The problem with forknowledge

[ProdglArchitect]

Now we know that there is no stationary existence, that motion and change are inherent parts of physical existence,

This has nothing to do with God though. God is not part of the physical existence, He is outside of it. (See below for simple proof of this.)

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.)

The Theory of Relativity doesn’t say anything about the the need for an external cause… and no one is trying to deny it’s correctness… are you sure you’re not thinking of some other thread?

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”.

…

I honestly have no response to this. It’s so off base and comically aggressive as to be laughable.

The Theory of Relativity, and in fact all of science, mathematics, etc., is limited in scope and application to the physical created universe. God is, by definition, outside of the physical universe. (A necessary quality of anything which caused the physical universe. The cause cannot be a result of the effect, otherwise the cause would not have existed to cause the effect). This alone is not a proof of God, but it does indicate that it is improper to try to use something which is limited in application to the physical universe when discussing something which is beyond the scope and nature of that universe.

The fact that the physical world must constantly be in motion speaks to God’s nature in the same way a grain of sand at the bottom of the ocean influences the orbit of Pluto.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Fine. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that God’s will could have been other than it actually is.

However, this does not mean that, even if it were different, He would not have known His own will.

Therefore, in any case you want to propose, God always is in full possession of all knowledge about not only anything He creates, but also, His will in creating it.

Therefore, if He had created a universe populated only with tribbles: He fully knows it though all eternity.

If He had created a universe populated only by Pittsburgh Penguins fans (ahh… paradise! ), then He would have fully known it throughout all eternity.

If He creates the universe as we know it, then He would have fully known it throughout all eternity.

Therefore, for all possible universes – that is, for all possible expressions of the will of God – God would know His will fully and completely. Therefore, there is no instance in which God lacks knowledge. In other words, no contingency which limits God’s knowledge.

As you say, ‘case closed’.

 

[STT]

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.

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.

There is nothing we cannot comprehend. Eternal now is ill-defined when it contains two contrasting events, existence of universe and non-existence of universe.

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.

I read the quote but I think I need to read the Summa. I am very busy right now.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

There is nothing we cannot comprehend. Eternal now is ill-defined when there are two contrasting events, existence of universe and non-existence of universe.

I read the quote but I think I need to read the Summa. I am very busy right now.

I would recommend you start with the Summa Contra Gentiles instead of the Summa Theologiæ.

The Summa Theologiæ was written to explain the Christian faith to theology students, whereas the Summa contra Gentiles is written in a more apologetics oriented style to explain and defend the Christian doctrine to unbelievers.

It is divided into 4 books, which each address a specific topic:

• BOOK ONE: GOD
• BOOK TWO: CREATION
• BOOK THREE: PROVIDENCE (Q. 1-83)
• BOOK THREE: PROVIDENCE (Q. 84-163)
• BOOK FOUR: SALVATION

The links above should take you directly to the books noted, with a list of links that take you directly to the chapters related to the topics listed. Judging by the questions you tend to have and threads you begin, I think books one and two will have the most relevant information for you.

They are written in a way where you do not necessarily have to sit and read from start to finish, but instead can look at a particular topic addressed in a chapter (which are rather short) and read just that chapter (and perhaps a previous and following chapter for context). Because of your busyness, this should provide you with the most benefit with the least amount of time investiture.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

There is nothing we cannot comprehend.

I’m sorry, but this is complete and utter hubris. To claim that nothing it outside of our scope of understanding is to deny the vast complexities of the universe, let alone what may be beyond the universe.

If this is your mindset, then you will never get anywhere in the study of God. Certain things are called mysteries for a reason. Not because we do not think they are worth studying and trying to understand, but rather because, no matter how advanced our understanding may become, it will never be complete.

There is no contrast between the existence of the universe and it’s non-existence from God’s perspective Both states exist side by side in His scope of understanding and knowledge. You have to stop thinking in terms of time. Time is an aspect of physical reality, which God is outside of. He is not subject to time, nor is His knowledge subject to cause and effect, for reasons clearly outlined in the Summa.

I understand that you’re busy, but I really don’t think this conversation is going to be any more productive for you until you’ve delved into the subject a bit deeper.

 

[thinkandmull]

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.

God has contingent and necessary knowledge, because some things are contingent, so some of His knowledge is contingent. Its elementary dear Watson. Molonism is proven wrong by showing that God can’t know what everybody would do in each situation without that person making the choices in each situation. Its as clear as day

 

[thinkandmull]

Fine. For the sake of discussion, let’s say that God’s will could have been other than it actually is.

However, this does not mean that, even if it were different, He would not have known His own will.

Therefore, in any case you want to propose, God always is in full possession of all knowledge about not only anything He creates, but also, His will in creating it.

Therefore, if He had created a universe populated only with tribbles: He fully knows it though all eternity.

If He had created a universe populated only by Pittsburgh Penguins fans (ahh… paradise! ), then He would have fully known it throughout all eternity.

If He creates the universe as we know it, then He would have fully known it throughout all eternity.

Therefore, for all possible universes – that is, for all possible expressions of the will of God – God would know His will fully and completely. Therefore, there is no instance in which God lacks knowledge. In other words, no contingency which limits God’s knowledge.

As you say, ‘case closed’.

I never said God didn’t have full possession of knowledge. But if He had chosen differently He would have different knowledge

 

[STT]

I’m sorry, but this is complete and utter hubris. To claim that nothing it outside of our scope of understanding is to deny the vast complexities of the universe, let alone what may be beyond the universe.

If this is your mindset, then you will never get anywhere in the study of God. Certain things are called mysteries for a reason. Not because we do not think they are worth studying and trying to understand, but rather because, no matter how advanced our understanding may become, it will never be complete.

There is no contrast between the existence of the universe and it’s non-existence from God’s perspective Both states exist side by side in His scope of understanding and knowledge. You have to stop thinking in terms of time. Time is an aspect of physical reality, which God is outside of. He is not subject to time, nor is His knowledge subject to cause and effect, for reasons clearly outlined in the Summa.

I understand that you’re busy, but I really don’t think this conversation is going to be any more productive for you until you’ve delved into the subject a bit deeper.

Why should I study a topic which probably cannot explain subject matter completely (according to you)?

Eternal now is ill-defined when it contains two contrasting events, existence of universe and non-existence of universe. Is there anything here which we cannot understand?

 

[thinkandmull]

Molinism is beside the point though. See post 107. I never said God’s eternity is an accident

 

[thinkandmull]

Why should I study a topic which probably cannot explain subject matter completely (according to you)?

Eternal now is ill-defined when it contains two contrasting events, existence of universe and non-existence of universe. Is there anything here which we cannot understand?

It is hard to understand. Sometimes I too think that subtlety doesn’t lead to truth. I am wrong in those moments though. Philosophically there has to be something outside of time and the flow of motions

 

[ProdglArchitect]

God has contingent and necessary knowledge, because some things are contingent, so some of His knowledge is contingent. Its elementary dear Watson. Molonism is proven wrong by showing that God can’t know what everybody would do in each situation without that person making the choices in each situation. Its as clear as day

This is an assertion, not an argument. You’ve provided no evidence, only a non-sequitur.

God is omnipotent, this is a fundamental aspect of the Christian God. This fact is clearly defined through multiple philosophical proofs, one of which we’ve been discussing throughout this thread. Omnipotence requires complete knowledge. In order for knowledge to complete, it must contain what is, as well as what could be.

Also, I can disprove your assertion with a very simple example.

If my friend and I are hanging off the spire of the Burj Dubai, I don’t need to let go to know what would happen if I did. I have a solid enough understanding of physics and the relative capacity of the human body to absorb force to know that I would be killed on impact.

Now, multiply this knowledge by a literal infinity. With this complete understanding of everything, God could reasonably determine what would occur if we make one particular choice or another. Then, He would be able to determine what the outcome of the next decision would be, and the next, and the next, etc. Since there is no limit to the understanding, God can determine the course of every choice ever, starting with the very first “act” in the universe.

We have trouble comprehending this because, for the most part, we can only track a handful of concurrent thoughts, so the notion of being able to see every choice and every action is completely beyond our scope of understanding. However, God is not like us, God is infinite. There is no limitation to his knowledge or to His ability to comprehend and determine. He doesn’t loose His knowledge of one set of potentials just because He has knowledge of another.

Again, as I’ve repeated multiple times here, you need to stop thinking of God’s knowledge as just an enhanced version of human knowledge. They are two different categories of “act.”

You should read the Summa Theologica, or the Summa Contra Gentiles linked above. They delve into these subjects and could be very beneficial to your understanding.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why should I study a topic which probably cannot explain subject matter completely (according to you)?

Eternal now is ill-defined when it contains two contrasting events, existence of universe and non-existence of universe. Is there anything here which we cannot understand?

Because even an incomplete understanding is superior to no understanding, or worse, misunderstanding.

Also, it is not ill defined. Even within the confines of time we can see an example of this sort of dichotomy. I’m an architect by trade, and I have knowledge of what my building site looks like before the construction, and what it looks like after it. These are to different states, but both within my scope of knowledge. This is doubly true if I take video or photographs.

Essentially, each point in time is one of these photographs, and God has the picture book for all of existence. (Super, super crude analogy, I know, it but illustrates the basics of my point)

 

[thinkandmull]

I’ve read both and they don’t address my rebuttal. Your “argument” is just a statement of Aquinas’s predestination, which I reject. No being can know what I will choose till I choose it, even though understood eternally. That is contingent knowledge.

Now answer this: if God had chosen differently, wouldn’t His knowledge be different. Yes or no

 

[thinkandmull]

Because even an incomplete understanding is superior to no understanding, or worse, misunderstanding.

Also, it is not ill defined. Even within the confines of time we can see an example of this sort of dichotomy. I’m an architect by trade, and I have knowledge of what my building site looks like before the construction, and what it looks like after it. These are to different states, but both within my scope of knowledge. This is doubly true if I take video or photographs.

Essentially, each point in time is one of these photographs, and God has the picture book for all of existence. (Super, super crude analogy, I know, it but illustrates the basics of my point)

I suggest you stick to architecture since metaphysics isn’t your forte

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’ve read both and they don’t address my rebuttal. Your “argument” is just a statement of Aquinas’s predestination, which I reject. No being can know what I will choose till I choose it, even though understood eternally. That is contingent knowledge.

I presented a rational, reasoned methodology by which such knowledge could be obtained given an infinite being. You cannot simply say that you reject it offhand and expect to be taken seriously. Your rejection of the argument doesn’t actually make it wrong.

If God has a complete understanding of the nature of reality (given that He is the cause of reality), then what would impede Him from being able to determine each outcome of a given choice, including the subsequent choices which would result from each potential outcome?

Now answer this: if God had chosen differently, wouldn’t His knowledge be different. Yes or no

God never “chose,” and He couldn’t have chosen differently… This was the “choice” from all eternity, there is no instance in which the choice would be different. You’re asking for a logical impossibility, like a square circle. What exists is what God Wills. That has been constant for all eternity.

But, supposing it was possible for God to chose differently, no, His knowledge would not be different. The only change would be which subset of choice actually came to pass. His knowledge would still contain all potential choices, and therefore remain unchanged in scope and kind.

I suggest you stick to architecture since metaphysics isn’t your forte

Ad hominen attacks make you look desperate. Don’t demean yourself.

 

[STT]

Because even an incomplete understanding is superior to no understanding, or worse, misunderstanding.

Thanks. That I knew.

Also, it is not ill defined. Even within the confines of time we can see an example of this sort of dichotomy. I’m an architect by trade, and I have knowledge of what my building site looks like before the construction, and what it looks like after it. These are to different states, but both within my scope of knowledge. This is doubly true if I take video or photographs.

Essentially, each point in time is one of these photographs, and God has the picture book for all of existence. (Super, super crude analogy, I know, it but illustrates the basics of my point)

Yes, He timelessly knows/experience the subject matter. He is experiencing the universe which exist and exist not at the same eternal point. This is illogical.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thanks. That I knew.

Yes, He timelessly knows/experience the subject matter. He is experiencing the universe which exist and exist not at the same eternal point. This is illogical.

This presupposes that there was ever a point in eternity at which the universe didn’t exist. Remember, before and after are temporal realities, they do not apply in eternity. In eternity, there is no “before” the universe existed, nor will there be an “after” the universe existed. It is simply in the eternal state of existing.

There is only a “before” the universe existed from our time-based, temporal understanding. Since the universe has always been a part of God’s Will, and God’s Will has existed eternally, then there was never a “point” in that eternity where the universe did not exist.

I really can’t stress enough that this is something we can never fully grasp, as beings limited by the flow of time. I know you don’t like that, but it’s still important to keep in mind whenever discussing eternity.

 

[STT]

This presupposes that there was ever a point in eternity at which the universe didn’t exist.

So the universe was not created? That is against the definition of God, the one that brings something out of nothing. I am afraid that there is the flaw in your system of belief.

Remember, before and after are temporal realities, they do not apply in eternity. In eternity, there is no “before” the universe existed, nor will there be an “after” the universe existed. It is simply in the eternal state of existing.

There is only a “before” the universe existed from our time-based, temporal understanding. Since the universe has always been a part of God’s Will, and God’s Will has existed eternally, then there was never a “point” in that eternity where the universe did not exist.

I really can’t stress enough that this is something we can never fully grasp, as beings limited by the flow of time. I know you don’t like that, but it’s still important to keep in mind whenever discussing eternity.

I think I understand what eternity is.

 

[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.

 

[STT]

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.

So God didn’t create something out of nothing?