Is God's will bound by Reason ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
reason {Ger. Vernunft}

The intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference.



http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/r.htm#reas

In that definition, isn't the word reason meaningless, when applied to any omniscient god?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
How does one seriously go about testing this theory?

Just like most other philosophical propositions.

EDIT: One would either "prove" it deductively or arrive at some inductive inference.

Originally posted by Palynka
In that definition, isn't the word reason meaningless, when applied to any omniscient god?

Why should it be ?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Just like most other philosophical propositions.

Isn't the input of the Supreme Philosopher required?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Isn't the input of the Supreme Philosopher required?

??

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Why should it be ?

Because there would be no such thing as an 'apprehension' of the truth for such a God.

Originally posted by Palynka
Because there would be no such thing as an 'apprehension' of the truth for such a God.

Why not?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why not?

Because he's omniscient.

I'm sure you see my point, just say what you have to say about it.

Originally posted by Palynka
Because he's omniscient.

I'm sure you see my point, just say what you have to say about it.

Actually, I'm not sure I see your point.

1. A non-simple omniscient being can always "apprehend"; e.g. God started off non-omniscient but then apprehended all there was to apprehend.

2. Even a simple omniscient being can be said to apprehend immediately (which the defn cited allows).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
2. Even a simple omniscient being can be said to apprehend immediately (which the defn cited allows).

So does God have a beginning? When is this moment of time where he apprehends immediately?

Originally posted by Palynka
So does God have a beginning? When is this moment of time where he apprehends immediately?

Here 'immediately' refers to 'without mediation' (e.g. without an intervening process of inference) rather than 'simultaneously'.

But, if you pressed, I would have to say "all points of time".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Here 'immediately' refers to 'without mediation' (e.g. without an intervening process of inference) rather than 'simultaneously'.

But, if you pressed, I would have to say "all points of time".

But that would imply that he apprehends new things that he did not knew before.

If not, then the word apprehension is meaningless, since he knew before time even existed.

Originally posted by Palynka
But that would imply that he apprehends new things that he did not knew before.

If not, then the word apprehension is meaningless, since he knew before time even existed.

What implies that He apprehends new things? And how does knowing something "before" (the expression is problemmatic, but I'll run with it for the moment) time even existed make the term 'apprehension' meaningless?

One can argue that the term 'apprehension' cannot be applied univocally to man and God, only analogously.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
What implies that He apprehends new things? And how does knowing something "before" (the expression is problemmatic, but I'll run with it for the moment) time even existed make the term 'apprehension' meaningless?

One can argue that the term 'apprehension' cannot be applied univocally to man and God, only analogously.

I'd think that the term apprehension of truth would define a transition between a state of 'less' knowledge to a state of 'more' knowledge.

I can't seem to find the right words to say what I mean. Sorry, I'm just not very eloquent, especially today.