The greatest coincidence

[STT]

The same as with knowing. Our decision comes first, and God follows what we decided. Just consider a bullet fired from a gun. Before we pull the trigger, God sustains the bullet within the gun. Once we pull the trigger, God sustains the firing pin in motion, then sustains the gunpowder blowing up, then sustains the bullet on its trajectory, and then sustains it penetrating the head of the target. God “plays” a catching up, which started with OUR decision with pulling the trigger.

The problem is that cannot read our minds at the spot when we make decision, but after, because otherwise we would be internally open to God. Therefore there is the great coincidence.

 

[Gorgias]

As Vera said “to prove that He is omniscient”.

So… why is God obligated to prove his omniscience to you?

STT:

The problem is where does the knowledge that something is unrevealed or revealed come from?

Not sure what you’re asking here. Are you really asking whether you know what you know and don’t know what you don’t know? Or are you just asking whether the future is unknown to humans?

I’ll assume that you mean the latter, since it’s the only reasonable interpretation of your question. And yes, the future is unknown to humans. That’s how you know that the future is unknown and that the past is knowable.

 

[Gorgias]

The same as with knowing. Our decision comes first, and God follows what we decided. Just consider a bullet fired from a gun. Before we pull the trigger, God sustains the bullet within the gun. Once we pull the trigger, God sustains the firing pin in motion, then sustains the gunpowder blowing up, then sustains the bullet on its trajectory, and then sustains it penetrating the head of the target.

No. That would seem to be exactly the wrong interpretation of “sustaining”. Sustenance speaks to existence, not to cause-and-effect. If it were the latter, then you’d be correct. However, that’s the error of the medieval Islamic philosophers: they claimed that God played “catch up”, as you suggest. For example, God sustains a piece of cotton, and a match, and the motion of the match against the striker; then, he sustains the spark, and the flame, and finally, the burning cotton. That’s not what we’re claiming here. Rather, cause and effect happens naturally, according to laws of physics. God merely sustains the existence of the materials, per se. (Whatever happens to them, happens to them. They don’t just merely go into non-existence, however – which is what would happen if God did not sustain his creation.)

You mean, we define God and his omniscience INTO existence?

No. That’s just silly. Would you claim that we define gravity into existence? Or black holes? No, of course not. Similarly, we do not define God into existence.

Am I allowed to define God as the meanest being imaginable?

Yes, you may; one may assert all sorts of silly definitions. (We see some of them asserted here on this forum all the time!) Of course, that doesn’t make them true.

Or only the believers are “allowed” to define God’s attributes into existence, the non-believers are not allowed?

No, of course not. However, they have to be internally consistent and logical. Of course, that’s the debate we get into around here all the time, isn’t it? We claim our definitions to be logical, and non-believers claim them not to be.

A tad more than that. A revealed future allows us to act against the revelation.

Yet, it’s immaterial, since the future isn’t revealed, as such.

It is “contingent”. Unrevealed future can be known, revealed future cannot. That is what “contingent” means.

Yet, it’s untrue that humans are omniscient – that is, that we know the future with surety. Therefore, there’s no contingency in play. We simply do not know. If you want to assert that this is a false statement, then have at it.

Since we cannot know the future in advance, there’s no contingency in play. God is omniscient, we are not. He knows all, we do not. There are no contingencies in this example.

And to say that: “It simply means that God knows all because he knows all” is a nice tautology.

Tautologies get a bad rap. They happen to be statements that are always true. In philosophy, they’re often useful as the grounds of arguments. This is one that’s useful in this context.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. That would seem to be exactly the wrong interpretation of “sustaining”. Sustenance speaks to existence, not to cause-and-effect.

Existence “WHERE”? **Physical existence is inseparable from “where” and “when”. **Sustain the bullet on its trajectory, according to the laws of physics. Not just “sustain”. So there is a definite “cause-effect” here. The primary cause is our decision to pull the trigger. That will fire the gun, and “causes” God to sustain the bullet on its trajectory.

If it were the latter, then you’d be correct. However, that’s the error of the medieval Islamic philosophers: they claimed that God played “catch up”, as you suggest.

And they were right. That is exactly what happens IF God is supposed to be the “sustaining” cause. Of course all that “sustaining cause” is a “slap” onto God’s face. It assumes that God was impotent to design a self-sustaining system. The so-called “laws of nature” are a sham. God must “make” the rain fall down, and force the steam go up.

No. That’s just silly. Would you claim that we define gravity into existence? Or black holes? No, of course not. Similarly, we do not define God into existence.

You misunderstood. You define God AS having omnipotence into existence. From assuming God as the creator of the world it does NOT follow omnipotence.

Yes, you may; one may assert all sorts of silly definitions. (We see some of them asserted here on this forum all the time!) Of course, that doesn’t make them true.

Just like YOU asserting God’s omnipotence does not make it true.

No, of course not. However, they have to be internally consistent and logical. Of course, that’s the debate we get into around here all the time, isn’t it? We claim our definitions to be logical, and non-believers claim them not to be.

Not just “claim”; they prove it.

Yet, it’s immaterial, since the future isn’t revealed, as such.

What is “revealed” is God’s assumption of what would happen if there would be no revelation. But, once that revelation happens, we are free to contradict it. And that disproves God’s omniscience.

Tautologies get a bad rap. They happen to be statements that are always true. In philosophy, they’re often useful as the grounds of arguments. This is one that’s useful in this context.

A tautology does NOT need to be true. It just uses itself both as a hypothesis and the supporting argument for the hypothesis. In other words: “useless”. By the way, statements that are always true are called axioms.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Existence “WHERE”? **Physical existence is inseparable from “where” and “when”. **Sustain the bullet on its trajectory, according to the laws of physics. Not just “sustain”. So there is a definite “cause-effect” here. The primary cause is our decision to pull the trigger. That will fire the gun, and “causes” God to sustain the bullet on its trajectory.

And they were right. That is exactly what happens IF God is supposed to be the “sustaining” cause. Of course all that “sustaining cause” is a “slap” onto God’s face. It assumes that God was impotent to design a self-sustaining system. The so-called “laws of nature” are a sham. God must “make” the rain fall down, and force the steam go up.

You misunderstood. You define God AS having omnipotence into existence. From assuming God as the creator of the world it does NOT follow omnipotence.

Just like YOU asserting God’s omnipotence does not make it true.

Not just “claim”; they prove it.

What is “revealed” is God’s assumption of what would happen if there would be no revelation. But, once that revelation happens, we are free to contradict it. And that disproves God’s omniscience.

A tautology does NOT need to be true. It just uses itself both as a hypothesis and the supporting argument for the hypothesis. In other words: “useless”. By the way, statements that are always true are called axioms.

Vera, why do you want to limit God? God is limitless, beyond our human understanding. Why do you want to make God into something you can understand?

 

[Gorgias]

Existence “WHERE”? **Physical existence is inseparable from “where” and “when”. **Sustain the bullet on its trajectory, according to the laws of physics. Not just “sustain”.

No. The claim is only that existence is sustained, not act or form. So, God only keeps the matter in existence; he’s not responsible for pushing the bullet along, centimeter by centimeter, on its current path.

So there is a definite “cause-effect” here. The primary cause is our decision to pull the trigger. That will fire the gun, and “causes” God to sustain the bullet on its trajectory.

No. You’re still reading too much into it.

And they were right. That is exactly what happens IF God is supposed to be the “sustaining” cause. Of course all that “sustaining cause” is a “slap” onto God’s face. It assumes that God was impotent to design a self-sustaining system. The so-called “laws of nature” are a sham. God must “make” the rain fall down, and force the steam go up.

The “laws of nature” are what follow in this created world. Once God creates the universe, He doesn’t have to “make” rain fall, steam rise, or bullets travel in certain trajectories.

You misunderstood. You define God AS having omnipotence into existence. From assuming God as the creator of the world it does NOT follow omnipotence.

If God creates the universe and keeps it in existence… how is this not omnipotence?

Just like YOU asserting God’s omnipotence does not make it true.

Agreed. We haven’t discussed the philosophical grounds for concluding ‘omnipotence’ based on ‘creation ex nihilo’. However, those arguments are out there. Do I really need to recapitulate them for you?

Not just “claim”; they prove it.

In the same way that believers prove their claims. It’s the nature of the game. We have fun playing it. And usually, we walk away from the donnybrook without having budged an inch.

What is “revealed” is God’s assumption of what would happen if there would be no revelation. But, once that revelation happens, we are free to contradict it. And that disproves God’s omniscience.

“Once” it happens? You’d have to demonstrate that it will or could happen before you begin to consider the effects of it happening. If it’s a non-event – one that will never happen – then we don’t have to consider the effects of its occurrence. (Example: since there is no FSM, I don’t have to include the effects of his appearance in my philosophy or theological stance. Since there are no unicorns, I’m not being unreasonable when I fail to include them in my thoughts about their ecological impact on the world.)

A tautology does NOT need to be true. It just uses itself both as a hypothesis and the supporting argument for the hypothesis. In other words: “useless”.

Actually, that’s not a tautology. A logical tautology is simply a statement that is true for all cases.

By the way, statements that are always true are called axioms.

Not so. There’s a distinction between the two terms.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

No. The claim is only that existence is sustained, not act or form.

That is a nonsensical claim. Physical existence cannot be separated from “where” and “when”. A bullet exists at a specific spatial and temporal coordinate, not just “exists”.

No. You’re still reading too much into it.

I use the words according to their meanings.

The “laws of nature” are what follow in this created world. Once God creates the universe, He doesn’t have to “make” rain fall, steam rise, or bullets travel in certain trajectories.

One of the most established laws of nature is the preservation of “matter”, “energy”, “spin”, “momentum”, etc. If you wish to argue that the laws of nature (as established by God) are “really” sufficient, then there is no reason for God to sustain the world. If you say that there is a need to sustain the world, then all the “laws” become irrelevant, and God must do all the “micro-management” of pushing the rain down and the steam up. As usual, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

If God creates the universe and keeps it in existence… how is this not omnipotence?

It simply means that God would be able to do THAT. Nothing more. Omnipotence would be to do everything that is possible. Creating (and maintaining) the world is merely a subset of this. It might be a huge subset, but nothing more.

“Once” it happens?

Yes. We exist in this world. For us the revelation would happen here and now. As soon as a revelation about the future happens, we can use that information to “thwart” the prediction. There is a beautiful symmetry here. To travel into the past and modify it is impossible, because the modification would destroy the present. To know the future is equally impossible, because we can use the information to act so that the revelation is invalidated.

 

[Gorgias]

That is a nonsensical claim. Physical existence cannot be separated from “where” and “when”. A bullet exists at a specific spatial and temporal coordinate, not just “exists”.

True, it does, but what’s being sustained isn’t its position. The claim, in a certain sense, is the antithesis to the Deist’s “divine clockmaker” claim; God does not merely create the universe and then walk away. (It’s also not the medieval Islamic philosopher al-Ghazali’s claim, that God only appears to let things act naturally, but really pulls all the strings and make all ‘natural’ looking things happen explicitly through divine intervention in every moment). The claim sits, to a certain extent, between the two: God sustains the existence of the universe.

I use the words according to their meanings.

Perhaps, but without the nuance that’s being attempted to be conveyed. Perhaps, since we as Catholics are used to the claim, we’re doing a bad job of conveying that precise implication properly in this conversation…

One of the most established laws of nature is the preservation of “matter”, “energy”, “spin”, “momentum”, etc. If you wish to argue that the laws of nature (as established by God) are “really” sufficient, then there is no reason for God to sustain the world.

The laws of nature are sufficient to act on nature in existence. They do not ‘create’ the universe, however.

If you say that there is a need to sustain the world, then all the “laws” become irrelevant, and God must do all the “micro-management” of pushing the rain down and the steam up. As usual, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Not quite. I would say that, if you can demonstrate that the universe came into existence without a Creator, then you can make the claim that the universe is self-sustaining. If you cannot, then you cannot make that claim. That’s not “having my cake and eating it too,” that’s a reasonable inference from the claim of God’s creation of the universe!

It simply means that God would be able to do THAT. Nothing more. Omnipotence would be to do everything that is possible. Creating (and maintaining) the world is merely a subset of this. It might be a huge subset, but nothing more.

Umm… what else would you have him to do, which wouldn’t be covered by omnipotence, then?

Yes. We exist in this world. For us the revelation would happen here and now. As soon as a revelation about the future happens, we can use that information to “thwart” the prediction. There is a beautiful symmetry here. To travel into the past and modify it is impossible, because the modification would destroy the present. To know the future is equally impossible, because we can use the information to act so that the revelation is invalidated.

Aah… I misunderstood you. I thought you meant “once we foreknow the future”, not “once the ‘future’ occurs and becomes the present.’” Yes, the latter is possible; the former (for us) is not.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The laws of nature are sufficient to act on nature in existence. They do not ‘create’ the universe, however.

We are not talking about the “creation”, we are talking about sustenance.

That’s not “having my cake and eating it too,” that’s a reasonable inference from the claim of God’s creation of the universe!

From the creation it does NOT follow that there is a need for continued sustenance. It is funny that you stipulate the laws of nature are sufficient to guide the bullet on its path, but deny that the basic conservation laws are insufficient to sustain the world. Was God unable to create the conservation laws to work even if he “walks away” to take a vacation?

If the world needs continued sustenance, it needs God to micromanage the “spatial” and “temporal” coordinates of every atom and molecule according to the “alleged” laws of nature, which are only a smokescreen.

Aah… I misunderstood you. I thought you meant “once we foreknow the future”, not “once the ‘future’ occurs and becomes the present.’” Yes, the latter is possible; the former (for us) is not.

I am talking about the first one. IF God would reveal the future, that revelation would enable us (if we have free will, of course) to invalidate the prediction.

 

[STT]

So… why is God obligated to prove his omniscience to you?

Spiritual world is full of being who are superior to us. How could we be sure that who is God and who is not?

Not sure what you’re asking here. Are you really asking whether you know what you know and don’t know what you don’t know? Or are you just asking whether the future is unknown to humans?

I’ll assume that you mean the latter, since it’s the only reasonable interpretation of your question. And yes, the future is unknown to humans. That’s how you know that the future is unknown and that the past is knowable.

No, I mean how God’s knowledge could be differentiated by God to what which is supposed to revealed or not.