The problem with forknowledge

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

What point is ill defined? The point of eternity? That’s been defined just fine. It is the omnipresent NOW… there’s really no further definition possible or necessary.

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.

I assume this is what you were talking about. How does that make the point ill-defined? It contains the whole of existence, both what we perceive as “before” and what we perceive as "now’. (Also what we perceive as “future”). From God’s perspective, this “before” doesn’t exist, nor do the concepts of “future” and “past”. It is all simple an eternal NOW. Again, this is something we cannot fully comprehend.

Have you read the Summa yet? Or, have you at least read the bits that were quoted earlier? If not, then it seems you’re not willing to put in the leg work necessary to understand this subject.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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.

Interesting and unnecessary word salad of a bunch of undefined symbols expressing an unproven assertion. But the question is: “HOW does God have access to the information about reality, which has not happened yet”? I am aware that you like to say that God has access to the whole reality without regarding to the time it happens. But that is just another empty claim. To circumvent the problem you declare that this is a “definition” pertaining to God. But you cannot present a “definition” without justification.

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

No, you did not.

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

HOW? That is the question! Describe the method, “HOW” does God gain access to the information? Knowledge equals information about something. You cannot have information about something that does not exist. You can “imagine” what some entity would be IF it existed, but that is just imagination. Existence is objective, it does not depend on the observer. So assert that something in future does not exist for humans, but it exists for God is logical nonsense. Even if God would exist outside our universe, our future does not exist, so it cannot be known - until it actually happens.

Here is a simple analogy - not perfect, but it should be sufficient. A writer creates theater play, which will be performed by some actors. The actors have free will, so they can deviate from the script, if they want to. The writer observes the play from the balcony of the theater. He can imagine how the play will unfold, but - due to the free will of the actors - he cannot KNOW until the play actually happens. The writer is outside the timeline of the play, but that does not have any access to the final scene BEFORE the actors actually play it out.

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

Yes, it is one of the FOUR possibilities.

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.

This is ridiculous. The actual definition of God is what is being questioned. You cannot argue that any problem, which highlights a problem with your definition is necessarily incorrect, BECAUSE it goes against your definition.

Of course God cannot be the source of his own knowledge, because the world is separate from God, and the knowledge is supposed be about the world. That is truly elementary.

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

SSDD. See directly above. And the world is separated from God.

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.

Nonsense. There is no extra possibility. If you assert that there is one, let’s hear it. Empty assertions are not arguments.

The basic problem is that you have a “definition” of God, and reject everything that goes against your definition. But you have no argument for this rejection. You only say: “the argument shows a problem with the definition, so it will be rejected, JUST because the definition says otherwise.” It is just a slightly different version of: “Of course you reject God’s definition, but that is OK. We also reject this definition, because our DEFINITION says otherwise”.

Conclusion: You cannot define anything (God included) INTO existence. If reality contradicts your definition, then the definition MUST be discarded.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

But the question is: “HOW does God have access to the information about reality, which has not happened yet”?

If you haven’t already, you should look at the Summa Theologica which was linked in post #34. It delves into the questions of the why and how of God’s knowledge.

In (very, very) short, God is omniscient because that is an ontological-necessity of any being capable of creating from nothing. (The most bare-bones, undeveloped definition of God) (This isn’t necessarily from the Summa, I can’t recall which specific writing of Aquinas delves into that… sorry.)

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

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…

Ok. I read it.

There is NOT one word about the Christian God’s endeavors: walking among humans, being immersed in time, performing all sorts of acts - all of which are part of the God of the Bible. The biblical God is an active, “living” being. Not someone I would consider worship-worthy, but that is just my opinion. And then there are the adventures of Jesus, with all sorts of magical powers and properties. Also within time and space.

There is not one word about the God of the philosophers, someone who is frozen in a timeless existence, yet able to interfere and sustain the every changing actual, physical reality. Who has a bunch of semi-defined, but pompous sounding attributes, namely the omnimax features. There is not one word about how do we reconcile God’s alleged “love” with all the horrendous events, part of which were performed by God and part of which are allowed by God.

Sorry, that article is useless.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If you haven’t already, you should look at the Summa Theologica which was linked in post #34. It delves into the questions of the why and how of God’s knowledge.

In (very, very) short, God is omniscient because that is an ontological-necessity of any being capable of creating from nothing. (The most bare-bones, undeveloped definition of God) (This isn’t necessarily from the Summa, I can’t recall which specific writing of Aquinas delves into that… sorry.)

I am familiar with it. The concept of “necessary” existence and knowledge are just empty propositions. The concept of necessary existence (something that exists in ALL the possible worlds) can be refuted very easily. And of course Aquinas never describes the epistemological method which enables God to know what does not exist, never existed, and will never exist - even though it COULD exist. Yes, I am familiar with the proposition that God knows “everything”, not just the actual, but also the possible events, but there was never an explanation, HOW could God know what does not exist.

The major problem is that “knowledge” is undefined.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The concept of necessary existence (something that exists in ALL the possible worlds) can be refuted very easily.

We’re getting pretty far off topic here, but I would refute this point. There is existence, and this existence is contingent. It does not have to exist. We also know that at some point prior to time, it did not exist (the universe has a start). If the universe did not always exist, and does not have to exist, then something must have been the cause of its existence. This is an irrefutable necessity.

Even if you make the unverifiable claim that it was created as the result of some other universe, or as part of some temporal loop, or anything like that, that only pushes the question of why something exists up one more level, it doesn’t actually do away with the problem.

Tent Horn’s book Answering Atheism discusses this issue. It’s a great read, I would definitely recommend it.

Like I said though, this is getting fairly off topic for this thread.

 

[goout]

This may not be theologically and philosophically precise, but

God’s knowledge is nothing like our process of observing, discerning, comprehending, and ordering in our mind.

God’s knowledge is more like a completeness of intimacy with everything that is. That includes “knowledge” but is not limited to that.

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Just did. Twice, I think.

Let me try again. God’s decision to create COULD have been different. So His knowledge COULD have been different. He is His ideas, so He COULD have been different. Case closed

 

[thinkandmull]

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

You’re right. Our choices is the source of God’s knowledge of our choices. He IS His own thoughts, so He changes somehow in response to us.

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

This is the molinist position, which is falsifiable. Choices can only be known when actually chosen. Our actual existential choices are causes of God’s knowledge, regardless of His always knowing. Non temporality does not take away the cause and effect here. As I said, it’s “accidental”

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

Aquinas didn’t fully address this issue and it takes humility to admit that

 

[thinkandmull]

Aquinas also wrote that God wills himself and creation by one act of will, even though the other is not necessary. The truth is that there is a “distinction of reason” here. Aquinas is clearly overrated imo

 

[thinkandmull]

I am familiar with it. The concept of “necessary” existence and knowledge are just empty propositions. The concept of necessary existence (something that exists in ALL the possible worlds) can be refuted very easily. And of course Aquinas never describes the epistemological method which enables God to know what does not exist, never existed, and will never exist - even though it COULD exist. Yes, I am familiar with the proposition that God knows “everything”, not just the actual, but also the possible events, but there was never an explanation, HOW could God know what does not exist.

The major problem is that “knowledge” is undefined.

How is a necessary being easily refuted???

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How is a necessary being easily refuted???

By showing that there is no necessary being. .

The definition of necessary being is someone (or something) that exists in ALL the possible worlds.
The definition of contingent being is someone or something that exists in some, but not all possible worlds.
Possible world is a state of affairs without a logical contradiction.

To assert that some “necessary being” exists would require to check ALL the possible worlds and find something that exists in each and every one of them - which is clearly impossible.

To refute the “necessary existence” one has to find two possible worlds, which have no intersection. In other words, there is no being which would exist in both of them.

It is easy to find two worlds which have nothing in common. For example, one world contains only one proton, while the other one contains one anti-proton. There is nothing that would exist in both of them, therefore there is no necessary being.

The concept of necessary being was developed by some philosopher or theologian who wanted to create a “proof” for God. He failed.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well let me come to Aquinas’s aid now. You don’t have to check all worlds. Matter doesn’t explain itself. Motion is caused by previous motion. Something outside of motion must have started the motions without being a part of the series. That is a necessary being.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Well let me come to Aquinas’s aid now. You don’t have to check all worlds. Matter doesn’t explain itself. Motion is caused by previous motion. Something outside of motion must have started the motions without being a part of the series. That is a necessary being.

In the times when Aquinas lived, the metaphysics was nothing more than unfounded speculation. People believed that the “default” state of matter is an unchanging, unmoving static existence. They believed that matter is akin to a billiard ball, which needs an external “cue stick” to set it into motion. No one should blame him for his ignorance, since he could not have known any better.

Now we know that there is no stationary existence, that motion and change are inherent parts of physical existence, and there is no need for external “explanation”. (Einstein’s theory of relativity has been verified so many times with such precision that only stubborn nincompoops try to deny it.) Of course this obvious fact flies over the head of ignorant apologists, who would like to carve out a niche for God as a “prime mover”.

As I said, Aquinas should not be blamed, but the apologists who should know better are and must be blamed for their intentional ignorance.

 

[thinkandmull]

That all motion requires previous motion has never been disproven. It is what matter and motion are made of

 

[Gorgias]

To assert that some “necessary being” exists would require to check ALL the possible worlds and find something that exists in each and every one of them - which is clearly impossible.

So, you’re claiming that, by definition, a ‘necessary being’ cannot exist?

No… you’ve merely proposed one algorithm for finding a necessary being, and then demonstrated that your algorithm is NP-complete. Big difference.

To refute the “necessary existence” one has to find two possible worlds, which have no intersection. In other words, there is no being which would exist in both of them.

It is easy to find two worlds which have nothing in common. For example, one world contains only one proton, while the other one contains one anti-proton. There is nothing that would exist in both of them, therefore there is no necessary being.

That ‘proof’ works… but only if you can prove that the definition of a ‘world’ (i.e., a universe, I’d presume), encompasses only the physical elements of that world. Since God – by definition – is not part of the physical world, all you’ve done is prove that you can’t prove God by excluding Him from the domain of your experiment. We agree: if you ignore God, you cannot prove He exists!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

This is the molinist position, which is falsifiable. Choices can only be known when actually chosen. Our actual existential choices are causes of God’s knowledge, regardless of His always knowing. Non temporality does not take away the cause and effect here. As I said, it’s “accidental”

Then please, falsify it.

Once again, you’re comparing God’s knowledge to human knowledge, which is inappropriate. I understand why you have this limitation and why you insist on doing this, but that doesn’t make it right. God is omnipotent, He has all knowledge. This is true of all that is, and all that could be.

Also, once again, the manner in which God knows things is not accidental to the discussion of his “foreknowledge.” It is of paramount importance, for reasons which I and others have clearly listed. You’re incessant repetition of it being “accidental” to the discussion doesn’t actually make it true. You’ve not presented any reasons it is accidental (at least none which have not been refuted), and yet you continue to repeat it.

At this point, we’re just going in circles, so I’m going to bow out of the discussion.

 

[Gorgias]

Interesting and unnecessary word salad of a bunch of undefined symbols expressing an unproven assertion.

So, let me make sure I understand: you’re the one who asked for a mathematical analysis. You’re the one who constructed the example. And now, when I pick up your example, and use it to demonstrate the weakness of your argument, it’s “word salad”?!?!?

But the question is: “HOW does God have access to the information about reality, which has not happened yet”?

No… the question – which you yourself addressed! – was “does God’s knowledge depend on us?”. Now that you’ve read an analysis which you cannot refute, you’re ready to move on to the next question? Cool… I’m good with that.

I am aware that you like to say that God has access to the whole reality without regarding to the time it happens. But that is just another empty claim. To circumvent the problem you declare that this is a “definition” pertaining to God. But you cannot present a “definition” without justification.

Pot, meet kettle. You’ve been debating a God whom you haven’t defined? For shame…

But, just for the record, if we’re talking about ‘God’, then we’re talking about a supreme being, who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. We’re talking about a God who is Creator of the universe (without being part of it), who is Himself uncreated and eternal.

Any other definition – which does not admit to any of these claims – describes an entity which is not either the ‘god of the philosophers’ nor the Christian God.

Can we at least agree that this is the ‘God’ whom we are discussing?

HOW? That is the question! Describe the method, “HOW” does God gain access to the information?

He created the universe. He exists outside of space-time. He has direct access to it, without regard to time. (One common way to help folks conceptualize it is to picture a movie reel. Inside the context of the reel (that is, in the context of the movie), a person only knows about events by experiencing them sequentially (that is, by watching the movie – or, if you prefer, by being a character in the movie). Outside this context, though, a person who is looking at the reel itself has access to all the frames of the movie simultaneously. Although they haven’t “happened” – that is, in the playing of the movie – they already exist, and can be accessed directly.) This is only an imperfect analogy, but it cuts to the heart of the matter.

You cannot have information about something that does not exist.

From within the context of space-time, ‘future’ actions appear not to exist. To God’s perspective, all time exists simultaneously.

So assert that something in future does not exist for humans, but it exists for God is logical nonsense.

Re-read my post. When you asked for a mathematical analysis, I took you at your word. Perhaps I need to simplify it a bit: I’m not claiming that the future “does not exist”, only that the future is not visible to a human observer. That’s a huge difference!

Even if God would exist outside our universe, our future does not exist, so it cannot be known - until it actually happens.

It cannot be known by you. You’re arguing your perspective as if it were objective truth.

Here is a simple analogy - not perfect, but it should be sufficient. A writer creates theater play, which will be performed by some actors. The actors have free will, so they can deviate from the script, if they want to. The writer observes the play from the balcony of the theater. He can imagine how the play will unfold, but - due to the free will of the actors - he cannot KNOW until the play actually happens. The writer is outside the timeline of the play, but that does not have any access to the final scene BEFORE the actors actually play it out.

See my analogy. Your analogy breaks down because your playwright is not omniscient.

Nonsense. There is no extra possibility. If you assert that there is one, let’s hear it.

Apparently, my memory isn’t as short as yours. Look back to the last time you attempted to propose this construct. You’ll find my response.