The problem with forknowledge

[STT]

There is no problem. One can say it is not about “foreknowledge”.

God *sees. *

Yes, the problem exactly is that how what God sees could be contingent. In another word, universe could exist or not upon God’s decision so God sees and doesn’t see at the same time.

 

[STT]

I think the question is one of necessity and contingency. God loves mankind. Pope Benedict even wrote that God has eros for us. But His knowledge of us is not part of His necessary nature so it doesn’t change that nature. The knowledge in His mind of us is as if nothing because we are like nothing in our contingency. Does ANYONE agree with my analysis or am I way off. Otherwise, there is a problem here. God is His own thoughts. He choices to create and thus has those thoughts added to His ‘normal’ thoughts. Wouldn’t that change His nature

I don’t agree. I think God’s knowledge of universe is contingent.

 

[STT]

I suspect that, unsurprisingly, your dilemma here might be based on how you understand the definition of these terms.

‘Contingent’, in a philosophical sense, merely means “not necessary.” That is, it’s something that does not have to exist, per se.

However, you seem to be using it to say something different – as if it means that it’s unknown by God.

That’s your hang-up right there, I think: by presuming that God doesn’t know certain things “until” they happen in the context of time, you’re attempting to place God in a quandry.

Yes, the universe is contingent. Yes, God knows it fully – “foreknows” it, from the perspective of within the space-time framework. Since God exists outside that framework, though, He’s not “surprised” by it, nor does He have to “wait” until things happen in order to know them.

In other words, the universe is never “unknown” or obscured from God, and God is not contingent.

The dilemma is as following. If universe is contingent (not necessary) then it means it could exist or not . Therefore God’s knowledge, foreknowledge (what He sees could exist or not), is contingent too.

 

[STT]

The knowledge belonging to God is not something “learned” by Him over time. His omniscience, omnipotence, and existence outside of the bounds of time means that:

1.) He does not gain knowledge (due to the lack of potentiality in Him)
2.) He knows all possible things, outcomes, times, etc… that are (See here)
3.) He knows all possible things, outcomes, times, etc… that are not (see here)
4.) He understands all things together (see here)
5.) His knowledge is not habitual (see here)
6.) His knowledge is not ratiocinative or discursive (see here)
7.) He does not come to understand by composing and dividing (see here)

You cannot understand this if you look at God as acting in a sequential fashion. God wills Himself into existence; not willed in the past, not will will in the future, but eternally, perpetually wills. It is an eternal, single act.

By this same eternal, single act of will, God wills both himself and other things (see here). The only thing willed out of necessity is God’s own being and goodness. (see here)

What do you mean with God will Himself?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

What do you mean with God will Himself?

Did you read the information at the links in my post? Second to last link in my post expands on this.

 

[STT]

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

God is knowledge. Contingent mean not necessary. Something which is contingent could exist or not therefore what God see is also contingent.

That’s like saying knowing plants makes me a plant.

That doesn’t mean that.

As the Scholastics say, the known is in the knower in the mode of the knower.

Christi pax.

Hmmm.

 

[STT]

Did you read the information at the links in my post? Second to last link in my post expands on this.

That is too long and I am short in time. Could you please elaborate?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The dilemma is as following. If universe is contingent (not necessary) then it means it could exist or not .

True. The universe only exists because it is God’s will that it exists.

Therefore God’s knowledge, foreknowledge (what He sees could exist or not), is contingent too.

This is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not flow from the premise. You seem to be forgetting that, in addition to knowing all that is, God also knows all that could be. There is no potential that God does not know, therefore, His knowledge is not contingent on our existence; because whether he created us or not, He would still know all eventualities. The includes a unique knowledge of what actually exists since it is what exists in God’s eternal NOW.

The problem is that you’re applying a cause and affect relationship to God’s knowledge. He created us, therefore He knows us. This is not the proper mode of knowledge for God. The mere fact that we are a potentiality, let alone an actuality, means that God knows us, just as He knows all other potentials that could have existed, and all the repercussions of every choice we have ever had the capacity to make.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That is too long and I am short in time. Could you please elaborate?

It’s really, really hard to shorthand the Summa, and trying to do so will probably only confuse the matter further.

These questions are not something that can be boiled down into a quick answer, they require in-depth study and the humility to realize that your understanding might be flawed, or might fall short of greater minds’. These are subjects that philosophers have dedicated large portions of their lives to. You can’t expect to get a complete picture of the arguments unless you’re willing to really delve into them.

Any knowledge worth having takes effort, and knowledge of God is the most worthwhile kind of knowledge there is.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

That is too long and I am short in time. Could you please elaborate?

If you are too short on time to read a few paragraphs, then you are unfortunately not prepared to undertake trying to understand these concepts. I will try to pull some of the most relevant paragraphs for you, but your really need to read the document, or at least the chapters referenced in my links if you truly want to understand. The chapters are each only about a page long, so this should be manageable.

From Summa Contra Gentiles:

Ch. 73 THAT THE WILL OF GOD IS HIS ESSENCE
…
[3] Again, as to understand is the perfection of the one understanding, so to will is the perfection of the one willing; for both are actions remaining in the agent and not going out (as does heat) to some receiving subject. But the understanding of God is His being, as was proved above. For, since the divine being is in itself most perfect, it admits of no superadded perfection, as was proved above. The divine willing also is, therefore, His being; and hence the will of God is His essence.

[4] Moreover, since every agent acts in so far as it is in act, God, Who is pure act, must act through His essence. Willing, however, is a certain operation of God. Therefore, God must be endowed with will through His essence. Therefore, His will is His essence.

Ch. 74 THAT THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT OF THE DIVINE WILL IS THE DIVINE ESSENCE
…
[5] Furthermore, for each being endowed with a will the principal object willed is the ultimate end. For the end is willed through itself, and through it other things become objects of will. But the ultimate end is God Himself, since He is the highest good, as has been shown. Therefore, God is the principal object of His will.

Ch. 75 THAT IN WILLING HIMSELF GOD ALSO WILLS OTHER THINGS
…
[5] Furthermore, in willing Himself God wills all that is in Him. But all things in a certain manner pre-exist in Him through their proper models, as was shown above. God, therefore, in willing Himself likewise wills other things.

[6] Then, again, the more perfect the power of a being, by so much does its causality extend to more, and more remote, things, as was said above. But the causality of the end consists in this, that other things are desired for its sake. The more perfect an end, therefore, and the more willed, by so much does the will of one willing the end extend to more things for the sake of that end. But the divine essence is most perfect as goodness and as end. It will, therefore, supremely diffuse its causality to many, so that many things may be willed for its sake; and especially so by God, Who wills the divine essence perfectly according to its power.

[7] Moreover, will accompanies intellect. But by His intellect God principally understands Himself, and He understands other things in Himself. In the same way, therefore, He principally wills Himself, and wills all other things in willing Himself.

Ch. 76 THAT GOD WILLS HIMSELF AND OTHER THINGS BY ONE ACT OF WILL
…
[5] Again, since God wills Himself always, if He wills Himself and other things by different acts it will follow that there are at once two acts of will in Him. This is impossible, since one simple power does not have at once two operations.

[6] Furthermore, in every act of the will the object willed is to the one willing as a mover to the moved. If, then, there be some action of the divine will, by which God wills things other than Himself, which is diverse from the action by which He wills Himself, there will be in Him some other mover of the divine will. This is impossible.

[7] Moreover, God’s willing is His being, as has been proved. But in God there is only one being. Therefore, there is in Him only one willing.
Item.

[8] Again, willing belongs to God according as He is intelligent. Therefore, just as by one act He understands Himself and other things, in so far as His essence is the exemplar of all things, so by one act He wills Himself and other things, in so far as His goodness is the likeness of all goodness.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, the problem exactly is that how what God sees could be contingent. In another word, universe could exist or not upon God’s decision so God sees and doesn’t see at the same time.

Again not a problem.

Nope - *sees.
*

(there is no “doesn’t see”)

Your difficulty comes from your experience as a creature and being in time.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Yes. Let’s…

In other words, the overall set of God’s knowledge contains the knowledge of our actions - as a subset.

Fine.

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”.

Easy enough. To generalize, since ‘B’ is a proper subset of ‘K’, there’s a mapping function (M), such that for every element in ‘B’ (e[sub]B[/sub]) there is exactly one element in ‘K’ (e[sub]K[/sub]), such that M(e[sub]B[/sub]) → e[sub]K[/sub]. Piece of cake.

There’s one part of the analysis that you’re missing, however. There’s also a mapping function (let’s call it (X) (for χρόνος!)). This function maps a time and an observer to a set of actions. In other words, not all observers have observed all actions at all points in time. In fact, for all observers ‘O[sub]h[/sub]’,

| X(O[sub]h[/sub], t) | <= | X(O[sub]h[/sub], t+ε) |

In other words, human observers gain access to knowledge of their actions across time; moreover, they do not have access to knowledge of actions that are in their ‘future’.

However, God is not constrained by this limitation. In other words, by definition, for all instances of time t that will ever exist in this universe,

if T is the set of all instants in all time in the universe, then for any m and n in T,

X(God, m) ≡ X(God, n) ≡ B

In other words, God has access to all events in the universe, regardless of the instant in time. So, no matter what time we perceive it to be, God has access to all the actions that have preceded it… and all actions that follow that time. All at once. Simultaneously. If you want to see it expressed mathematically, then:

for all t in T, | X(God, t) | = | B |

In other words, God knows all actions in the universe, without any limitation to time.

OK… I’ll let you finish your thought, now…

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.

Nope. You’ve tried this one on me before. I refuted it then, and I reject it now.

1. God knows our actions because he observes them. In this scenario our actions are primary and God’s knowledge is contingent.

Nope. He knows them because God knows all things without respect to ‘time’ or actions of ‘observation’.

1. God’s knowledge is primary and we just “play out” what he already knows.

Here, you’re attempting to suggest there’s no such thing as free will. That is untrue.

1. There is some unknown agent, who (or what) causes both God’s knowledge and our actions.

Which means that God is not the cause of His own knowledge, which means God is not God. Nope – you’ve just transgressed the definition of God.

1. There is a huge, cosmic coincidence the result of which is this incredible correspondence between God’s knowledge and our actions.

Again, that means that God (i.e., the creator of the universe) is disconnected from His universe. Again, against the definition of God.

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

I did. I have. You’re missing at least one possibility. Go back and find our previous discussion on these forums. Get back with your results.

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.

It’s ok to admit that your reflections are deficient. We love you anyways.

 

[Lucretius]

God is knowledge. Contingent mean not necessary. Something which is contingent could exist or not therefore what God see is also contingent.

I recommend looking at my response in post #45: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14711096&postcount=45

Christi pax.

 

[Gorgias]

The dilemma is as following. If universe is contingent (not necessary) then it means it could exist or not . Therefore God’s knowledge, foreknowledge (what He sees could exist or not), is contingent too.

Fine. I’m cool with that.

However, the contingency is only with respect to the existence of the universe. Once the universe is created, God knows it – fully, perfectly, and without contingency.

You could, if you wanted, make the claim that God doesn’t know the universe until after He creates it. (I’d argue with that assertion, but it seems tangential to the point you’re asserting here.) However, once God creates the universe, nothing in the universe is unknown to Him. There is no longer any opportunity to say “God’s knowledge is contingent.”

(And, of course, if you’re not claiming what some are claiming in this thread (viz., that God does not ‘know’ actions in the universe “until” they happen in space-time), then we could discuss the mistaken notion that God does not know His own will.)

 

[Gorgias]

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

You keep bringing up this supposed problem of the “God of the philosophers.” To quote a famous line, “I don’t think that means what you think it means.”

See this article to help you understand a bit more fully…

 

[STT]

True. The universe only exists because it is God’s will that it exists.

This is a non-sequitur. The conclusion does not flow from the premise. You seem to be forgetting that, in addition to knowing all that is, God also knows all that could be. There is no potential that God does not know, therefore, His knowledge is not contingent on our existence; because whether he created us or not, He would still know all eventualities. The includes a unique knowledge of what actually exists since it is what exists in God’s eternal NOW.

The problem is that you’re applying a cause and affect relationship to God’s knowledge. He created us, therefore He knows us. This is not the proper mode of knowledge for God. The mere fact that we are a potentiality, let alone an actuality, means that God knows us, just as He knows all other potentials that could have existed, and all the repercussions of every choice we have ever had the capacity to make.

God lives in eternal now. God sees absence and existence of the universe at the same eternal point. This is inconsistent since the point is ill-defined.

 

[STT]

If you are too short on time to read a few paragraphs, then you are unfortunately not prepared to undertake trying to understand these concepts. I will try to pull some of the most relevant paragraphs for you, but your really need to read the document, or at least the chapters referenced in my links if you truly want to understand. The chapters are each only about a page long, so this should be manageable.

From Summa Contra Gentiles:

Many thanks.

 

[Vonsalza]

You keep bringing up this supposed problem of the “God of the philosophers.” To quote a famous line, “I don’t think that means what you think it means.”

See this article to help you understand a bit more fully…

Your rebuttals today were almost art-level and I enjoyed them immensely.

I’m not going to post anymore. Apologetics forum is all yours.

 

[STT]

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.

This sentence is problematic. There is no before from God perspective. Of course you are having problem in describing a situation in which God sees what exist and exist not at the same eternal point, this makes the eternal point ill-define. Therefore you use before in order to split the eternal point into two point to resolve the problem.

 

[STT]

Fine. I’m cool with that.

However, the contingency is only with respect to the existence of the universe. Once the universe is created, God knows it – fully, perfectly, and without contingency.

You could, if you wanted, make the claim that God doesn’t know the universe until after He creates it. (I’d argue with that assertion, but it seems tangential to the point you’re asserting here.) However, once God creates the universe, nothing in the universe is unknown to Him. There is no longer any opportunity to say “God’s knowledge is contingent.”

(And, of course, if you’re not claiming what some are claiming in this thread (viz., that God does not ‘know’ actions in the universe “until” they happen in space-time), then we could discuss the mistaken notion that God does not know His own will.)

You are using before, past tense etc. which doesn’t apply to God who lives in eternal now. Of course you will have a problem if you super-impose the universe’s existence and non-existence at the same eternal point. The point become ill-defined.