The greatest coincidence

[Gorgias]

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

Of course it’s not. If you knew that I was asking you a question, trying to trip you up and get you to answer foolishly, would you still answer in a way that makes you look foolish? Even less so, would God do so…

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

Different frames of reference experience time in different ways. Even for two observers within the temporal framework, there is the experience of this effect! How much more, then, would there be a difference for an observer inside and other outside the temporal framework?!?!?

 

[STT]

Of course it’s not. If you knew that I was asking you a question, trying to trip you up and get you to answer foolishly, would you still answer in a way that makes you look foolish? Even less so, would God do so…

I cannot really help it more.

Different frames of reference experience time in different ways. Even for two observers within the temporal framework, there is the experience of this effect! How much more, then, would there be a difference for an observer inside and other outside the temporal framework?!?!?

Special relativity is about the behavior of space-time when it is observed from two different observers who one moves with speed of V in respect to other. It has nothing to do with eternity.

 

[Gorgias]

I cannot really help it more.

I know. When asked “do you really think that God would answer in a way that suggests he deny his omniscience?”, the only possible response really is just a shrug.

Special relativity is about the behavior of space-time when it is observed from two different observers who one moves with speed of V in respect to other. It has nothing to do with eternity.

But it demonstrates that frames of reference can cause differing experience and ways of observing. That’s all that’s being claimed here: experience inside the temporal frame of reference and experience outside the temporal frame of reference lead to differing ways of observing. You’re the one who’s asserting – without attribution, right? – that the experiences must be identical!

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

So what IS knowledge in your usage of the word? Sometimes it is called “a justified true belief”. However that definition came before information theory was developed. So the proper definition is: “knowledge is information about something”. However, in Aquinas’ treatise there is not one word about “what is knowledge”? Without it the rest of his essay is meaningless. We have no idea what is he talking about. The basic concept of “knowledge” is undefined.

Since God is not the same as the external reality, the “knowledge” about the external reality must also be separate from the external reality. And with that we are back to the original question. Which “causes” what? The reality causes the knowledge, or the knowledge causes the reality?

God, as a spiritual being, is “simple” – that is, no parts.

Herein lies the basic problem. God is supposed to act - upon the existing reality (either once in a while - as miracles, or all the time - as sustaining cause). God’s knowledge is (at least partially!) about the existing reality. So God is not ONLY knowledge, God is also action. These are two different aspects about God. So God is NOT “simple” - because “knowledge” is not “action”. Using a slightly different wording: “God does not only know, God also acts” - and thus God is NOT simple.

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.

If God’s “knowledge” is conceptually different from human knowledge, then the expression of “God’s knowledge” is a meaningless mumbo-jumbo. The extent of knowledge might be different, but the concept of knowledge must be the same.

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”).

Oh, I looked at it. It is not sensible. As a “rebuttal” to objections it resorts to quotes from the bible, or other philosophers. If he would wish to have a conversation with atheists, or convince atheists, he should only use purely rational arguments. Unfortunately he is not alive. So it is incumbent upon you (and other apologists) to step into his shoes and argue FOR him. Needless to say, you are most welcome to do it.

 

[Gorgias]

However, in Aquinas’ treatise there is not one word about “what is knowledge”? Without it the rest of his essay is meaningless. We have no idea what is he talking about. The basic concept of “knowledge” is undefined.

Do you scream at your stovetop when it doesn’t define how to scramble eggs? Of course not! You go to the proper place and find out how to do it, and then – and only then! – are you able to use the tools at your disposal!

Google is your friend: search for “Aquinas epistemology”. Remember, though: there are differences in the way humans acquire knowledge and the way that God has knowledge. It’s not the knowledge that’s different – it’s the way in which one has it that differs.

Herein lies the basic problem.

Yes, it is. The problem, in other words, is that you’re discussing concepts with which you’re somewhat unfamiliar…

So God is NOT “simple” - because “knowledge” is not “action”. Using a slightly different wording: “God does not only know, God also acts” - and thus God is NOT simple.

I’d recommend that you read up on Divine Simplicity a bit, to help you understand what the concept does – and doesn’t! – mean.

If God’s “knowledge” is conceptually different from human knowledge, then the expression of “God’s knowledge” is a meaningless mumbo-jumbo. The extent of knowledge might be different, but the concept of knowledge must be the same.

And when you define ‘knowledge’ in terms of the way the being knows, you create a concept of knowledge that bifurcates. That’s precisely why your definition doesn’t work! (Whew! I knew you’d eventually get my objection! )

Oh, I looked at it. It is not sensible.

With all due respect, I would gently recommend that you learn how to read the Summa. It’s not a novel; it’s not a textbook; it’s not even an encyclopedia. Rather, it’s a form of presenting an argument that’s called a “disputatio” (it was a pretty popular way of structuring an academic argument back in Aquinas’ day). Aquinas is literally referencing the claims and objections of other scholars – and sometimes, even mentioning who he’s citing – and then providing his own answers and commentary (and his replies to the philosophers whom he quotes).

So, no… it’s not that “it is not sensible”, it’s that you need to understand the form in which it’s written. You might consider reading this article or this one or, one that also describes what a disputatio is.

As a “rebuttal” to objections it resorts to quotes from the bible, or other philosophers. If he would wish to have a conversation with atheists, or convince atheists, he should only use purely rational arguments.

In other words, “if you want to play, you’ve gotta play in my sandbox. Otherwise, I won’t play with you!”…? Nice.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You go to the proper place and find out how to do it, and then – and only then! – are you able to use the tools at your disposal!

Knowledge is a basic concept. It is defined as “justified true belief” and/or “information about something”. As a matter of fact, Aquinas also says that “nihil est in intellectu…” meaning that reality comes first, then observation and only then comes the knowledge. Aquinas’ knowledge is exactly the same as I defined it. So I have no idea what your problem might be.

Remember, though: there are differences in the way humans acquire knowledge and the way that God has knowledge. It’s not the knowledge that’s different – it’s the way in which one has it that differs.

I keep on waiting to learn from you: “how does God obtain knowledge”? Because Aquinas agrees with me.

Yes, it is. The problem, in other words, is that you’re discussing concepts with which you’re somewhat unfamiliar…

Empty put-downs are wearing thin. And they are getting more and more impolite and obnoxious.

I’d recommend that you read up on Divine Simplicity a bit, to help you understand what the concept does – and doesn’t! – mean.

I am familiar with it. And I show that it cannot exist. God’s knowledge consists of at least two parts: 1) the knowledge of himself, and 2) the knowledge of the external reality. Since God is distinct from reality (I just love the double meaning of this ), his knowledge is not “simple”. The divine simplicity is just as nonsensical as the other omnimax attributes are. As a matter of fact, even the different theologians cannot agree about the precise meaning of “divine simplicity”.

With all due respect, I would gently recommend that you learn how to read the Summa.

Sorry, no go. I am not interested in the Summa. I am interested in YOUR arguments. If you wish to base your arguments upon the Summa, that is fine. But in that case YOU must do the “translation” from the ancient language to the modern one. I admit that I have a good reason for this. I don’t want to hear: “but that is not what the Summa says. You need to learn how to read it”. My answer: use your words, exactly as you mean them. Then we can at least understand each other, even if we might not agree.

In other words, “if you want to play, you’ve gotta play in my sandbox. Otherwise, I won’t play with you!”…? Nice.

Why are you surprised? You pride yourself on being rational. And my “sandbox” only includes rationality. I am all open to the rational arguments.

I recommend three things, if you are interested in continuing this conversation.

1. Give me the definition of “knowledge” if you disagree with the presented one.
2. Show me the argument about “how does God obtain knowledge”?
3. Present your argument how can God’s knowledge be simple.

If you are interested, I am here. If you decline, that is fine as well. But under no condition will I accept: “Google this”. If you need to base your argument on an external paper, quote all the necessary propositions, AND give the link.

 

[Gorgias]

Knowledge is a basic concept. It is defined as “justified true belief” and/or “information about something”. As a matter of fact, Aquinas also says that “nihil est in intellectu…” meaning that reality comes first, then observation and only then comes the knowledge.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “you’re doing it again, Ljuba…!”

Aquinas is talking about human acquisition of knowledge here. More to the point, “nihil est in intellectu” is not a definition of knowledge, per se, but a definition of the acquisition of knowledge by humans. (If you hadn’t noticed, that quote is in the section that discusses how humans can understand things).

Aquinas’ knowledge is exactly the same as I defined it. So I have no idea what your problem might be.

You’re still missing that Aquinas’ subject here is human knowledge, and that you’re using it to justify your assertions about God’s knowledge. I don’t think I can say it any more plainly than that.

I keep on waiting to learn from you: “how does God obtain knowledge”? Because Aquinas agrees with me.

He really doesn’t. Let me point you to I.14.1, ad 1: “knowledge is not a quality of God, nor a habit; but substance and pure act.”

In addition, see I.14.1 ad 2: “Whatever is divided and multiplied in creatures exists in God simply and unitedly (I.13.4). Now man has different kinds of knowledge, according to the different objects of His knowledge. … But God knows all these by one simple act of knowledge”

And finally, in I.14.7 – which I specifically cited to you as answering your question – Aquinas writes, “In the divine knowledge there is no discursion… God sees all things together, and not successively.” (See the text itself for his proof.)

So… what do we have here? Aquinas is asserting that (1) God does not learn, He knows; (2) His knowledge is not gained, but is His substance; (3) God knows all things immediately and simply, and not as parcels of information that must be gleaned.

And finally, in response to your question of why your take on knowledge doesn’t hold water, let me quote one of Aquinas’ most famous assertions about knowledge (I.14.1, ad 3): " Knowledge is according to the mode of the one who knows; divine knowledge does not exist in God after the mode of created knowledge, so as to be universal or particular, or habitual, or potential, or existing according to any such mode."

Empty put-downs are wearing thin.

I’d hoped you’d have read the citations to Aquinas and respond to them. Sadly, I was mistaken.

I am familiar with it. And I show that it cannot exist. God’s knowledge consists of at least two parts: 1) the knowledge of himself, and 2) the knowledge of the external reality. Since God is distinct from reality (I just love the double meaning of this ), his knowledge is not “simple”. The divine simplicity is just as nonsensical as the other omnimax attributes are. As a matter of fact, even the different theologians cannot agree about the precise meaning of “divine simplicity”.

ST I.14.4: “It must be said that the act of God’s intellect is His substance. For if His act of understanding were other than His substance, then something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii), would be the act and perfection of the divine substance, to which the divine substance would be related, as potentiality is to act, which is altogether impossible; because the act of understanding is the perfection and act of the one understanding. Let us now consider how this is. As was laid down above (Article 2), to understand is not an act passing to anything extrinsic; for it remains in the operator as his own act and perfection; as existence is the perfection of the one existing: just as existence follows on the form, so in like manner to understand follows on the intelligible species. Now in God there is no form which is something other than His existence, as shown above (Article 3). Hence as His essence itself is also His intelligible species, it necessarily follows that His act of understanding must be His essence and His existence.”

Aquinas proves that God is simple – his understanding is not external, but is both his essence and existence.

Sorry, no go. I am not interested in the Summa. I am interested in YOUR arguments.

We are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, are we not? And therefore, any arguments we present here aren’t really “your arguments” or “my arguments” – they’re the arguments of philosophers and theologians that have come down to us through the ages. Any other suggestion is pure hubris. And so, I’m being intellectually honest – and more to the point, citing the sources of the claims I’m making.

If you wish to base your arguments upon the Summa, that is fine. But in that case YOU must do the “translation” from the ancient language to the modern one. I admit that I have a good reason for this. I don’t want to hear: “but that is not what the Summa says. You need to learn how to read it”. My answer: use your words, exactly as you mean them. Then we can at least understand each other, even if we might not agree.

In grad school, I learned that secondary sources are never as good as primary sources; it’s always best to go to the source than to rely on someone else’s re-statement of their thought. You seem to prefer secondary sources.

Nevertheless, I’ve now not only cited Aquinas to you, but quoted him for you, and provided a brief summary of what he’s saying. If you wish to go through his arguments, again, I encourage you to read him yourself, and perhaps return here and ask us what he’s saying, if you’re having a hard time understanding him. I’m relying on your use of reason and rationality. I hope you don’t perceive that as unreasonable.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Aquinas is talking about human acquisition of knowledge here. More to the point, “nihil est in intellectu” is not a definition of knowledge, per se, but a definition of the acquisition of knowledge by humans. (If you hadn’t noticed, that quote is in the section that discusses how humans can understand things).

Nowhere does Aquinas mention “human” understanding. Neither “justified true belief”, nor “information about something” assumes anything about one who “knows”. Either one is independent from the “knower”. If they do not apply to God’s knowledge, then God’s knowledge is undefined.

He really doesn’t. Let me point you to I.14.1, ad 1: “knowledge is not a quality of God, nor a habit; but substance and pure act.”

In addition, see I.14.1 ad 2: “Whatever is divided and multiplied in creatures exists in God simply and unitedly (I.13.4). Now man has different kinds of knowledge, according to the different objects of His knowledge. … But God knows all these by one simple act of knowledge”

And finally, in I.14.7 – which I specifically cited to you as answering your question – Aquinas writes, “In the divine knowledge there is no discursion… God sees all things together, and not successively.”

So… what do we have here? Aquinas is asserting that (1) God does not learn, He knows; (2) His knowledge is not gained, but is His substance; (3) God knows all things immediately and simply, and not as parcels of information that must be gleaned.

So what happens here? There is something that did not exist before, then it comes into existence, and then it will become God’s “essence”. Or is it already IN God’s essence, when it is potential only, but not actual? What about those potentials which never get actualized? How do they “map” unto the frozen, static “essence” of God? Magic? As such God’s essence changes?

And, no, please do not try to appeal to God existing “outside” time, because it explains nothing. Just because God would exist out of our time, it does not follow that the totality of our times is accessible for him. Our world is constantly changing, it is a dynamic existence. Therefore the knowledge about the world MUST also change. Consider a book which has not been written YET. What does God’s essence say about the book? As it happens, the author dies before the book could have been written. Does God’s knowledge change now, when the book does not even exist “potentially”?

Try to chew on this: “how is it possible to know something that did not exist, does not exist and will never exist (whether it could potentially exist or not)”? What does the word “know” mean in this context?

ST I.14.4: “It must be said that the act of God’s intellect is His substance. For if His act of understanding were other than His substance, then something else, as the Philosopher says (Metaph. xii), would be the act and perfection of the divine substance, to which the divine substance would be related, as potentiality is to act, which is altogether impossible; because the act of understanding is the perfection and act of the one understanding. Let us now consider how this is. As was laid down above (Article 2), to understand is not an act passing to anything extrinsic; for it remains in the operator as his own act and perfection; as existence is the perfection of the one existing: just as existence follows on the form, so in like manner to understand follows on the intelligible species. Now in God there is no form which is something other than His existence, as shown above (Article 3). Hence as His essence itself is also His intelligible species, it necessarily follows that His act of understanding must be His essence and His existence.”

I am sorry, but FOR ME this is a horrible word-salad, without any meaning. What is God’s essence? Is it his existence? This quotation above is an excellent reason to discard the whole Thomistic philosophy as useless and irrelevant.

Aquinas proves that God is simple – his understanding is not external, but is both his essence and existence.

Not “proves”, asserts. By the way, nowhere does Aquinas explain just how does the information about the ever-changing reality become God’s frozen, static “essence”?

We are dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, are we not?

**Hell, no, we are not. There is no reason to assume that the old ones (Aquinas et al.) were any smarter than we are. They were “above” us in one thing and one thing only: “ignorance”. And due to their ignorance, they resorted to (empty) speculations. **

In grad school, I learned that secondary sources are never as good as primary sources; it’s always best to go to the source than to rely on someone else’s re-statement of their thought. You seem to prefer secondary sources.

If those primary sources use some totally esoteric language, then I want to see a good translation. I am not ashamed to confess that something is beyond my comprehension. Just read this quotation here:As was laid down above (Article 2), to understand is not an act passing to anything extrinsic; for it remains in the operator as his own act and perfection; as existence is the perfection of the one existing: just as existence follows on the form, so in like manner to understand follows on the intelligible species Do you really understand it? Because to me it is a meaningless gobbledygook. I am an admirer of Hemingway. Anything that cannot be expressed in short, concise sentences is not worth to read. And philosophers especially like to use long, drawn out sentences with lots of esoteric words… as far as I am concerned, because they have noting worth to put down, and maybe because they are paid by the “word-count”.

 

[Gorgias]

OK… in order to address all the things you’ve mentioned, VL, I’m going to have to break my reply into two parts.

Sorry for the length…

Nowhere does Aquinas mention “human” understanding.

OK: let’s take it from a different approach, then. Are you familiar with Aquinas’ “Disputed Questions” (De Veritatae)? It’s a work that brings together his ideas on specific questions, providing a nice insight into his philosophical and theological thought. The quote you cited (“nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu”) appears verbatim there, in question 2, article 3, response to objection 19

Nothing is in the intellect that was not previously in sense. But in God there is no sensitive cognition, because this is material. Therefore, He does not know created things, since they were not previously in His sense… The objection that you have quoted is as follows:

Already, you can see that Aquinas is dealing with the same problem of categories that’s troubling you: we know this fact about knowledge… but does that fact apply to God, too, or is it only applicable to humans?

Aquinas’ response to this objection is as follows:

That axiom is to be understood as applying only to our intellect, which receives its knowledge from things. For a thing is led by gradual steps from its own material conditions to the immateriality of the intellect through the mediation of the immateriality of sense. Consequently, whatever is in our intellect must have previously been in the senses. This, however, does not take place in the divine intellect.

So… when you complain that I’m not explaining Aquinas in contemporary terms, I hope you can see that he himself says it plainly, too: “that… applies only to our intellect. This does not take place in the divine intellect.”

To understand his take on God’s knowledge, read up on the articles I cited earlier.

So what happens here? There is something that did not exist before, then it comes into existence, and then it will become God’s “essence”.

No. God’s knowledge encompasses all, and therefore, it exists eternally – if you want to call it “before” the universe, or “before” the events that occur in a temporal framework, that’s ok, but it’s not quite precise. When something comes into existence within the temporal framework, it does not imply that its “becoming” precedes God’s knowledge of its becoming. Things do not enter God’s existence or essence, in a cause-and-effect manner, simply because they have that relationship within the temporal framework.

Or is it already IN God’s essence, when it is potential only, but not actual?

The things are potential from our perspective only, within the temporal framework. They’re actual to God, outside that framework.

What about those potentials which never get actualized? How do they “map” unto the frozen, static “essence” of God? Magic?

And… now we’re back into Molinism! The question is how to understand what’s been labeled “middle knowledge”. That’s a different question, however.

As such God’s essence changes?

No. God’s essence is eternal. It does not depend upon what happens within creation.

And, no, please do not try to appeal to God existing “outside” time, because it explains nothing. Just because God would exist out of our time, it does not follow that the totality of our times is accessible for him.

Sorry. It’s the correct answer. That’s why we use it in this context.

I agree with you, by the way, that just because an entity is spirit – that is, outside of the temporal framework of creation – that implies that everything within that framework is accessible to him. After all, I wouldn’t say that about angels or demons or satan or saints in heaven.

The claim I’m making, however, is that it’s all accessible to God precisely because He’s the creator of all of it.

Our world is constantly changing, it is a dynamic existence. Therefore the knowledge about the world MUST also change.

For us? Yes. Absolutely. For God? No.

Consider a book which has not been written YET. What does God’s essence say about the book? As it happens, the author dies before the book could have been written. Does God’s knowledge change now, when the book does not even exist “potentially”?

No. God knows, eternally, whether that book will have been written. He knows it fully and completely as it will exist (and, therefore, become known to us): either as a book that’s been written, or one that’s not written but only thought about.

Try to chew on this: “how is it possible to know something that did not exist, does not exist and will never exist (whether it could potentially exist or not)”? What does the word “know” mean in this context?

It means, in the first place, that there’s knowledge of its existence (or non-existence). It means, as well, that if it actually will come into existence at some point in time, there’s knowledge of its contents. Those who believe that God knows counter-factuals will also claim that God knows what it would have said if it had been written, even if it’s never put on paper. (I’m not making that third claim, however.)

 

[Gorgias]

VL,

Here are my responses to the remainder of your post:

Vera_Ljuba:

I am sorry, but FOR ME this is a horrible word-salad, without any meaning. What is God’s essence? Is it his existence?

It’s “horrible word salad” for you, I’m afraid, because Thomas is relying on you to have already encountered his arguments for God’s existence being His essence. Basically, that’s because he presented those arguments earlier in the Summa, when he discussed God’s simplicity: see ST I.3.4 for his argument. Hopefully, it will clear up your perception of “word salad” once you’ve encountered the background for the words you’re having a hard time understanding.

This quotation above is an excellent reason to discard the whole Thomistic philosophy as useless and irrelevant.

No… it’s an excellent reason to read what Thomas is saying and and to attempt to understand his argument, prior to simply throwing it out. I mean… that’s rational, isn’t it?

Not “proves”, asserts. By the way, nowhere does Aquinas explain just how does the information about the ever-changing reality become God’s frozen, static “essence”?

Yes, he does. Since you haven’t read up on Aquinas, and are unfamiliar with his thought, you seem to be blindly asserting that he doesn’t say anything about it. Can’t help you much if you’re gonna simply jump to conclusions like that…

Hell, no, we are not. There is no reason to assume that the old ones (Aquinas et al.) were any smarter than we are.

And here I would’ve thought that you, as a rationalist, would’ve agreed with Sir Isaac Newton. Surprising…

If those primary sources use some totally esoteric language, then I want to see a good translation. I am not ashamed to confess that something is beyond my comprehension.

It’s not “beyond your comprehension”; however, it’s necessary to have a background in philosophy in order to understand it in its context and expression.

If you wish to begin to understand Aquinas and his arguments, I can recommend a couple of good books First, Brian Davies’ excellent The Thought of Thomas Aquinas is a great introduction to Aquinas. It explains, in easy-to-read language, what Aquinas is saying. Feser’s Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide is good, too, but is written in a more academic tone.

Just read this quotation here:As was laid down above (Article 2), to understand is not an act passing to anything extrinsic; for it remains in the operator as his own act and perfection; as existence is the perfection of the one existing: just as existence follows on the form, so in like manner to understand follows on the intelligible species Do you really understand it?

Why yes, I believe I do.

First of all, it’s helpful to notice that he’s citing an argument he made earlier. In article 2, he discusses his argument that understanding is an internal, not extrinsic operation. Aquinas asserts that there are “forms” of things: a dog is a dog because it has the form of a dog, physically speaking; in addition, you know what a dog is because you have the form of a dog in your intellect, as an abstraction (or, in Aquinas’ terms, as a “phantasm”). Now, there need not be any dogs in existence (physically) for you to understand what a dog is (abstractly). The former existence is external to you, while the latter is internal to you.

Here, he’s reminding us that the act of understanding isn’t external to our intellect, but internal to it. Your understanding of a dog is yours, internally. But, a dog that actually exists is a dog through the fact that it instantiates what a dog is. So… just as Lassie’s existence depends on the fact that it meets the definition of “what makes a collie a collie”, your understanding of a collie depends on the fact that you possess the notion of a dog in your intellect.

He’s using this as one of his points in his argument that the act of God’s intellect is His substance.

Because to me it is a meaningless gobbledygook. I am an admirer of Hemingway. Anything that cannot be expressed in short, concise sentences is not worth to read.

Yeah… if that’s your point of view, I can now see why philosophy is so frustrating for you!

And philosophers especially like to use long, drawn out sentences with lots of esoteric words… as far as I am concerned, because they have noting worth to put down, and maybe because they are paid by the “word-count”.

LOL! I think I would claim that philosophers “like to use long, drawn out, esoteric” explanations because the things they’re discussing aren’t always things that fit easily into a ELI5 post.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Before going into details, I want to thank you for your efforts.

Also before the details I want to reflect on your observation: “And here I would’ve thought that you, as a rationalist, would’ve agreed with Sir Isaac Newton. Surprising…”. Nothing surprising at all. Newton was an absolutely brilliant mathematician, but that does not mean anything when it comes to other disciplines, like philosophy. His cosmology is of “absolute space”, “absolute time” have been discarded a long time ago.

Admittedly, I never “dug deeply” into Thomism, because as soon as I saw concepts like “essence” and accidents" I realized that there is something “fishy” about it. When the very basics of any theory are nonsensical, there is no reason to dig any further.

Here is a link to the “essence”: aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html. (At least the words it uses are fairly modern.) A short quote: “The essence of a horse that exists, and the essence of a horse that doesn’t are absolutely the same, namely horse-ness.” Makes no sense at all. If something does not exist, it cannot have any attributes. There is no difference between a non-existent “horse” and a non-existent “cow”. Now maybe the “non-existent” horse is just a fancy phrase for the “concept of the horse”. (That would be fine, even though not all people are able to form abstract concepts. Many, extremely bright, but autistic people are unable to deal with concepts. For them there is no “abstract horse”, if they hear the word “horse”, in their mind they run a long “film” of all the horses, they ever encountered during their lives.)

Nevertheless we need to find out: what is “horse-ness”? What makes a horse a “horse”? And I am not talking about simple biology. Every horse has a “truckload” of attributes. Some are supposed to be “essential”, others are “accidental”.

Which attributes are the “essential” ones? This is the question when all prior conversations “bogged down”. No one was able to give an answer. Unless someone can explain how to apply the basic concepts of Thomism to the actual reality, I see no reason to look into the rest. But if you can enlighten me, I am always “game” to learn.

Of course I am familiar with “categorizations”. We like to create neat, little “boxes” and place our concepts into them. This process is based upon our preferences. The same object can have many different uses. In different categorization systems different attributes will be considered “essential”. But Thomism asserts that there is a set of attributes which make a horse “what it is”. Using the phrase, it is the “quiddity” of the horse. What are those? Precisely, if you would.

Another excerpt from your post:I agree with you, by the way, that just because an entity is spirit – that is, outside of the temporal framework of creation – that implies that everything within that framework is accessible to him. After all, I wouldn’t say that about angels or demons or satan or saints in heaven.

The claim I’m making, however, is that it’s all accessible to God precisely because He’s the creator of all of it.
Very well. So God created everything, and **as such his knowledge ** reflects what he created. That is logically coherent. This is exactly what I said in post #39 option 1). God’s knowledge is primary, and the existence of the world is secondary. Oops! God knows what our actions will be, since he created them. But that refutes “free will”.

Maybe you will disagree stating that God did not create our actions “directly”, we are the creators of our actions, God “merely” knows them. This, however contradicts what you say above. So what will it be? It is a catholic dogma 24. God’s knowledge is infinite.
25.God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
26.God’s knowledge is subsistent.
27.God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence.
28.God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future.
29.By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.
Look at 29) “Foresees”, says the dogma. The question is: “how”? You can’t have both ways. Either God knows our actions, because he created them (and there is no free will), or our actions are primary, and God knows them: how? Not by observation, you say. What else is there? We are back to the first post about this subject. And you still did not tell me what is wrong with “knowledge is information about something”. This definition says nothing about “how” the information is obtained.

 

[tonyrey]

The question is: “how”? You can’t have both ways. Either God knows our actions, because he created them (and there is no free will), or our actions are primary, and God knows them: how? Not by observation, you say. What else is there? We are back to the first post about this subject. And you still did not tell me what is wrong with “knowledge is information about something”. This definition says nothing about “how” the information is obtained.

False dilemma! Divine knowledge is not comparable to human observation because “In Him we live, move and have our being”.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

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.

God sustains especially existence, allowing us to intervene in state.

You raise a question of knowledge - He knows what is inside time from outside of time because He is both outside AND inside time.

Allusions in Aquinas to "eternal"b

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

(Meant to add)

Allusions in Aquinas to “eternal” can imply infinite facets and ramifications. In regard to where those enquiring are at, and as merely a “fascinated bystander” I wouldn’t claim to be able to “prove” “Everything”.

I just chunk it down, step by step. I allude and suggest, using my own words and concepts. On that basis most of the members on the forum can probably “do philosophy”, and should try, more often, they would be good at it!

I am piggy backing solely on things I have arrived at or mused about over the years.

On those occasions that I agree with what Aquinas or anyone else has said it is only because BOTH:

i. I grasp what they are saying AND
ii. it helps me understand something or confirms my opinion or throws it into better perspective and depth.

That’s just me!

 

[Gorgias]

Here is a link to the “essence”: aquinasonline.com/Topics/essencex.html. (At least the words it uses are fairly modern.) A short quote: “The essence of a horse that exists, and the essence of a horse that doesn’t are absolutely the same, namely horse-ness.” Makes no sense at all. If something does not exist, it cannot have any attributes.

Hmm… not sure I buy that assertion. Let’s see…

can you tell me what a triceratops looked like? What distinguished it from a velociraptor or a cow? If you can, then you’re getting at understanding the ‘essence’ of a triceratops! And, I don’t have to remind you that there are no triceratops in existence. Yet, we know the ‘essence’ of the animal. (Aquinas would point out that, in physical beings, the ‘essence’ (i.e., what makes a human a human) is different than the ‘existence’ (i.e., whether you exist as a human).)

maybe the “non-existent” horse is just a fancy phrase for the “concept of the horse”.

Yep, that’s getting along the lines of it…

(That would be fine, even though not all people are able to form abstract concepts. Many, extremely bright, but autistic people are unable to deal with concepts. For them there is no “abstract horse”, if they hear the word “horse”, in their mind they run a long “film” of all the horses, they ever encountered during their lives.)

Whether or not a person forms an abstract idea, has no impact on whether that abstract form exists. In fact, Aquinas agrees with you – as humans, we begin to discover existent forms by virtue of sense experience, and then, having experienced things, we create ‘phantasms’ in our mind that ‘instantiate’ that form (not physically, of course – we’re not saying you have a herd of palaminos running amok in your skull) in your mind. Now, whether that ‘form’ is complex or simplistic, it is still a form.

Nevertheless we need to find out: what is “horse-ness”? What makes a horse a “horse”? And I am not talking about simple biology. Every horse has a “truckload” of attributes. Some are supposed to be “essential”, others are “accidental”.

Right. Some are what make a horse a horse (general shape, hooves, bodily systems) and some can differ from animal to animal (color, size, etc). Those that must be present in order for it to be a horse are ‘essential’ (i.e., part of the essence of horse) and those that can vary are ‘accidental’ (i.e., not an “accident”, but rather, simple (somewhat arbitrary physical characteristics).

Which attributes are the “essential” ones? This is the question when all prior conversations “bogged down”. No one was able to give an answer.

Really? Cause I think that biologists can give a really good description of what makes a horse a horse and not a cow. That answer is easily out there, wouldn’t you say?

Of course I am familiar with “categorizations”. We like to create neat, little “boxes” and place our concepts into them.

But Thomism asserts that there is a set of attributes which make a horse “what it is”. Using the phrase, it is the “quiddity” of the horse. What are those? Precisely, if you would.

Not sure why you’re comfortable with ‘characterizations’ and not with ‘forms’. You hate it when I say ‘Google is your friend’, but I would say that there are pretty specific definitions of what makes a horse a horse.

Since I’m not a biologist, but have experience in mathematical systems, I would rather give you a rough heuristic for discovering the ‘essence’ or ‘quiddity’ of a being: line up an acceptable number of examples of the being (this is an iterative heuristic, so you can add more later, and these new examples might refine your definition) and line up some examples of other beings. Enumerate their qualities – physical characteristics, biological descriptions of systems and sub-systems, etc. The ones possessed by all of the examples of the target being are candidates for its ‘essence’. Ones not possessed by some, and possibly possessed by the other beings are not ‘essence’.

Of course, one’s understanding of the ‘essence’ of a being develops over time. We’re familiar with that dynamic in science, especially in archeology and paleontology. We wouldn’t throw these disciplines under the bus simply because they learn through experience, would we? Then why throw Aquinas under the bus?

 

[Gorgias]

Vera_Ljuba:

Gorgias:

The claim I’m making, however, is that it’s all accessible to God precisely because He’s the creator of all of it.

Very well. So God created everything, and **as such his knowledge ** reflects what he created. That is logically coherent. This is exactly what I said in post #39 option 1). God’s knowledge is primary, and the existence of the world is secondary. Oops! God knows what our actions will be, since he created them. But that refutes “free will”.

No, I would disagree with you there. Why would ‘knowledge’ impinge on decisions? Just because I see you in a bathing suit, wearing water wings and applying suntan lotion, and therefore know that you’re heading out to the water, doesn’t mean that I’ve affected your free will in any way!

Maybe you will disagree stating that God did not create our actions “directly”, we are the creators of our actions, God “merely” knows them. This, however contradicts what you say above.

How does it contradict it? God created us and sustains our existence. He fully knows us. And, he allows us to act freely. I’m not seeing the contradiction you’re asserting…

29.By the knowledge of vision, God also foresees the future free acts of rational creatures with infallible certainty.
Look at 29) “Foresees”, says the dogma. The question is: “how”?

“Foresees” is a term that operates within our (human) frame of reference, since we see things in creation as part of a temporal timeline; in referring to it in this way, it helps us understand the concept. Yet, we would assert that God exists outside that framework, and therefore, sees it all simultaneously. One example I’ve heard, that attempts to illuminate this concept, is the notion of the difference in perspective of watching a parade. If you’re at street level, you see only the part of the parade that’s in front of your eyes, and in order to experience the parade, you have to experience it sequentially, over time. However, if you climb to the top of the highest skyscraper in town, you see all of the parade all at once. In essence, you can “foresee” the part of the parade that is still in my future experience.

It’s not an exact analogy, but it helps move in the direction…

You can’t have both ways. Either God knows our actions, because he created them (and there is no free will), or our actions are primary, and God knows them: how?

I would posit a third possibility. God knows our actions because He created everything and knows it all fully. His action is the primary cause, but he’s created us in a way that we can cause things to happen ourselves. God doesn’t create our actions. Since he knows them (not by observation, but by the fact that he sustains creation actively), he has access to them without either causing the actions or ‘waiting’ to observe them.

And you still did not tell me what is wrong with “knowledge is information about something”. This definition says nothing about “how” the information is obtained.

Sure I did. My contention is that knowledge isn’t the information itself, but the possession of the information. And, if your definition asserts a particular style or means of possessing, then it’s already specified who the possessor is. And therefore, (since it does so specify), the definition has limited itself to a discussion of human knowledge.

 

[STT]

God sustains especially existence, allowing us to intervene in state.

You raise a question of knowledge - He knows what is inside time from outside of time because He is both outside AND inside time.

Allusions in Aquinas to "eternal"b

I am questioning if God sustain the creation since what should be created according to our decisions must coincide with what should be created according to what God knows.

 

[Gorgias]

I am questioning if God sustain the creation since what should be created according to our decisions must coincide with what should be created according to what God knows.

STT, you’re conflating “create” with “sustain”, as if these two are the same thing. They’re not.

God has created the world. He does not “re-create” it, instant by instant, in response to the stimuli of His creatures’ actions.

Rather, God sustains creation. This means that it is His will that allows us to continue in existence. Without God’s will, none of creation would exist. The sustenance He provides enables us to act – and our actions have their own consequences and effects. No ongoing “creation” is necessary on God’s part.

 

[tonyrey]

STT, you’re conflating “create” with “sustain”, as if these two are the same thing. They’re not.

God has created the world. He does not “re-create” it, instant by instant, in response to the stimuli of His creatures’ actions.

Rather, God sustains creation. This means that it is His will that allows us to continue in existence. Without God’s will, none of creation would exist. The sustenance He provides enables us to act – and our actions have their own consequences and effects. No ongoing “creation” is necessary on God’s part.

It has been described as “continuous creation” but that is just a matter of terminology and it is certainly independent of His creatures’ actions!

 

[STT]

STT, you’re conflating “create” with “sustain”, as if these two are the same thing. They’re not.

God has created the world. He does not “re-create” it, instant by instant, in response to the stimuli of His creatures’ actions.

Rather, God sustains creation. This means that it is His will that allows us to continue in existence. Without God’s will, none of creation would exist. The sustenance He provides enables us to act – and our actions have their own consequences and effects. No ongoing “creation” is necessary on God’s part.

What should be sustained is what was created.