The Imperfect All knowingness of God

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MindOverMatter

Guest
Gods Knowledge And His Relationship With Creation.

I have started this thread because i have noticed on another thread (about freewill and determinism), what seems to me to be a fualty idea about Gods attribute of knowledge, so far as it reflects how God knows about his creation. Therefore I see it as my duty to challenge what I see as a common error that needs to be weeded out.

First of all, I just want to point out that my primary position concerning the reconciliation of Gods attributes, is a plea to human ignorance on the basis that God becomes, necessarily at some point, a Divine Mystery. Personally I think that it is reasonable to assume that some issues are beyond are comprehension. And Gods relationship with knowledge and freewill is one of them. It is a mystery; it is not just a matter of logic, and it is not reasonable to think that all matters of logic are discernable by the human. I think it would be fruitful to focus on things that we can prove (as in, demonstrate logically) and be honest about things that we can’t. For instance; can you imagine what its like to be a 5th dimensional being? The mere fact that you can’t doesn’t mean that there is not in fact a 5th dimension, or that one is unreasonable for inferring its existence. Take the dual nature of “quantum physics” it’s not something we can understand, and it does appear, to some degree, contradictory so far as classical physics is concerned; but it is evident that quantum physics is a legitimate science. Therefore I don’t think it’s reasonable to doubt Gods existence on the bases of ignorance or apparent incompatibility, especially if it is possible to demonstrate the necessity of God as a casual explanation. I agree that we should not use divine mystery wily-nily as an excuse when the cards are against us, but if God is the best explanation in regards to other problems concerning existence, then the argument from the basis of “Divine Mystery” is legitimate; and is not an avoidance of the freewill or foreknowledge problem.

To be continued…
 
Here is an argument for you. I make this argument because I think that there are things about Gods foreknowledge that Christians take for granted when they debate. (Bare in mind that I may very well be mistaken; and for those who unfortunately have a weak faith, it is not my agenda to cause doubt).

If Gods foreknowledge is reliant upon the actions of his creatures, then it would seem that God is not all-knowing and is not himself the cause of all knowledge; In other words, his divine attributes are dependent on his creation; which seems to me to impinge on his powers and his nature as God. Maybe you disagree?

It is my understanding that God knows all things because that is what it is to be God; it is a divine attribute of God; not because he has “seen” all things, but because it is logically impossible for God not to know all things. So far as God is Existence its-very-self, there can be nothing in Existence that God at some point didn’t know about, and neither can anything come to exist that God does not know or permeate—since God is the eternal cause of all things. Therefore an act in time, free or otherwise, cannot itself determine Gods knowledge. God must know by his own nature of being; he must know by the logical necessity of being “Existence” itself.

It seems to me a dangerous mistake to think that God knows-all-things but only knows them because he was present at a particular time or at all times. Accepting this view would mean that we would also have to accept that God “learned” all events in time, whether that is from all eternity or finitely; which seems to me to be incompatible with an eternal all knowingness. If we posit a God that infinitely regresses in time, the original problem is not alleviated, because it would mean that God is not the cause of all things and so his attributes would be determined rather then defined by the existence of other things.

The whole point is this; If God is timeless, then God must know all things. But in order to retain the attribute of all-knowingness, such knowledge can only be achieved through the knowledge of ones self, rather then through the creation of something else. And If this is not in fact the case, then it would seem that we are risk of doing severe harm to the concept of an all-knowing God. And neither can we resort to the idea that God cannot do the logically impossible, because, although this is true when we consider the problem of evil and freewill, it is however impossible for God not to know all things so far as God is timeless and is the cause of all things. Once one ignores this; we end up reducing God to his creation. All-knowingness would no longer be a primary attribute in the first sense, but only in the second sense of knowing his creation. Therefore for it would be wrong to say that God is all-knowing in the first sense. Instead it would be correct to say that God is in fact reliant upon his creation for knowledge; and that all knowingness is not a primary attribute of God, like love is.

This move, although it alleviates certain problems, destroys classical theism and contradicts the biblical tradition.

To be continued…
 
How things should be.

I think the problem arises when we fail to see that anything that possibly exists exists not because God foresaw them, but because they flow naturally from Gods being. We are the logical consequence of God existence, rather then just a causal one. When talking about Gods relationship to the Universe, I do not think it’s strictly correct to speak of a causal relationship" as if to say that the universe is something that didn’t have to exist but God decided one day to create it. The word Creation, is to me, an old human metaphor that is useful in demonstrating the idea that God is the Supreme Being or the ground of Being, but it is not useful in identifying the actual process of how God one-day came to create the universe.(Creation is better understood as a function of time).

Instead, since God is timeless, it is better to understand Gods relationship to us as a **hierarchical **relationship. One might mistake this as a pantheistic notion, but this is not what I mean. What I truly mean is that the universe exists, only because of Gods mere presence; as in, it “emanates” necessarily from Gods attributes simultaneously at the event of there being such a thing as God. From a Gods eye view, we have always existed as an eternal consequence of Gods creative attribute; even though from our point of view, it appears if there is a passing of moments, extending ultimately from a singularity. Just like heat and light “emanates” (a wonderful term expressed by St Bonaventure) necessarily from the mechanistic attributes of the sun, God necessitates the existence of all things so far as they reflect Gods nature and the glory of good.

In this fact, we can see why God says that His creation is “Good” because they flow necessarily from “Good” and return to Good (God). This means that it is impossible for the universe not to exist so far as all possible things emanate from Gods existence immediately. Our universe, existentially, is a logically possible thing; therefore it exists necessarily and has always existed; and God has always known all events in that universe. But this is not because of an eternal “experience”, but because God perfectly knows himself. Likewise freewill exists as a necessary attribute of love; therefore, nomally, there cannot be a person that does not have freewill. We do not understand how, but Gods Being necessitates the reflection of freewill in his creatures, while at the same time, animating things towards their logical end.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Gods Knowledge And His Relationship With Creation.

I have started this thread because i have noticed on another thread (about freewill and determinism), what seems to me to be a fualty idea about Gods attribute of knowledge, so far as it reflects how God knows about his creation. Therefore I see it as my duty to challenge what I see as a common error that needs to be weeded out.
Click to expand...
i have seen the same error that you speak about here, but i have yet to receive a reply from a proponent of this idea as to the mechanism by which G-ds knowledge is linked to a persons free will, i assume from that silence that no such mechanism exists, rather it is an assumption that fits the disbelievers preconceived bias but it seems that ultimately a faulty cosmology is the problem.

yet i am becoming disillusioned with the idea of weeding out obvious errors, at least in this forum. i have noticed that when an argument is well refuted, i will see that same argument offered elsewhere on another thread, as though the person is not aware of the faults in that argument, as i dont believe there is a rash stupidity, i must question the motives of disbelievers that post here. in fact i am beginning to believe that sowing the seeds of doubt in the minds of those whose faith may be vulnerable is indeed their motivation to continue these practices
First of all, I just want to point out that my primary position concerning the reconciliation of Gods attributes, is a plea to human ignorance on the basis that God becomes, necessarily at some point, a Divine Mystery. Personally I think that it is reasonable to assume that some issues are beyond are comprehension. And Gods relationship with knowledge and freewill is one of them. It is a mystery; it is not just a matter of logic, and it is not reasonable to think that all matters of logic are discernable by the human. I think it would be fruitful to focus on things that we can prove (as in, demonstrate logically) and be honest about things that we can’t. For instance; can you imagine what its like to be a 5th dimensional being? The mere fact that you can’t doesn’t mean that there is not in fact a 5th dimension, or that one is unreasonable for inferring its existence. Take the dual nature of “quantum physics” it’s not something we can understand, and it does appear, to some degree, contradictory so far as classical physics is concerned; but it is evident that quantum physics is a legitimate science. Therefore I don’t think it’s reasonable to doubt Gods existence on the bases of ignorance or apparent incompatibility, especially if it is possible to demonstrate the necessity of God as a casual explanation. I agree that we should not use divine mystery wily-nily as an excuse when the cards are against us, but if God is the best explanation in regards to other problems concerning existence, then the argument from the basis of “Divine Mystery” is legitimate; and is not an avoidance of the freewill or foreknowledge problem.
Click to expand...
i have found the claim of ignorance (negative, or weak atheism) to be an avoidance of a discussion on cosmology. i have not found, at least here, atheist capable of truly defending their arguments, i am sure they exist somewhere, i am still searching. i have come to the conclusion that many people simply read some part of harris, hawkins, or hitchens and then declare themselves atheists. others seem to have taken a philosophy 101 course and done the same.

all of which leads me to the idea that atheism as an intellectual pursuit, at least this ‘new atheism’, is a paper tiger, suitable only for debate with the like minded, not for serious consideration in any other intellectual arena.
 
MindOverMatter said:
Here is an argument for you. I make this argument because I think that there are things about Gods foreknowledge that Christians take for granted when they debate. (Bare in mind that I may very well be mistaken; and for those who unfortunately have a weak faith, it is not my agenda to cause doubt).

If Gods foreknowledge is reliant upon the actions of his creatures, then it would seem that God is not all-knowing and is not himself the cause of all knowledge; In other words, his divine attributes are dependent on his creation; which seems to me to impinge on his powers and his nature as God. Maybe you disagree?
Click to expand...
i am coming to the position, based on cosmology, that from the view point of G-d the universe is/was/will be a temporal singularity. as though the act of creation occurred instantaneously to Him. with infinite ‘processing’ power all things would be instantaneously known, decided and all actions accomplished entirely within that temporal singularity. only from our limited ‘processing’ power do we sense that singularity as a continuum of time from which we can then order the universe along the lines of causality.

but as i said i am just coming to that idea, it could change with better argumentation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top