which is no good, our decision should be private at the moment we make the decision.

Why? Why is the fact that God is omniscient and omnipresent a problem? How does God’s knowledge impinge on a free decision by one of His creations? You aren’t making sense here…

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that our decisions are temporal therefore they cannot be experienced timelessly.

Why not? What is it about temporal reality that suggests, to you, that it can only be experienced from within the temporal realm?

More to the point, what is it about God’s omniscience that you think is limited by the temporal framework which He himself created?

I am not anthropomorphizing God.

Perhaps you aren’t intending to anthropomorphize God… but you are. You’re ascribing to Him qualities and limitations that apply to humans but not to Him.

 

[STT]

I would suggest that God also knows things as they happen. But it’s not like the neurons of a body where sensation travels from the fingers to the brain, bounces around there for a bit, and then neurons fire a reaction from the brain back to the fingers, such that a time lag results between sensing and action (this depiction is crude, I know). God knows and acts at once.

And that’s not even getting into His eternity…

That was a good push but even if what you claim is true then God should be internally in such a state that sees our decision on the spot. This means that self is not a closed system which is no good, our decision should be private at the moment we make the decision.

 

[STT]

Why? Why is the fact that God is omniscient and omnipresent a problem? How does God’s knowledge impinge on a free decision by one of His creations? You aren’t making sense here…

That was a response to Wesrock. God cannot know our decision on the instant which we make them. It can be slightly after. That is true because our decision is self-caused.

 

[STT]

Why not? What is it about temporal reality that suggests, to you, that it can only be experienced from within the temporal realm?

More to the point, what is it about God’s omniscience that you think is limited by the temporal framework which He himself created?

Because our decision is conscious. If God sees all our decisions timelessly then it means that they exist actually. We however know that we only can make conscious decision temporally and our decision in future does not exist otherwise we could be aware of them since they are conscious decision. So see the conflict?

 

[Gorgias]

That was a response to Wesrock. God cannot know our decision on the instant which we make them. It can be slightly after. That is true because our decision is self-caused.

You keep making that claim, in thread after thread.

And we keep refuting it.

God does not “learn” by “observation”. Humans do.

Whether or not our decisions are “self-caused” (they are, of course), doesn’t change the nature of God.

Because our decision is conscious. If God sees all our decisions timelessly then it means that they exist actually.

Yes. To Him, all of creation, in all its space and all its time, exists. Actually.

We however know that we only can make conscious decision temporally and our decision in future does not exist otherwise we could be aware of them

No. This doesn’t follow.

As humans, we are limited. We cannot see into the future. “Our decisions in the future” may not exist within our view, but that does not mean that God, for whom there is no “past” or “future”, cannot see what we do not see!

So see the conflict?

Yes. You’re presuming God is as limited as we humans are.

 

[STT]

You keep making that claim, in thread after thread.

And we keep refuting it.

God does not “learn” by “observation”. Humans do.

Whether or not our decisions are “self-caused” (they are, of course), doesn’t change the nature of God.

If it is so then we have the greatest coincidence in our hand.

Yes. To Him, all of creation, in all its space and all its time, exists. Actually.

No that is True since our decision temporary becomes actual .

No. This doesn’t follow.

As humans, we are limited. We cannot see into the future. “Our decisions in the future” may not exist within our view, but that does not mean that God, for whom there is no “past” or “future”, cannot see what we do not see!

The claim that our decision is actual timelessly is false. Our decision is temporary becomes actual. Only in first case God could sees our decision.

Yes. You’re presuming God is as limited as we humans are.

That is not true. I am just putting facts together.

 

[Gorgias]

If it is so then we have the greatest coincidence in our hand.

Not at all…

No that is True since our decision temporary becomes actual .

No. Within a temporal framework – in which we, as humans, of course exist! – what appears to us to be “temporal” appears differently from outside that framework. Einstein, in his work on relativity, showed a similar effect – even from within the temporal framework! – based on the speed of the observed with respect to the observer! Therefore, it’s clear that, outside the temporal framework, the notion of “becoming” does not make sense. The notion of “becoming” is precisely an artifact of existence within a temporal framework.

The claim that our decision is actual timelessly is false.

And your proof of that counter-claim is…?

That is not true. I am just putting facts together.

I’m not disputing your ‘facts’ – I’m merely disputing the frame of reference in which your facts hold. They absolutely hold up in the context of a human frame of reference. Correspondingly, they absolutely fail to hold up in the context of God’s frame of reference.

 

[STT]

Not at all…

Yes, there is a great coincidence if you consider the fact that the number of configuration of things in term of time is infinite.

No. Within a temporal framework – in which we, as humans, of course exist! – what appears to us to be “temporal” appears differently from outside that framework. Einstein, in his work on relativity, showed a similar effect – even from within the temporal framework! – based on the speed of the observed with respect to the observer! Therefore, it’s clear that, outside the temporal framework, the notion of “becoming” does not make sense. The notion of “becoming” is precisely an artifact of existence within a temporal framework.

I don’t understand how what you said is related to our discussion?

And your proof of that counter-claim is…?

Our decision temporary becomes actual. We don’t experience all our decisions. Only one at any given time. (please also consider following).

I’m not disputing your ‘facts’ – I’m merely disputing the frame of reference in which your facts hold. They absolutely hold up in the context of a human frame of reference. Correspondingly, they absolutely fail to hold up in the context of God’s frame of reference.

You cannot fuse timeless to time-bound. Why? You can ask timeless God (in Heaven) that what you are going to do and do opposite.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t understand how what you said is related to our discussion?

You were talking about a decision “becoming” actual in a temporal sense. I’m pointing out that God experiences things differently than we do.

Our decision temporary becomes actual. We don’t experience all our decisions. Only one at any given time. (please also consider following).

Yes, to our perspective, there are temporal limits to our perception. However, you’re asserting that God shares that perspective. That’s simply not the case.

You cannot fuse timeless to time-bound. Why? You can ask timeless God (in Heaven) that what you are going to do and do opposite.

Ahh… that old canard. Actually, that argument fails for a variety of reasons (not the least of which being that it requires God to play this game). After all, He could just respond “you’ll do what you think I don’t expect you to do.”

 

[STT]

You were talking about a decision “becoming” actual in a temporal sense. I’m pointing out that God experiences things differently than we do.

Yes, to our perspective, there are temporal limits to our perception. However, you’re asserting that God shares that perspective. That’s simply not the case.

Ahh… that old canard. Actually, that argument fails for a variety of reasons (not the least of which being that it requires God to play this game). After all, He could just respond “you’ll do what you think I don’t expect you to do.”

That is not a canard, it is serious problem. As I mentioned you cannot fuse timeless and temporal together.

 

[Gorgias]

That is not a canard, it is serious problem. As I mentioned you cannot fuse timeless and temporal together.

It is a canard – well, maybe it’s more of a red herring – because it’s merely an attempt (usually made by atheists) to ‘prove’ that the notion of God’s omniscience is untenable.

And, of course, ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ are merely two frames of reference. You agree that there are multiple potential frames of reference, don’t you? Or do you disagree with Einstein and his work in relativity?

 

[STT]

It is a canard – well, maybe it’s more of a red herring – because it’s merely an attempt (usually made by atheists) to ‘prove’ that the notion of God’s omniscience is untenable.

It is of course a problem to notion of God’s omniscience.

And, of course, ‘eternal’ and ‘temporal’ are merely two frames of reference. You agree that there are multiple potential frames of reference, don’t you? Or do you disagree with Einstein and his work in relativity?

I understand eternal and temporal and agree that they are two different references. What this has to do with relativity?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

This problem has been proposed many times. A short summary.
Hypothesis: “God is omniscient”.

Question: “What does omniscience mean”?
Meaning of “omniscient”: "Knowledge of everything, past, present or future, whether existing or not, whether actual or potential.
Question: “What does knowledge mean”?
Meaning of “knowledge”: “An internal representation (information) of the external reality”.

Observe. There is nothing here about God, or human, or anything else. Only a definition of the terms to be used. Question: “How is it possible to have a one-to-one correspondence between the external reality and the internal knowledge?”
A precise, one-to-one correspondence can happen exactly 4 different ways:1) God’s knowledge causes our actions.
2) Our actions cause God’s knowledge.
3) Some external agent causes both our actions and God’s knowledge.
4) We experience an incredible, cosmic scale of coincidence, whereby God’s knowledge just happens to reflect our actions.
That is all. Problems:1) There is no “free will”. We simply play off God’s primary knowledge.
2) God’s knowledge is contingent. And since God is “simple” (has no parts) his “essence” is also contingent.
3) Untenable.
4) This is the original question. However, it raises another problem: “the epistemological question of how?”
And that question cannot be answered by the empty postulation of the difference between the temporal and eternal (whatever “eternal” might be)? How does the information get from the temporal to the eternal?

The “trick” of “whatever is future for us, is actual for God” is sheer nonsense. Existence is “objective”, it is not contingent upon the observer. Besides, it still does not answer the question: “How can the information about the external (temporal) reality get to the internal (eternal) knowledge of God?”

Final conclusion: “God’s omniscience is just another nonsensical proposition”.

 

[Gorgias]

This problem has been proposed many times. A short summary.

Nice concise summary of your position. I still disagree with it, but it’s presented here well.

Question: “What does knowledge mean”?
Meaning of “knowledge”: “An internal representation (information) of the external reality”.

Observe. There is nothing here about God, or human, or anything else.

This is a good attempt. However, when you make assertions about the mapping (i.e., that it’s a “representation” that’s “internal”), you’re implicitly making a statement about the being who possesses the knowledge.

Humans, as physical beings, are “composite” – we’re made up of parts.
God, as a spiritual being, is “simple” – that is, no parts.

So, once you mention an “internal representation”, you’re asserting that the being is reducible to parts. In other words, your definition implicitly addresses what knowledge means for a human, not for God.

In order to approach the question “what does it mean to say that ‘God knows’?”, I would suggest you begin with Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae; at Part I, Question 14 he discusses “God’s Knowledge”. Of particular interest to your question of “one-to-one correspondence”, I recommend you study Article 7 (“Whether God’s knowledge is discursive”).

Please feel free to come back to us with any questions you might have about what Aquinas is asserting.

Final conclusion: “God’s omniscience is just another nonsensical proposition”.

If you haven’t fully studied and understood the question itself, then the answer very well might seem nonsensical…!