Jewish and Christianity Question - Is God all knowing?

[True_Avery]

Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

 

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

 

3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."

 

6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

 

8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

 

9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"

"Here I am," he replied.

 

12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

 

 

23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare [a] the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

 

26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."

 

27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"

"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."

 

29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"

He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."

 

30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"

He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."

 

31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"

He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."

 

32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"

He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

If god was omniscience, then He wouldn't need Abraham to prove his loyalty. He would already know he is loyal. He also would not need Abraham to see how many righteous were in the city.

 

34 Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul. 35 Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Grieved?

 

What? He couldn't see what was coming?

 

1 Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD. 2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "

So much for omni-benevolence.

 

The evidence for omni-benevolence is contradictory at best. God supposedly is supposed to love its children, but has never really had a problem with bombing the crap out of entire cities.

 

In the end, the bible portrays god too much like a human father figure. God has many human aspects to his personality, because humans want something to relate to.

 

Even if it is the "word of god", its be skewed and biased towards human favor over the years.

[vanir]

<a large mass of inordinate stupidity>

I am asserting that there is no evidence for god and no reason to accept that he/she/it is omniscient.

Okay you need to read this sentence over and over. Eventually the penny might drop about what the logic problem is with your entire tact and argument, but I doubt it. By your own admission, this is a fight for the sake of fighting and you haven't the slightest interest in right, wrong or strict correctness.

 

If god was omniscience, then He wouldn't need Abraham to prove his loyalty. He would already know he is loyal. He also would not need Abraham to see how many righteous were in the city.

Okay, firstly Avery, the Archbishop for the Anglican Church has publicly declared the Bible is a book of allegory, that it was never intended to be taken literally.

For example, "Then God said," may mean a feeling, or an intuition. I couldn't say, but perhaps a priest might elaborate upon this. There are scholarly priests as I understand it, sects within the Church.

Here is even an allegory within the allegory, by this reckoning. "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." Where what he means to say, is you are to be the offering, my son.

In this example, the boy's life was at stake for reading between the lines and knowing something was amiss. For you and I it is only our sense of honour which is at stake by calling some 90% of the world's population intensely misguided liars before fully appreciating their point of view, and contemplating the reasons for it.

 

But even where you take the Bible to be given literally, as many sects and some denominations such as Kabbalah, the passage describes an angel being convinced by the Lord of Abraham's loyalty. In keeping with the Kabbalah belief (and certain other denominations) this describes the independent nature of angelic forms, carried by the word of God (which normally human ears and minds have troubles with) and yet sapience unto themselves.

 

In the second passage where Abraham is speaking directly with God (though iirc it was in fact by proxy, through the angels sent to destroy Sodom and Gomorra-been a while but I had pretty good translations of early texts...this is one important consideration for biblical texts, translations and publishers agendas vary and so there are many versions, best is to use academic theologist references, there are many good theology centres based in Jerusalem of course). God is not asking how many righteous people are in Soddom. The angels, whom carry the Word of God (thus power of creation and destruction by definition) have come to destroy Soddom for its offence to the righteous. Abraham, a peaceful man does not wish to see any killing and argues for its survival. The angels challenge him to find any righteous people living within Soddom, they already know there aren't any (hence the decision), however will stave the assault for any number of righteous inhabitants that Abraham wishes to declare.

 

Grieved?

 

What? He couldn't see what was coming?

You're kidding, right? You've never had to do something you didn't prefer because it was best given the circumstances?

 

The evidence for omni-benevolence is contradictory at best. God supposedly is supposed to love its children, but has never really had a problem with bombing the crap out of entire cities.

 

In the end, the bible portrays god too much like a human father figure. God has many human aspects to his personality, because humans want something to relate to.

 

Even if it is the "word of god", its be skewed and biased towards human favor over the years.

According to Jerusalem based theologists the Old Testament was written in a style which reflected the sentiment of the day. They cite it is to be remembered it was written by human hands, under divine instruction perhaps but even then, no direct communication between human ears and the Word of God is generally possible (very rare exceptions involving superbeings who live centuries and yet aged terrifically by the experience...ahem

[tk102]

Just for fun I'll regurgitate what I learned at Catholic high school.

 

Re: God's request of Isaac's sacrifice

If god was omniscience, then He wouldn't need Abraham to prove his loyalty. He would already know he is loyal.

The counter-argument is that, yes, God knew exactly what would happen here. Be requesting this of Abraham and allowing him to demonstrate his devout faith, God not only made a role-model out of Abraham, but also demonstrating his own benevolence in stopping Abraham once his faith had been shown. This episode was not to test Abraham, it was to exalt him.

 

Re: Abraham's discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah

He also would not need Abraham to see how many righteous were in the city.

Here is the flip-side of the Isaac story. Again, the counter-argument presumes that God of course knew there not even 10 people in the cities who were righteous. But now we have Abraham appearing as the merciful one. He questions whether God would save them all for fewer and fewer numbers, which allows God to show benevolence by saying he would. But now God shows his wrath instead of his mercy. His decision to eradicate the cities was based on the fact they were morally depraved rotten to the core. The implied justification here is that by keeping immorality in check, God was bestowing a blessing on mankind.

 

Now I don't have any argument regarding 1 Samuel 15. The books of Judges and Kings are all pretty damned bloody.

[True_Avery]

Okay you need to read this sentence over and over. Eventually the penny might drop about what the logic problem is with your entire tact and argument, but I doubt it. By your own admission, this is a fight for the sake of fighting and you haven't the slightest interest in right, wrong or strict correctness.

Takes two to tango.

 

He's saying this is not a matter of right or wrong. You cannot quantify something as right or wrong if it is not a scientific quandary.

 

There is no proof that god exists. There is no proof to support the existence of one, and by extension no way to disprove it.

 

It is not something that is about being right or wrong. It is the problem that the question of if a god exists is an illogical one.

 

Thus, asking if something that cannot be confirmed to exist or not exist whether it knows everything is a brick wall question.

 

Least, that's what I summarize from Achille's posts in this thread. He can feel free to correct this.

 

Okay, firstly Avery, the Archbishop for the Anglican Church has publicly declared the Bible is a book of allegory, that it was never intended to be taken literally.

Umm... ok. What does that have to do with anything? The question of the thread is "Is god omniscience".

 

I presented some verses that I thought said otherwise in the context that we base god off of the bible.

 

If I cannot base god off of the bible, as you seem to be stating, then this thread has no ground to stand on.

 

I may as well try and answer the OP's question with a Harry Potter book. But, being that the thread has stated to be placed in the context of Jewish/christian belief, I saw it fit to look at the book concerning.

 

For example, "Then God said," may mean a feeling, or an intuition. I couldn't say, but perhaps a priest might elaborate upon this. There are scholarly priests as I understand it, sects within the Church.

I'm confused. How am I supposed to answer a question if we are basing the questions off of supposed emotions guessed in an allegory?

 

Here is even an allegory within the allegory, by this reckoning. "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." Where what he means to say, is you are to be the offering, my son.

In this example, the boy's life was at stake for reading between the lines and knowing something was amiss. For you and I it is only our sense of honour which is at stake by calling some 90% of the world's population intensely misguided liars before fully appreciating their point of view, and contemplating the reasons for it.

I'm not sure where you are coming from or going with this.

 

But even where you take the Bible to be given literally, as many sects and some denominations such as Kabbalah, the passage describes an angel being convinced by the Lord of Abraham's loyalty. In keeping with the Kabbalah belief (and certain other denominations) this describes the independent nature of angelic forms, carried by the word of God (which normally human ears and minds have troubles with) and yet sapience unto themselves.

I'm lost...

 

You're kidding, right? You've never had to do something you didn't prefer because it was best given the circumstances?

Yeah, but I'm a human capable of mistake.

 

God sent a dude to kill children and such. Helped his become King. Then, looking back and seeing what he had done and who he had put into power... grieved?

 

He's a being that can supposedly see and know all. Why grieve when your all knowing eye seems to know the good that would come out of it? If there was no good? Then god is kind of a jerk.

 

It is an awfully human mistake for an all powerful omniscience diety. And if it was not a mistake, then why grieve! He supposedly has the power of future and past sight and well as seeing everything and anything. It is not logical for a figure like that to grieve.

 

Thus why I bring his omniscience into question.

 

According to Jerusalem based theologists the Old Testament was written in a style which reflected the sentiment of the day. They cite it is to be remembered it was written by human hands, under divine instruction perhaps but even then, no direct communication between human ears and the Word of God is generally possible (very rare exceptions involving superbeings who live centuries and yet aged terrifically by the experience...ahem

Ok, it wasn't god then. But, at the same time, you call them allegory.

 

I don't know where you are coming from and personally have no idea how to answer much of your above. While your neutrality on the subject is admirable, it makes your words into a puzzle to decifer.

 

This episode was not to test Abraham, it was to exalt him.

Yeah, I sorta gathered that as well. Was worth a try though.

 

Here is the flip-side of the Isaac story. Again, the counter-argument presumes that God of course knew there not even 10 people in the cities who were righteous. But now we have Abraham appearing as the merciful one. He questions whether God would save them all for fewer and fewer numbers, which allows God to show benevolence by saying he would. But now God shows his wrath instead of his mercy. His decision to eradicate the cities was based on the fact they were morally depraved rotten to the core. The implied justification here is that by keeping immorality in check, God was bestowing a blessing on mankind.

Ah, gotcha.

[Achilles]

Okay you need to read this sentence over and over. Eventually the penny might drop about what the logic problem is with your entire tact and argument, but I doubt it. By your own admission, this is a fight for the sake of fighting and you haven't the slightest interest in right, wrong or strict correctness.

Not quite.

 

If the correct answer is "I don't know and neither can you because there is no answer", then there is a purpose behind debating those that claim "there is an answer, I know it, and you don't". That would seem to have something to do with "right, wrong, or strict correctness", wouldn't you agree?

 

Were you going to address my other points as well or are you conceding them?

 

Re: God's request of Isaac's sacrifice

The counter-argument is that, yes, God knew exactly what would happen here. Be requesting this of Abraham and allowing him to demonstrate his devout faith, God not only made a role-model out of Abraham, but also demonstrating his own benevolence in stopping Abraham once his faith had been shown. This episode was not to test Abraham, it was to exalt him.

Wouldn't this type of behavior constitute child abuse today? Again, I find it interesting that that which we find to be psychological abuse of children by our standards equals benevolence by god's standards.

 

Re: Abraham's discussion about Sodom and Gomorrah

Here is the flip-side of the Isaac story. Again, the counter-argument presumes that God of course knew there not even 10 people in the cities who were righteous. But now we have Abraham appearing as the merciful one. He questions whether God would save them all for fewer and fewer numbers, which allows God to show benevolence by saying he would. But now God shows his wrath instead of his mercy. His decision to eradicate the cities was based on the fact they were morally depraved rotten to the core. The implied justification here is that by keeping immorality in check, God was bestowing a blessing on mankind.

Indeed that is a formidable counter argument.

 

My question in this case (as it is in all cases where god sends one of "his people" in to either eradicate or lay the groundwork for the eradication of some "other" group) is, "why didn't god do something sooner?". He's timeless and all powerful, yet he only makes nice with this one group of people?

 

I realize the question at hand was omniscience, but I like to point out that the argument of one of god's alleged attributes always seems to come at the cost of another one of his alleged attributes.

[Q]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able, and willing?Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

My apologies for the threadcromancy, but I thought that it was worth pointing out that the only logical explanation for God's omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence in spite of the existence of evil would be that, for some humanly unfathomable reason, evil is necessary.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

no evil, no bootstraps, only man

[Q]

Are you saying that there is no such thing as evil? I do understand that the existence of good and evil is debatable.

[Vaelastraz]

Aren't those contradictions more of a question as to whether we believe that god is bound by logic?

 

If god can do p and not p at the same time, then he can also be benevolent and malevolent at the same time.

[Q]

That is an excellent point.

[Vaelastraz]

You are not being sarcastic are you?

[Samuel Dravis]

People generally accept that god is bound by logic because (to give one example) to do otherwise eliminates the possibility of coherent discussion about God's nature. This directly contradicts various parts of sacred texts and religious traditions, which love to say things like "God is good," etc. This may seem irrelevant to you, but it appears to me that if you throw out those texts/traditions then you're no longer talking about a specific religion's god. If you're not talking about a religion's god, then I can't help you; it's your own god and you can say whatever you like about it. If there are contradictions or "faults" in your god, it's because you allow them to exist.

 

In addition, it also can be said that anyone who says that God can do anything, even things against the "laws of logic", have failed to understand what kind of thing, exactly, those laws are. We give them the name "laws", but in fact they have little to do with laws in a judicial sense. You gave an example: can god be benevolent and malevolent at the same time? No - not because there is a limit to God's power, but because of a curiosity of human speech. There is simply no possibility in English of describing the same person with two opposite intentions with reference to a single third party in a given context. One could say that it's an artifact of our grammar that God is "bound" by logic; this wouldn't affect his ability to do anything any more than the possible descriptions of my actions affect my ability to act.

 

My advice is to leave the philosopher's gods to people who like to beat their heads against a wall...

[mur'phon]

My advice is to leave the philosopher's gods to people who like to beat their heads against a wall...

 

We're kavarites, it's what we do best:D

[Q]

You are not being sarcastic are you?

Not at all. Really. I don't believe that God is 100% benevolent. Justice never is.

[LadyRevan]

I think god is all knowing... I think he picks his battles in a sense though as he doesn't interfere with us in a larger sense. I think god merely watches us until we're ready to come back to him and at that point we are asked about things that we have done in our lives wether they be that of a sinner or of a saint.

 

But to answer this question in a whole sense, yes; yes I do think god is all knowing.

[Vaelastraz]

People generally accept that god is bound by logic because (to give one example) to do otherwise eliminates the possibility of coherent discussion about God's nature. This directly contradicts various parts of sacred texts and religious traditions, which love to say things like "God is good," etc. This may seem irrelevant to you, but it appears to me that if you throw out those texts/traditions then you're no longer talking about a specific religion's god. If you're not talking about a religion's god, then I can't help you; it's your own god and you can say whatever you like about it. If there are contradictions or "faults" in your god, it's because you allow them to exist.

I agree with all of this..

In addition, it also can be said that anyone who says that God can do anything, even things against the "laws of logic", have failed to understand what kind of thing, exactly, those laws are. We give them the name "laws", but in fact they have little to do with laws in a judicial sense. You gave an example: can god be benevolent and malevolent at the same time? No - not because there is a limit to God's power, but because of a curiosity of human speech. There is simply no possibility in English of describing the same person with two opposite intentions with reference to a single third party in a given context.

Quite true.. that's the nature of logical contradictions though isn't it? They can't be true, they're defined to be false in all cases.

Can you doubt logic? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to do so? Not at all.

 

That's why I said that it's a question as to whether someone believes god is bound by logic. If someone holds the belief that logical contradictions do not apply to god you might as well stop arguing then and there, as you pointed out.

 

I think that's why most people will try to argue semantics, to turn the contradiction into something consistent.

 

 

My advice is to leave the philosopher's gods to people who like to beat their heads against a wall...

Well I'm into philosophy but I see your point.

[Samuel Dravis]

Quite true.. that's the nature of logical contradictions though isn't it? They can't be true, they're defined to be false in all cases.

Can you doubt logic? Absolutely. Does it make any sense to do so? Not at all.

 

That's why I said that it's a question as to whether someone believes god is bound by logic. If someone holds the belief that logical contradictions do not apply to god you might as well stop arguing then and there, as you pointed out.

My point was that God being "bound" by logic is a matter of description by language. It has nothing to do with any actual restriction on God's abilities to do anything. If someone were to say that contradictions (as in the example above) don't apply to God, they're demonstrating a misunderstanding of the proper grammatical use of "malevolent" or "benevolent". Either those words apply or they don't. If they don't, then don't use them. If they do, then in English only one can apply to a specific instance... otherwise:

 

...meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to words before them: 'God can' ... nonsense is nonsense, even if we speak it about God.

[Jae Onasi]

Assumptions--God exists, God created and maintains the universe (and thus has the knowledge to do so).

Given the order found in the laws of science and nature, I think we can ascribe some level of understanding to God that He has organized the universe with certain rules and a certain amount of consistency in mind.

 

We can try to learn all that God knows, and I think the more we understand about the universe, the more we can appreciate just how exquisitely put together everything is. There is a practical limit to what we can learn just based on our anatomy. For instance, our anatomy and brain wiring doesn't allow us to see into the UV or IR ranges, so we have to either translate it into a mode we can see (e.g. night goggles converting IR into the visible light range, converting radio waves into something that's in our audible range), or we just have to learn about it intellectually without fully experiencing it. There are some things we might not be able to fully understand because we just don't have the brain pathways laid down for it. We are also bound by space and time. God does not have the space-time-anatomy-physiology limits we have. There is also no way of knowing if God is all-knowing unless we become all-knowing ourselves. We can't understand completely any possible limits on God without being omniscient ourselves, and that's not going to happen.

From a practical point of view, a being that can create time/space, an entire universe, and at least one world teeming with life, and hold it all together over billions of years, has to be pretty darn knowledgeable. Compared to our puny and limited understanding of life and the universe, God is in effect omniscient compared to us.

[EnderWiggin]

Compared to our puny and limited understanding of life and the universe, God is in effect omniscient compared to us.

So your opinion is that he seems to be, but we can't be sure?

 

(Just for clarification's sake )

 

_EW_

[Jae Onasi]

So your opinion is that he seems to be, but we can't be sure?

 

(Just for clarification's sake )

 

_EW_

We can't achieve the omniscience required to decide if God is omniscient or not. We can look at the entire universe and decide if that level of intelligence approaches infinity.

[Samuel Dravis]

I was under the impression that it wasn't a scientific question?

 

Summa Theologica Question 14 Article 1. Whether there is knowledge?

Objection 1. It seems that in God there is not knowledge. For knowledge is a habit; and habit does not belong to God, since it is the mean between potentiality and act. Therefore knowledge is not in God.

 

Objection 2. Further, since science is about conclusions, it is a kind of knowledge caused by something else which is the knowledge of principles. But nothing is caused in God; therefore science is not in God.

 

Objection 3. Further, all knowledge is universal, or particular. But in God there is no universal or particular (3, 5). Therefore in God there is not knowledge.

 

On the contrary, The Apostle says, "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God" (Romans 11:33).

 

I answer that, In God there exists the most perfect knowledge. To prove this, we must note that intelligent beings are distinguished from non-intelligent beings in that the latter possess only their own form; whereas the intelligent being is naturally adapted to have also the form of some other thing; for the idea of the thing known is in the knower. Hence it is manifest that the nature of a non-intelligent being is more contracted and limited; whereas the nature of intelligent beings has a greater amplitude and extension; therefore the Philosopher says (De Anima iii) that "the soul is in a sense all things." Now the contraction of the form comes from the matter. Hence, as we have said above (Question 7, Article 1) forms according as they are the more immaterial, approach more nearly to a kind of infinity. Therefore it is clear that the immateriality of a thing is the reason why it is cognitive; and according to the mode of immateriality is the mode of knowledge. Hence it is said in De Anima ii that plants do not know, because they are wholly material. But sense is cognitive because it can receive images free from matter, and the intellect is still further cognitive, because it is more separated from matter and unmixed, as said in De Anima iii. Since therefore God is in the highest degree of immateriality as stated above (Question 7, Article 1), it follows that He occupies the highest place in knowledge.

 

Reply to Objection 1. Because perfections flowing from God to creatures exist in a higher state in God Himself (4, 2), whenever a name taken from any created perfection is attributed to God, it must be separated in its signification from anything that belongs to that imperfect mode proper to creatures. Hence knowledge is not a quality of God, nor a habit; but substance and pure act.

 

Reply to Objection 2. Whatever is divided and multiplied in creatures exists in God simply and unitedly (13, 4). Now man has different kinds of knowledge, according to the different objects of His knowledge. He has "intelligence" as regards the knowledge of principles; he has "science" as regards knowledge of conclusions; he has "wisdom," according as he knows the highest cause; he has "counsel" or "prudence," according as he knows what is to be done. But God knows all these by one simple act of knowledge, as will be shown (7). Hence the simple knowledge of God can be named by all these names; in such a way, however, that there must be removed from each of them, so far as they enter into divine predication, everything that savors of imperfection; and everything that expresses perfection is to be retained in them. Hence it is said, "With Him is wisdom and strength, He hath counsel and understanding" ( Job 12:13).

 

Reply to Objection 3. Knowledge is according to the mode of the one who knows; for the thing known is in the knower according to the mode of the knower. Now since the mode of the divine essence is higher than that of creatures, divine knowledge does not exist in God after the mode of created knowledge, so as to be universal or particular, or habitual, or potential, or existing according to any such mode.

Summa Theologica Question 14 Article 7. Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?

 

Objection 1. It seems that the knowledge of God is discursive. For the knowledge of God is not habitual knowledge, but actual knowledge. Now the Philosopher says (Topic. ii): "The habit of knowledge may regard many things at once; but actual understanding regards only one thing at a time." Therefore as God knows many things, Himself and others, as shown above (2,5), it seems that He does not understand all at once, but discourses from one to another.

 

Objection 2. Further, discursive knowledge is to know the effect through its cause. But God knows things through Himself; as an effect (is known) through its cause. Therefore His knowledge is discursive.

 

Objection 3. Further, God knows each creature more perfectly than we know it. But we know the effects in their created causes; and thus we go discursively from causes to things caused. Therefore it seems that the same applies to God.

 

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv), "God does not see all things in their particularity or separately, as if He saw alternately here and there; but He sees all things together at once."

 

I answer that, In the divine knowledge there is no discursion; the proof of which is as follows. In our knowledge there is a twofold discursion: one is according to succession only, as when we have actually understood anything, we turn ourselves to understand something else; while the other mode of discursion is according to causality, as when through principles we arrive at the knowledge of conclusions. The first kind of discursion cannot belong to God. For many things, which we understand in succession if each is considered in itself, we understand simultaneously if we see them in some one thing; if, for instance, we understand the parts in the whole, or see different things in a mirror. Now God sees all things in one (thing), which is Himself. Therefore God sees all things together, and not successively. Likewise the second mode of discursion cannot be applied to God.

 

First, because this second mode of discursion presupposes the first mode; for whosoever proceeds from principles to conclusions does not consider both at once; secondly, because to discourse thus is to proceed from the known to the unknown. Hence it is manifest that when the first is known, the second is still unknown; and thus the second is known not in the first, but from the first. Now the term discursive reasoning is attained when the second is seen in the first, by resolving the effects into their causes; and then the discursion ceases. Hence as God sees His effects in Himself as their cause, His knowledge is not discursive.

 

Reply to Objection 1. Altogether there is only one act of understanding in itself, nevertheless many things may be understood in one (medium), as shown above.

 

Reply to Objection 2. God does not know by their cause, known, as it were previously, effects unknown; but He knows the effects in the cause; and hence His knowledge is not discursive, as was shown above.

 

Reply to Objection 3. God sees the effects of created causes in the causes themselves, much better than we can; but still not in such a manner that the knowledge of the effects is caused in Him by the knowledge of the created causes, as is the case with us; and hence His knowledge is not discursive.

[EnderWiggin]

I was under the impression that it wasn't a scientific question?

 

Oh, bringing out the big guns, are you?

Don't you Saint Thomas Aquinas me, Sam

 

Just kidding. Good quotation, and a good point.

 

_EW_