Can your god ever forget?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't think the problem is insoluble. Deliberation is logically prior to any rational action but we could say that in the case of God, it is not temporally prior. This isn't unprecedented. We might say in an ordinary conversation, 'If you won the running race, then you were born gifted'. Obviously the adverb 'then' does not signify an event ...[text shortened]... I think this is the site of Agerg's problem -- the way in which we describe how God acts.

Sorry for the late response...been busy. I'd prefer to discuss your latter point (to FreakyKBH) first:

I don't think the problem is insoluble. Deliberation is logically prior to any rational action but we could say that in the case of God, it is not temporally prior. This isn't unprecedented. We might say in an ordinary conversation, 'If you won the running race, then you were born gifted'. Obviously the adverb 'then' does not signify an event prior (it would be impossible to win before birth.) In the same way, we might say that God deliberates and then acts, even if the two events were simultaneous. My point here is the need for clarity of language. I think this is the site of Agerg's problem -- the way in which we describe how God acts.

The examples you give are different types of statements (and my objection is you seem to suggest they are structurally the same); the first
1) If you won the running race, then you were born gifted'
is a premise followed by a conclusion: If X then Y, (or X => Y) and the word "then" does not imply any temporal demarcation between two events or states (since it says: if X is true then Y is also true). On the otherhand, in
2) God deliberates and then acts
we have an entirely different construct. It is not a premise and conclusion, it is a statement, which says X AND Y happened...and so the word "then", should you care to use it, takes on a different syntax to denote a clear boundary (in terms of precedence) between the two. It is not a "then" which glues two logical statements together.

The real site of my problem is twofold; first it is based, as you point out, upon the phraseology of the account given for some god's actions and this god's creations by humans.
Secondly, and more importantly, is that for any two sets of events or states X,Y; if carefully chosen to be disjoint from each other, then neither of X or Y can be contained within their intersection - that is to say if X and Y occur then either

a) X and Y are not disjoint and they may occur simultaneously, or
b) X and Y are disjoint and so they do not occur simultaneously (such that one precedes the other).

If (b) is true then there is some sort of temporality going on even if you want to discretize these events to a finite collection of points. If (a) on the otherhand, then how does some god perform any action contingent on his or our actions? (for example sending Jesus to die for our supposed sins) - and this discussion I predict would tread upon free will actions vs determined actions.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Pardon my French, but that's a sweet asterisk question! This gets into some theological heaviness, so bear with it if you don't mind.

Consider the decrees of God. We name them in the plural, but the reality is, all of the articulated and distinct particulars are [b]one. A more accurate, God-view of the situation would describe the situatio ]single[/b] thought.

I don't know about you, but I am sobered by such a revelation.[/b]

Conrau K has pretty much caught the point I would have responded to in this thread, and in your response that follows you concede there is a problem which you haven't yet reconciled. I don't see what else I have to add (short of saying the same thing) at this stage other than commenting on:

God's actions in eternity past were not linear.

If one says X happened, then Y happened, then Z happened, then Z happened only once X and Y have both happened; and so there is linear sequence of events. If they all occured simultaneously then it is still linear (albeit in a trivial sense).

Actually, as an amendment to the response directly above, if we suppose these events are points dotted, for example, on a plane (as opposed to a line - so assuming multi-dimensional god "time" ) then there might be some leeway in saying they're non linear; that said there is still some sort of temporality.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
maybe there is no "time" outside time. maybe god experiences things simultaneously . maybe he knows his future and his past. it is difficult to explain and but one of several possibilities. how can a being with linear time perception like us perceive god's time?


maybe god does have a linear time and he is looking at the universe from outside. and the u ...[text shortened]... oesn't know everything at any point but can summon any knowledge he wants whenever he wants.

maybe there is no "time" outside time. maybe god experiences things simultaneously . maybe he knows his future and his past. it is difficult to explain and but one of several possibilities. how can a being with linear time perception like us perceive god's time?
If this is true then, as per the conversation with Conrau K or FreakyKBH, it remains to be answered how your god can actually do anything without doing everything all at once; and, in a sense, trivialising your god by reducing it's entire existence to a singularity. We would then have to consider how there can be any interaction on the part of your god in our world in response to the events which we or it has caused.

maybe god does have a linear time and he is looking at the universe from outside. and the universe is like a video tape that he can watch from any point he wants.
This poses me no problems (that is, no problems until we start talking about libertarian free will and determinism) - though of course there is a notion of time here.

Originally posted by Agerg
Sorry for the late response...been busy. I'd prefer to discuss your latter point (to FreakyKBH) first:

[b]I don't think the problem is insoluble. Deliberation is logically prior to any rational action but we could say that in the case of God, it is not temporally prior. This isn't unprecedented. We might say in an ordinary conversation, 'If you won the runn discussion I predict would tread upon free will actions vs determined actions.[/b]

1) If you won the running race, then you were born gifted'
is a premise followed by a conclusion: If X then Y, (or X => Y) and the word "then" does not imply any temporal demarcation between two events or states (since it says: if X is true then Y is also true).

That is correct, although I will point out early that the inferential force of 'then' need not necessarily be in a protosis-apodosis situation. I think it would be possible in ordinary conversational discourse to reconfigure this conditional as a mere conjunction of the two propositions. I can imagine a coach, perhaps trying to encourage a racer, saying 'You win the race and then you were born gifted'. It seems at least possible, although out of context it sounds a bit awkward.

we have an entirely different construct. It is not a premise and conclusion, it is a statement, which says X AND Y happened...and so the word "then", should you care to use it, takes on a different syntax to denote a clear boundary (in terms of precedence) between the two. It is not a "then" which glues two logical statements together.

Certainly 'then' denotes a clear boundary but the point here is that it need not be interpreted as temporal at all. The speaker may intend a different interpretation of 'then', perhaps as in the case above or perhaps in another sense altogether.

If (b) is true then there is some sort of temporality going on even if you want to discretize these events to a finite collection of points. If (a) on the otherhand, then how does some god perform any action contingent on his or our actions? (for example sending Jesus to die for our supposed sins) - and this discussion I predict would tread upon free will actions vs determined actions.

I disagree. As I said, we can have events disjoint, without respect to time. As in the example I used above, an event may be temporally later (winning the race), yet logically prior (as in, winning the race proves innate giftedness for running.) Now when a theist discusses the actions of a timeless God, I think they can insist that for God, all these events are simultaneous but yet if we wish to divide God's actions into discrete intervals, we would do this by some other means of prioritising.