Originally posted by vistesdThanks. I think in this case, it is most appropriate to invoke that whole idea of 'elicitive language'. Knowing and decising were Aquinas' paradigmatic examples of analogous language to describe God. God does not know in the same way that we know, nor decide in the same way we decide. Ultimately for God, knowing and deciding are in fact the same thing.
It suddenly strikes me that this whole paradigm of argument (and I agree with your affirmation of it for certain pragmatic purposes) lies outside the paradigm of “spiritual/religious” language that you and I both affirm. With regard to your comment about “a different hat”, Nietzsche, in his perspectivism, thought that that was key. Nevertheless, for g ...[text shortened]... lace.
Damn, but it is good to cross thought-blades with you again! Be very well, old friend.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadBecause the initial decision itself is re-deciding. He is deciding something that prior to the decision he already knew he would decide.
And as far as I can tell, not making any sense.
[b]Second, I do not see anyway how the inability to redecide would mean that God cannot think. Surely the initial decision is enough proof of the power to think.
Because the initial decision itself is re-deciding. He is deciding something that prior to the decision he already knew he would decide.
...[text shortened]... It is making a decision that prior to making it was not made (but God knew he would make).[/b]
But that makes no sense to me. You are essentially saying that God's ability to decide something means that he should be able to decide to do something even when he has decided on its opposite. I don't get it.
My claim is that his mind is essentially fixed for all eternity - therefore he is not thinking.
I don't see how that follows. God's mind is fixed, if he has definitely decided on something. I don't see however why God's ability to think requires that his mind not be fixed.
So Gods personality changes randomly? It seems you agree with me that his decisions are essentially arbitrary.
No. I am not suggesting that at all. I was simply illustrating that a redecision does not necessarily entail a change in knowledge.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am not convinced. Imagine a defence lawyer were arguing that the accused was mentally insane so that he committed murder. He provides incontrovertible evidence that the accused could not otherwise have precluded himself from committing murder. The defence obviously did not have free will. The prosecutor however argues that the accused had 'creative responses' available to him. The accused could have murdered with poison, with his bare hands or with a gun. Does that really satisfy the requirements of free will?
I don't think it is true that God, in order to have free will, must be able to choose not-A (i.e., something contrary to His nature and purpose). For the simple reason that for any given circumstance there may be multiple creative responses available to God, each equally consistent with God's nature and each equally sufficient for God's purposes. I pro ofar as God is free to choose among a plethora of creative responses [A1, A2, A3, A4,...].
2 edits
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematically proven result which really kind of puts the lie to the concept of an "omniscient mind." We're talking mathematics here, founded upon logic and rather irrefutable -- more so than even the Law of Gravitation in physics, say.
Here's the basic idea. The problem with an "omniscient mind" is that it must know itself completely, but with the learning of each fact about itself, the mind's previous state is altered, and so it must next learn how it has altered, which consequently again alters the state of the mind. We are inexorably led to an infinite regression paradox -- the very thing people use as an excuse to invent a god in the first place so as to explain away questions relating to the origins of the universe.
<digression>But reality, as I said in another thread, is not obligated to have a "beginning" or an "end," because it does not have to consist of just one universe or adhere to strictly linear time continua.</digression>
You can have your god and claim he knows an awful lot, but omniscient he will not be.
EDIT: The way out of this is to posit that God's mind does not behave like a Turing machine; however, in my view this removes God even more from being qualified as a "logical" explanation for reality, and may lead to different infinite regression paradoxes.
Originally posted by Conrau KIf the will is constrained in one respect, is it constrained in every respect? My point is, even if God is constrained by His own nature, there is still room for Him to act creatively (i.e., freely).
I am not convinced. Imagine a defence lawyer were arguing that the accused was mentally insane so that he committed murder. He provides incontrovertible evidence that the accused could not otherwise have precluded himself from committing murder. The defence obviously did not have free will. The prosecutor however argues that the accused had 'creative respon ...[text shortened]... on, with his bare hands or with a gun. Does that really satisfy the requirements of free will?
Originally posted by SoothfastAn omniscient mind doesn't need to learn anything.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematically proven result which really kind of puts the lie to the concept of an "omniscient mind." We're talking mathematics here, founded upon logic and rather irrefutable -- more so than even the Law of Gravitation in physics, say.
Here's the basic idea. The problem with an "omniscient mind" is that it must kn ...[text shortened]... explanation for reality, and may lead to different infinite regression paradoxes.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWell, hey, sure God has free will if he has a choice between A1 and A2. But that is such a restrictive view of God's free will that I don't think it would satisfy the ordinary libertarian theist: God had to create the world, God had to create mankind, God had to save mankind. The only concession is that God could possibly have created the world in seven rather than six days, could have created mankind in a different way or could have saved mankind through some other method. It's a very narrow free will.
If the will is constrained in one respect, is it constrained in every respect? My point is, even if God is constrained by His own nature, there is still room for Him to act creatively (i.e., freely).
I guess we have to revisit the history of this doctrine to see what the motivation for God's free will was. Why did and still do Christians believe that God had free will? I personally don't think that this technicality would have been what they meant.
Originally posted by SoothfastI think this takes omniscience far too legalistically. Just as God's omnipotence does not require logically impossible feats (lifting the unliftable rock) so too does God's omniscience not require infinite regressions. You have to look at how theists use these terms rather than take them strictly legastically and try to refute them through wordplay.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is a mathematically proven result which really kind of puts the lie to the concept of an "omniscient mind." We're talking mathematics here, founded upon logic and rather irrefutable -- more so than even the Law of Gravitation in physics, say.
Here's the basic idea. The problem with an "omniscient mind" is that it must kn ...[text shortened]... explanation for reality, and may lead to different infinite regression paradoxes.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI don't see the need to conceive of God as utterly free (i.e., able to escape His own nature). And, further, I don't see the kind of freedom I propose as restrictive. If I am by nature creative, it is not a restriction of my will to paint a picture. An outside observer might say that I had to paint that picture, because I am creative by nature, but that hardly seems accurate. It is not restrictive in the sense that God is aware of something constraining His will. God is free insofar as nothing can prevent Him from acting according to His own nature, and potentially free insofar as He is cognizant of a multitude of creative options for expressing His will. God may love to paint, but that fact doesn't necessarily constrain what it is He chooses to paint.
Well, hey, sure God has free will if he has a choice between A1 and A2. But that is such a restrictive view of God's free will that I don't think it would satisfy the ordinary libertarian theist: God had to create the world, God had to create mankind, God had to save mankind. The only concession is that God could possibly have created the world in seven rat free will? I personally don't think that this technicality would have been what they meant.
Are Christians in general libertarians? That would surprise me.
Originally posted by epiphinehasDoesn't make for much of an intelligence, does it? It's like a set of encyclopedias sitting on a shelf, basking in its all-knowingness.
An omniscient mind doesn't need to learn anything.
A truly omniscient mind, in other words, would have to be completely static and unchanging. In answer to the OP, a truly omniscient mind would not think. There have been 6 pages of debate here about how a know-it-all could possibly do anything, so I think this point is coming home.
Originally posted by wolfgang59So a God who created the universe doesn't think or act, or are you speaking
given that god supposedly knew the future of every particle in the universe at the moment of creation and given that god is part of the universe, does that imply that he knew his own actions in advance? and that therefore he cannot change them? in other words he is as helpless as any one of us? this would include god's inability to think (although he may ...[text shortened]... [/i] of thinking)
what value are worship and prayer when the god is powerless to think/act?
of some other god?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, we think with electrical charges zipping through trillions of brain cells. What do you imagine your god is physically doing to do the same thing if it in fact thinks. If what it has is an infinite data base knowing the past present and future of every particle in the universe, what need would there be for such a being to have thoughts like we do? It could get along with just intent, like a bacteria has intent when it attacks a cell but there is no thought involved, or on a higher level, a tiger intent on prey, not much in the way of conscious thought.
Seems like they want to discuss can a square shape ever be a circle.
Kelly
A god like that could just use intent to cause things to happen but not have what we would call a conscious mind. Its intent would have shaped the past present and future of our universe.
If you think it has thoughts like we do and it is not made of matter like we are, what do you imagine is happening inside its mind to allow that god to form active thoughts? And to whom would it be communicating with?