The problem with forknowledge

[Vera_Ljuba]

God does not learn.

… not even from his own mistakes. Supposedly he created this world, where people “abused” his gift of free will, then instead of fine-tuning the level of freedom, he simply drowned his failed experiment. That is already pretty bad, but then he added insult to injury. He did not start with a better, new improved design… he allowed the same failed experiment to continue. And that is something that an infinitely wise creator would do? You gotta be kidding.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

I don’t see how it followers that knowing a contingent thing makes the knower contingent.

God is supposed to be “simple”. It means that God has no “parts”, in other words God’s essence cannot be separated from his existence. As such, God’s knowledge cannot be separated from his essence either. However, if God’s knowledge depends on what we do, then God’s knowledge is contingent upon our actions. But since God’s knowledge cannot be separated from his essence, it follows that God’s essence is also contingent. Which is contradictory to the assumption that God is sovereign.

Just another nail in the coffin of the God of philosophers.

It is rather amusing to see how ardently you guys try to separate the biblical God from the God of the philosophers.

 

[Gorgias]

You are still missing the point.

No, not really. It’s just that your point is ill-conceived…

The fact that God sees everything else at once is accidental to the problem. Accidental, remember that.

I disagree. It’s essential, not accidental, that God is omniscient and omnipresent. That He “sees everything at once” is part of the description of who He is.

God chooses to create us, we make choices. It doesn’t matter whether He sees it at once or not. That is accidental.

Again, no. It really does matter that His knowledge is complete and all-pervasive.

The fact is that because of His non-necessary choice there is a new element in reality: my free will. NOW, ontologically, He possesses new knowledge, knowledge He would not have had if He had decided not to create.

You’re dancing an odd two-step here. It feels a little bit like the Molinist notion of ‘counter-factuals’… but it takes the notion of “knowledge of what is not” and attempts to apply it to God rather than to His creation. That little move is what derails your argument. “If God had not” doesn’t change the equation: He did, and therefore, what He did not do doesn’t enter into the analysis.

Therefore, there’s no “new knowledge”: there’s God’s eternal will, and there’s His knowledge of His will (which is complete and unfettered). In other words, there’s nothing here that God “learns”; rather, He knows His will eternally, and therefore, He knows the effects of His will eternally. The fact that the humans He created have free will does not create any “new knowledge” for Him.

Since He IS His own thoughts, He changes with this new knowledge (which, accidentally, he has from eternity).

God doesn’t change. If that were true, then He would move from either less perfection to more perfection – or vice versa – implying that at some point, He was/is less than perfect. That runs counter to the definition of God.

it seems nobody is getting the force of the argument yet. Its easy pezzy to me

No, we’re getting it. It just happens to be wrong. Easy, peasy… but wrong.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You are still missing the point. The fact that God sees everything else at once is accidental to the problem. Accidental, remember that. This is because there are ontological layers. God chooses to create us, we make choices. It doesn’t matter whether He sees it at once or not. That is accidental. The fact is that because of His non-necessary choice there is a new element in reality: my free will. NOW, ontologically, He possesses new knowledge, knowledge He would not have had if He had decided not to create. Since He IS His own thoughts, He changes with this new knowledge (which, accidentally, he has from eternity). I provided a counter to this argument of mine, but it seems nobody is getting the force of the argument yet. Its easy pezzy to me

You cannot simply dismiss it as accidental without reason, it is the farthest thing from accidental. It is a necessary component of any discussion of God’s understanding / knowledge / being. Regardless of whether or not our creation was necessary, the fact of it has been the same eternally. There was never an “eternity” in which God has chosen not to create us. Given that all of eternity is an eternal NOW to God, we have always existed eternally in His perception. Therefore, there was never a point in which God’s knowledge did not encompass our existence.

If God’s knowledge was subject to causality, you would be correct, but as has been thoroughly established, it is not. I’m sorry, but you’re still applying concepts inherent to time to God’s understanding. Please stop saying we misunderstand your argument or are missing the point. That is not the case. We understand the point you think you are making perfectly fine. The issue is that your point is drawn from a flawed understanding of the nature of eternity.

There was never anything “new” introduced to eternity. That would violate the very nature of what it means to be eternal. The reality of our creation has been constant through all of eternity, nothing changed. From God’s perspective, I choose to engage in this discussion. There is no “I will choose” or “I chose”, only the present choice I am making. Every choice throughout all that we perceive as past, present, and future, exists this way to God simultaneously, and (through the inappropriate application of temporal language to God), HAS always existed and WILL always exist in this way. We perceive these choices as change because we are limited in understanding by the flow of time, but the same is not true for God. As I said before, our understanding of reality and God’s understanding are as different as night and day.

Being “easy pezzy” to you doesn’t actually make it correct. I know plenty of relativists who claim that the “fact” that there’s no absolute truth is obvious to them. That doesn’t actually mean there’s no absolute truth.

 

[Lucretius]

As such, God’s knowledge cannot be separated from his essence either. However, if God’s knowledge depends on what we do, then God’s knowledge is contingent upon our actions

Created things are all created in the likeness of God. So, when God understands created things, he does so by simply knowing himself, and thus the likeness from which he created the thing. In fact, he knows these things before they are even made.

It is rather amusing to see how ardently you guys try to separate the biblical God from the God of the philosophers.

Natural theology is like deriving all you can know about a creature from its footprints, etc., while revelatory theology is like seeing the creature itself. Either way, both approaches ultimately refer to the same object.

I mean, my eyes see red, my tongue tastes sweetness, and the hand feels smoothness, but all of this knowledge from different senses is still knowledge of the same object: an apple, if you didn’t know

Christi pax.

 

[Gorgias]

However, if God’s knowledge depends on what we do, then God’s knowledge is contingent upon our actions.

It’s a good argument, but it’s not true that God’s knowledge depends on us. He foreknows our choices, and therefore, his knowledge doesn’t depend on us (nor does He have to ‘wait’ until we act ‘before’ He knows our choices).

Your logic is good – but you incorrectly value one of your premises.

It is rather amusing to see how ardently you guys try to separate the biblical God from the God of the philosophers.

It’s just as amusing to see how ardently you attempt to convince us that your personal take on God – that is, your personal (mis-)conception of God – is who God actually is.

 

[thinkandmull]

God’s decision is outside of time. But it was a decision. It was not the necessary knowledge He knows. So there is a secondary knowledge, knowledge of His contingent acts. That knowledge would have been in His mind differently had He decided to create differently. It is in His mind in the way it was made. But this secondary knowledge is not essential to His nature. Otherwise He would have had to create. Therefore the secondary knowledge is added to His knowledge. He IS His thoughts. So he changes by His contingent acts. Prove me wrong

 

[thinkandmull]

It’s a good argument, but it’s not true that God’s knowledge depends on us. He foreknows our choices, and therefore, his knowledge doesn’t depend on us (nor does He have to ‘wait’ until we act ‘before’ He knows our choices).

Your logic is good – but you incorrectly value one of your premises.

It’s just as amusing to see how ardently you attempt to convince us that your personal take on God – that is, your personal (mis-)conception of God – is who God actually is.

He foreknows what we will do but can only know what we do once we do it, although this is known eternally. That’s the truth of the matter

 

[Gorgias]

He foreknows what we will do but can only know what we do once we do it, although this is known eternally. That’s the truth of the matter

In other words, He knows all things always. Without contingency. Without new knowledge. Always.

 

[Gorgias]

God’s decision is outside of time. But it was a decision.

Actually, no. It’s not a ‘decision’, it was an ‘act of will’. It’s a subtle distinction, but important. God knows His will eternally. So, He’s not gaining “new knowledge” through action.

It was not the necessary knowledge He knows. So there is a secondary knowledge, knowledge of His contingent acts.

You’re talking about God’s “free knowledge” here. However, God’s free knowledge is never unknown to Him at any time.

That knowledge would have been in His mind differently had He decided to create differently.

Perhaps. Yet, it isn’t the case that He willed differently. Therefore, there’s no variability or change in God’s knowledge. You’re not helping your case here.

But this secondary knowledge is not essential to His nature.

However, possession of this knowledge is essential to His nature.

Therefore the secondary knowledge is added to His knowledge.

No. God’s free knowledge is distinct from His knowledge of necessary truths; but that doesn’t mean that it’s ‘added’ in some sort of sequential or contingent way.

So he changes by His contingent acts.

No, He doesn’t. God is unchanging. This is rock-solid doctrine. If your assertions depend on this claim (and they do), then you’re sunk: you’re wrong.

Prove me wrong

Just did. Twice, I think.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

It’s a good argument, but it’s not true that God’s knowledge depends on us. He foreknows our choices, and therefore, his knowledge doesn’t depend on us (nor does He have to ‘wait’ until we act ‘before’ He knows our choices).

Your logic is good – but you incorrectly value one of your premises.

Let’s just look at it in abstract fashion. Mathematically, if you will.

There are two huge sets. One is the set which is comprised of our (allegedly free) actions. Let’s call this set “A”. The other one is the collection of God’s knowledge. Let’s call this set “K”. God’s knowledge is more exhaustive than our acts - God’s knowledge is not restricted to our acts. In other words, God knows everything we do, and a whole lot of other things. Let’s call the subset of God’s knowledge which pertains to our actions “B”. In other words, the overall set of God’s knowledge contains the knowledge of our actions - as a subset.

So the proposition that God “knows” all of our actions can be described as a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of “A” and the elements of “B”.

Now how can it be that every element of “A” has a corresponding element of “B”? How does God know our acts? There are exactly four different ways how this can happen.

1. God knows our actions because he observes them. In this scenario our actions are primary and God’s knowledge is contingent.
2. God’s knowledge is primary and we just “play out” what he already knows.
3. There is some unknown agent, who (or what) causes both God’s knowledge and our actions.
4. There is a huge, cosmic coincidence the result of which is this incredible correspondence between God’s knowledge and our actions.

I suggest you examine this analysis. Get back with your results.

It’s just as amusing to see how ardently you attempt to convince us that your personal take on God – that is, your personal (mis-)conception of God – is who God actually is.

Since I never presented my personal “take” on God - except that I do not believe that God exists, you cannot have any information what my “take” on God might be. One the other hand I see many individual propositions about God’s alleged attributes, so I am in the position to reflect on them… and I see a plethora of contradictions.

Especially pertaining to the God of the Bible versus the God of the philosophers.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

See you didn’t get my argument. God’s knows eternally, but He knows FROM what I do. So He has EXTRA knowledge based on what I do. He is his thoughts, so why don’t my choices change Him

See post #34 If you don’t understand what is written there, I unfortunately can’t help you.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

… not even from his own mistakes. Supposedly he created this world, where people “abused” his gift of free will, then instead of fine-tuning the level of freedom, he simply drowned his failed experiment. That is already pretty bad, but then he added insult to injury. He did not start with a better, new improved design… he allowed the same failed experiment to continue. And that is something that an infinitely wise creator would do? You gotta be kidding.

Unfortunately, when you try to take this single story out of context and without a comprehension of God’s love and His revealing of himself through the arc of salvation history, you end up with a rather distorted perception.

If the God we as Catholics believed in was as incompetent as the distorted view put forth in your post, then we would indeed be a joke.

Fortunately we have an understanding based on the whole picture of God’s revelation of Himself to us, and by the desires written upon our hearts. These two come together to form a relationship between Creator and creation. If you do not have or open yourself to this relationship, then coming to know God is nearly impossible.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

God’s decision is outside of time. But it was a decision

The definition of decision is “a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.”

Deciding is something that can only occur within time. God possesses only a single act of will. There was never a “time” that God willed Himself to exist and to not will creation, and then a different “time” when God partook of a second act to make a “decision” or come to the conclusion that He would now like to change His original will of there being only Himself for all eternity, and instead will that there be Himself and all of creation.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Unfortunately, when you try to take this single story out of context and without a comprehension of God’s love and His revealing of himself through the arc of salvation history, you end up with a rather distorted perception.

If the God we as Catholics believed in was as incompetent as the distorted view put forth in your post, then we would indeed be a joke.

Fortunately we have an understanding based on the whole picture of God’s revelation of Himself to us, and by the desires written upon our hearts. These two come together to form a relationship between Creator and creation. If you do not have or open yourself to this relationship, then coming to know God is nearly impossible.

There is no “context”.

You can assert that the whole Bible is just a story, and nothing can be taken seriously. No creation, no Garden of Eden, no fall, no deluge… nothing but a creation myth, quite like other creation stories. That would be one approach.

The other one is that everything is literally correct, as the unfailing, true word of God.

The third one is the way of the Cafeteria Believers, who pick and choose which verses are literal and which need to be interpreted. They are the least trustworthy, because they adjust their interpretation to support what they already believe.

This third type of Catholic is what you claim to be.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Imagine an experienced professional photographer. He can look at subject, then look at the shutter speed, the aperture, the ISO, etc… that the camera is set to, and before taking the picture know what the picture will look like.

Photographers use this knowledge to adjust the settings of their cameras ahead of time to ensure that the pictures will turn out however they desire for the pictures to turn out. An expert photographer doesn’t need to take a picture, then look at how it turned out, then adjust settings, then take another picture… The just know what the picture will will be before it is taken, and the taking of the picture or the post editing or developing of the picture is not necessary for them to know that.

Master musicians can write music on a page without ever hearing them be played, while still knowing what they will sound like when they are played. Artists can see their works before they are completed.

If these imperfect creatures can have a form of this knowing how their creations will turn out before they have come to fruition, then why would their perfect Creator not know exactly how they turn out before they were created?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

There is no “context”.

You can assert that the whole Bible is just a story, and nothing can be taken seriously. No creation, no Garden of Eden, no fall, no deluge… nothing but a creation myth, quite like other creation stories. That would be one approach.

The other one is that everything is literally correct, as the unfailing, true word of God.

The third one is the way of the Cafeteria Believers, who pick and choose which verses are literal and which need to be interpreted. They are the least trustworthy, because they adjust their interpretation to support what they already believe.

This third type of Catholic is what you claim to be.

From the “Symbolon” series:

"The Catholic approach to Scripture is different from the fundamentalist view, which reads Scripture in a literalistic way. To discern the truth God put in Scripture, we must interpret the Bible literarily, remembering that God speaks to us in a human way, through the human writers of Scripture.

That means that we examine the context and intent of the author for any given passage. For example, when the author of the Song of Solomon stated, “You are beautiful; your eyes are doves,” he did not intend for the reader to think his beloved literally had doves in her eyes, but that her eyes were as captivating as doves (Song of Solomon 1:15).

However, when the writer intended to convey historical truth, such as reporting that Jesus’s tomb was empty, indicating the reality of the Resurrection, we interpret those passages as literal fact.

As the Catechism explains, to interpret the Bible correctly, one must consider the historical context, the culture, the literary genres, and the modes of expression and narratives common to the biblical writers’ time (CCC 109-110).

When we interpret the Bible correctly, considering the human writer’s intention and what the Holy Spirit wishes to reveal through the human writer, we will come to know the truth God reveals in Scripture."

• God is the author of the Sacred Scriptures. He inspired human writers who wrote
as true authors, using their own language, style, and powers. But God worked in
them and by them so that they consigned to writing “whatever he wanted written,
and no more” (CCC 105-106).

• Because God is the divine author and everything affirmed by the human writers is
affirmed by the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures always teach the truth (CCC 107).

• The Bible is not to be read in a literalistic way, but literarily, with attention to
what the human writers intend to affirm and to what God wants to reveal through
them (CCC 108-114).

• All Scripture tells a single story—the story of salvation that culminates in Jesus.
The Old Testament prepares for the New, and the New Testament fulfills the Old
(CCC 101-102, 122, 128-129).

• The Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Spirit, has discerned which
books are included in the list (or canon) of authentic Scriptures (CCC 120).

• The Church has always seen the Scriptures as essential to nourish and govern
Christian lives (CCC 131)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That means that we examine the context and intent of the author for any given passage.

That is the general cop-out for any criticism. Every time you cannot give an argument, you (in general, not personal you) come up with: "you must examine the context and intent (as if you could know the intent!).

So what is the “correct” interpretation of the quoted analysis:

“Supposedly he created this world, where people “abused” his gift of free will, then instead of fine-tuning the level of freedom, he simply drowned his failed experiment. That is already pretty bad, but then he added insult to injury. He did not start with a better, new improved design… he allowed the same failed experiment to continue.”

And, being omniscient, he knew all that before all that happened. You wrote:

“If the God we as Catholics believed in was as incompetent as the distorted view put forth in your post, then we would indeed be a joke.”

Where is this distortion? It is a cheap shot to accuse others to “distort” the reality, but you need to show where the distortion happened, and what is the correct interpretation?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

That is the general cop-out for any criticism. Every time you cannot give an argument, you (in general, not personal you) come up with: "you must examine the context and intent (as if you could know the intent!).

So what is the “correct” interpretation of the quoted analysis:

“Supposedly he created this world, where people “abused” his gift of free will, then instead of fine-tuning the level of freedom, he simply drowned his failed experiment. That is already pretty bad, but then he added insult to injury. He did not start with a better, new improved design… he allowed the same failed experiment to continue.”

And, being omniscient, he knew all that before all that happened. You wrote:

“If the God we as Catholics believed in was as incompetent as the distorted view put forth in your post, then we would indeed be a joke.”

Where is this distortion? It is a cheap shot to accuse others to “distort” the reality, but you need to show where the distortion happened, and what is the correct interpretation?

The distortion is the idea that we are a failed experiment, and that we are a byproduct of something other than love. God desires us to have a relationship with Him. He does not force this relationship upon us, but invites us to join in it freely. He did not fine tune the level of freedom, because it then would not be true freedom. God lets us have the freedom to reject Him if we so choose, even to the point of death and damnation.

In the time before the flood, God had only formed a relationship with man through the covenant relationship with Adam. This covenant relationship was rejected by man and would remain fractured until it could be restored by a new covenant. At the time of the flood, God renewed the covenant with man and expanded it to include a family.

Eventually we see God continually revealing more and more about Himself throughout the scriptures, renewing and expanding the relationship to include more and more of humanity. It is by this gradual process that God shows us who He is, and how we are to maintain a relationship with Him.

If God just floated around on a cloud all day striking down people, our relationship with Him would not be one out of love, but would be based solely on fear and submission.

If you truly want to understand better, I suggest you read the book Bible Basics for Catholics: A New Picture of Salvation History by John Bergsma. He lays out a good basic overview of how to understand the gradual progression of the covenant relationships between God and humanity.

As for more information regarding the flood specifically, I would suggest the Catholic Encyclopedia: Deluge

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Ultimately Vera Ljuba, your question about the flood is one that can’t be answered sufficiently without first coming to an understanding that God exists.

You seeking to understand something without the pre-requisite knowledge and assent necessary is not going to yield fruit. It’s like arguing about what something looks like with someone who is covering their eyes. Until you come to the point of acknowledging God’s existence, there is little point in trying to argue nuances or difficulties in the understanding of any particular system of religious belief. Without you first having a foundational belief in God based on logic and reason, there is no hope for me to be able to build a case for explaining the flood to you.

Really, the morality, rationality, and justification of God’s motive in the flood strays from the topic of this thread and would be better discussed in a separate thread, and there are several threads on this topic already if you wish to read more on it.