The problem with forknowledge

[STT]

Well, if the question is actually “does everything consciously present itself to God” the answer is no. But if your question is “is everything present to God’s consciousness,” then the answer is yes.

I meant the second one.

Things are not mixed and garbled because God’s consciousness is not finite, it is infinite. He can provide infinite focus on an infinite number of things. That is what it means to be omniscience and omnipresent.

I can really argue against that. I have other disproofs for existence of God. I can give them the link if you wish.

Because they provide the foundation for HOW God understands and experience things. They are absolutely essential as the foundation for any discussion about God’s interaction with us.

I see.

 

[STT]

It is most certainly not contrary to the notion of free will.

There is only one configuration of things depending on our decisions. God cannot will another configuration. We decide and God sustains.

Say I give you twenty dollars. You can chose to go buy… let’s a say a new movie, or a couple of books. The choice is yours.

Now, say that instead of twenty dollars, I give you twenty-thousand. Now you can chose a vastly different set of things to buy, either more things, more expensive things, etc. You could even still decide to buy the same movie or the same books, and ignore the rest of the money.

The possible outcomes may be different, but the choice of what to do with the money remains yours.

This I understand.

 

[STT]

The knowledge and understanding of God is totally independent of things.

No. Things are either actual or potential. God has separate knowledge of things therefore His knowledge depends on things.

Created things are not its object…the understanding of God is its own object.

What do you mean? Could you please expand it?

Things can change - but the knowledge of God remains unchanged.

That I agree.

Because it is* God *Who is its object. Not things.

What do you mean? Could you please expand it?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I can really argue against that. I have other disproofs for existence of God. I can give them the link if you wish.

No thanks, not to be mean or anything, but I don’t have more time to spend on this discussion. I’ve seen your “proofs” before and I’ve also seen them easily refuted. I don’t feel the need to repeat the experience.

There is only one configuration of things depending on our decisions. God cannot will another configuration. We decide and God sustains.

There is only one actual configuration of reality because of our choices, that is true; but there are nearly infinite possible configurations, all of which are within the scope of God’s knowledge. If God did will another configuration, then that would be the configuration, period. If He actively willed to overwrite our free will, He could do so easily; but He does not, and He will not, because He loves us.

This I understand.

Well, if you understand it then you have to see that your argument is flawed.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

What do you mean? Could you please expand it?

Look back a page or two, I tried to formulate it in a way that would be easier for you to understand.

Essentially, God’s knowledge is specifically of Himself, not of any individual object. He doesn’t know me through me or through direct knowledge of me, He knows me through His knowledge of Himself.

Since God is Being itself, and His knowledge is perfect knowledge of Himself, then His knowledge is of Being itself. However, the object of that knowledge remains Himself, and not any particular aspect of being.

This is getting into some really high level philosophy though…

 

[STT]

Things are not mixed and garbled because God’s consciousness is not finite, it is infinite. He can provide infinite focus on an infinite number of things. That is what it means to be omniscience and omnipresent.

Actually there is a problem with this picture. Your God can have infinite focus on an infinite number of things but He has also to know the relation between each things (for example how things are sorted in term of time). This means that He needs to be conscious of all of His focuses and their relations at once otherwise He doesn’t have the whole picture. This is however problematic since He has to have one focus to have the whole picture at the same time have infinite focus.

 

[Bookcat]

No. Things are either actual or potential. God has separate knowledge of things therefore His knowledge depends on things.

Incorrect.

Your again not thinking about God. But a creature.

God does not know things the way we know things.

See above

What do you mean? Could you please expand it?

STT is approaching God as if God were a creature knowing things as the object of his knowledge. Tis not how God knows. It is God Who is the object of his knowledge - not things. Once one realizes that - that God knows very differently than do we creatures - that can be a good step into further understanding (which can then take place in the study of such as Maritain on this matter…rather than posts in a forum which are by nature limited).

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Actually there is a problem with this picture. Your God can have infinite focus on an infinite number of things but He has also to know the relation between each things (for example how things are sorted in term of time). This means that He needs to be conscious of all of His focuses and their relations at once otherwise He doesn’t have the whole picture.

good… good…

This is however problematic since He has to have one focus to have the whole picture at the same time have infinite focus.

So close! You were right up until this last point. (Sorry, don’t mean to sound patronizing, I’m watching Sherlock and Cumberbatch’s habits are infectious. No offense intended.)

This isn’t problematic. If God were finite, it would be, but, as discussed, He isn’t. God is infinite. He can have infinite focuses all at once, He is not limited to just one. As such, He can have focus on the individual objects as well as their relationship to each other object. Having the one focus does not detract from His ability to have an infinite number of -other- focuses.

Again, this is another area where you have to stop thinking about God in human terms. I know you say that you’re not, but your posts clearly show that you are. It’s hard not to, I know, it’s difficult for all of us, but it is a necessary step you have to take to do this subject justice.