Does God Know?

[zerinus]

Duplicate post

[zerinus]

I'm not a theologian, nor a philosopher (though I have my fantasies...), . . .

It shows!

. . . but one thing I am an expert in is making choices in my own life, and I can tell you, unequivocally, that I am rarely faced with a choice between good and evil. Like, maybe once in a blue moon, and it's more the, "Should I go to conference or sleep in" type of evil, not the "Should I have pork chops or a small baby for dinner" type of evil.

In theology, the only kinds of "choices" that are of serious interest are the ones that determine where you will end up after the final judgement. Philosophy may be interested in other kinds of choices; but theology isn't.

[LDSToronto]

My training in theology is in scriptures. Believe it or not, the basis of Christian theology (I mean traditional Christian theology) is the Bible. A whole lot of other discipline may have been built around it; but it ultimately boils down to the Bible. Anybody who knows the Bible well, and can intelligently reason from it, can legitimately call himself a theologian. In the case of Mormonism, that basis expands to include modern revelations of the Church. That is my training as a theologian. I haven’t received any “formal” training as a theologian, if that is what you are asking—and I don’t think I need to. Our resident “formal” theologian I suppose is Rob Bowman; and I can hold my own against him any day! There is no contest!

Ah, OK. I guess I'm a theologian, too! Good to meet a fellow theologian I'm not a philosopher, though - Brade is a philosopher, and I don't hold a candle to him.

Dang, I've always wanted to be a philosopher. I'll have to settle for theologian.

H.

[zerinus]

Ah, OK. I guess I'm a theologian, too! Good to meet a fellow theologian I'm not a philosopher, though - Brade is a philosopher, and I don't hold a candle to him.

Dang, I've always wanted to be a philosopher. I'll have to settle for theologian.

H.

Do you what is the difference between the two?

[CA Steve]

My training in theology is in scriptures. Believe it or not, the basis of Christian theology (I mean traditional Christian theology) is the Bible. A whole lot of other discipline may have been built around it; but it ultimately boils down to the Bible. Anybody who knows the Bible well, and can intelligently reason from it, can legitimately call himself a theologian. In the case of Mormonism, that basis expands to include modern revelations of the Church. That is my training as a theologian. I haven’t received any “formal” training as a theologian, if that is what you are asking—and I don’t think I need to. Our resident “formal” theologian I suppose is Rob Bowman; and I can hold my own against him any day! There is no contest!

In theological terms does Mormonism view God as finite or absolute?

[zerinus]

In theological terms does Mormonism view God as finite or absolute?

Yes.

[Brade]

It shows!

In theology, the only kinds of "choices" that are of serious interest are the ones that determine where you will end up after the final judgement. Philosophy may be interested in other kinds of choices; but theology isn't.

I don't know whether "the only kinds of "choices" that are of serious interest [to theologians] are the ones that determine where you will end up after the final judgement", but I do know that the question of this thread is not "what kinds of choices to I need to make in order to have the best afterlife". Answers to that question are normative. The question of this thread as a meta question. So instead of "what choices should we make?", the question of this thread is, as I said, a philosophical question – specifically, "what is the nature of choice?", and "can choices be free in the case that certain conditions obtain in the universe (e.g. that God knows certain things or not)?". Answers to those question are not going to be normative (e.g. Don't do drugs), but will instead touch on metaphysics, ontology, philosophy of language, and logic. In answer the question of this thread, we need not say, at all, anything at all about what sorts of things people should or should not do. To think that an answer to the question of this thread should say something about those things is simply to not understand the question.

The original question was "Does God know what we will do, say, and think before we do?". Your answer is going to depend on the intuitions, pre-philosophical judgements, and philosophical judgments you're willing to retain at the expense of other intuitions, pre-philosophical judgments, and philosophical judgments. Giving principles up at the expense of others is what it is to reach reflective equilibrium. That is, unless we're prepared to accept just any ad hoc solution, or unless we're willing to accept that there are true contradictions, in assessing competing theories we're going to have to give some things up, because some principles are not compatible with other principles. In the free will debate it is pretty uncontroversially agreed upon that libertarian free will – the ability to do otherwise despite the history of the universe and the laws of nature – is not compatible with determinism or, it's religious sister, divine foreknowledge. Generally, and I don't mean this to be rude, but the only people you ever hear argue that those things are compatible are folks who are simply not sufficiently familiar with the nuances of the issue.

There is a way to believe that God has divine foreknowledge and that humans have free will. It's called compatibilism. But, compatibilists do not believe that "free will" refers to libertarian free will – the ability to do otherwise. In fact, they explicitly reject that view of free will.

[zerinus]

I don't know whether "the only kinds of "choices" that are of serious interest [to theologians] are the ones that determine where you will end up after the final judgement", but I do know that the question of this thread is not "what kinds of choices to I need to make in order to have the best afterlife". Answers to that question are normative. The question of this thread as a meta question. So instead of "what choices should we make?", the question of this thread is, as I said, a philosophical question – specifically, "what is the nature of choice?", and "can choices be free in the case that certain conditions obtain in the universe (e.g. that God knows certain things or not)?".

That is not the question of this thread either. The question of this thread is, “Does God know . . .” you are putting your own slant on the question which is not warrented.

Answers to those question are not going to be normative (e.g. Don't do drugs), but will instead touch on metaphysics, ontology, philosophy of language, and logic. In answer the question of this thread, we need not say, at all, anything at all about what sorts of things people should or should not do. To think that an answer to the question of this thread should say something about those things is simply to not understand the question.

The original question was "Does God know what we will do, say, and think before we do?". Your answer is going to depend on the intuitions, pre-philosophical judgements, and philosophical judgments you're willing to retain at the expense of other intuitions, pre-philosophical judgments, and philosophical judgments. Giving principles up at the expense of others is what it is to reach reflective equilibrium. That is, unless we're prepared to accept just any ad hoc solution, or unless we're willing to accept that there are true contradictions, in assessing competing theories we're going to have to give some things up, because some principles are not compatible with other principles. In the free will debate it is pretty uncontroversially agreed upon that libertarian free will – the ability to do otherwise despite the history of the universe and the laws of nature – is not compatible with determinism or, it's religious sister, divine foreknowledge. Generally, and I don't mean this to be rude, but the only people you ever hear argue that those things are compatible are folks who are simply not sufficiently familiar with the nuances of the issue.

There is a way to believe that God has divine foreknowledge and that humans have free will. It's called compatibilism. But, compatibilists do not believe that "free will" refers to libertarian free will – the ability to do otherwise. In fact, they explicitly reject that view of free will.

Although the question may not be theologically expressed, since this is a religious forum it is reasonable to treat it as a theological question, and that is the only way that I am willing to entertain answering it. I am not interested in considering that question in any other way than the theological one; and the theological answer to it is a definitive Yes, God does “know what we will do, say, and think before we do them;” and He does “know the choices we will make before we make them”. And how do we determine that? Because He has revealed it to us in His scriptures, which is the basis of all Christian theology. That is the simple, theological answer to that question.

[CA Steve]

Yes.

So much for the theologin.

[zerinus]

So much for the theologin.

Sorry, it looks like I misread your question. It happens when you try to read things too quickly.

The answer to your question is that in Mormonism God is infinite, not finite; and I presume that is what you meant by "absolute". God is infinite and, if that is what you mean by it, is also absolute.

[CA Steve]

Sorry, it looks like I misread your question. It happens when you try to read things too quickly.

The answer to your question is that in Mormonism God is infinite, not finite; and I presume that is what you meant by "absolute". God is infinite and, if that is what you mean by it, is also absolute.

Do you understand the difference between absolutism and finitism in a theological sense? I am not claiming to be a theologin, but based on your answer to my question it apears you are not either.

[zerinus]

Do you understand the difference between absolutism and finitism in a theological sense? I am not claiming to be a theologin, but based on your answer to my question it apears you are not either.

I discuss theology in scriptural terms, using terminology derived from the scriptures. Scripture talks about God as being "infinite". He performs an "infinite atonement" for example. The word "absolute" does not occur in the KJV Bible at all in fact, nor in any of the LDS scriptures. So if you want me to tell you if God is "absolute" or not in Mormonism, you need to define for me what "absolute" means in scriptural terms, before I can answer it.

[CA Steve]

I discuss theology in scriptural terms, using terminology derived from the scriptures. Scripture talks about God as being "infinite". He performs an "infinite atonement" for example. The word "absolute" does not occur in the KJV Bible at all in fact, nor in any of the LDS scriptures. So if you want me to tell you if God is "absolute" or not in Mormonism, you need to define for me what "absolute" means in scriptural terms, before I can answer it.

But Zerinus you claimed you were a theologian. As a theologian I would expect you to be familiar with how terms are used in that discipline and know how they apply to Mormonism. Having to ask me to define them shows you are not. This is not a criticism of how you interpret the scriptures or your ability to use them. You seem quite capable in that. I suspect you are confusing knowledge of the scriptures as equivalent to theology. It is not.

For example let's take the term eternal. We use it a lot in Mormonism. We work towards eternal rewards, we practice eternal marriage, we believe in an eternal God and eternal life. (We even have some crazy concepts about 'Eternal' not always being eternal when it comes to punishment and such.) These are all concepts that you can find and defend with the scriptures quite well. The theological question would be: What do we mean by 'eternal' and how do our beliefs about 'eternal' vary from other Christians? In mainstream Christianity 'eternal' is normally equated with timelessness & unchanging, but in Mormonism we tend to look at it as progression within time and space without beginning or end, except of course if we are talking about “Eternal Punishment” but that seems to be another discussion. Those are two radically different ways to look at the same word. As it applies to the OP many religions defend God's omniscience based on the belief that God exists outside of time (timelessness) and space (a non material being) and has the ability to see all of time at once and therefore knows all that will happen because it is right there in front of him. Mormonism, on the other hand, tends to view God as existing in both time and space and even believe he is progressing in some sense. (This is my work and my glory to bring to pass. . . sort of thing. Along with the “no such thing as immaterial matter” concepts we espouse.) So if God has not yet experienced the future then does the possibility exist that he may not know with 100% certainty what it contains? And going back to my question, if God has not yet experienced the future, is he finite (in the theological sense) and not absolute?

As I said, I am not a theologian but I believe you are not either. Frankly as Mormons we don’t do much theology; we seem to be a lot more interested in history. What would a trained LDS theologian do since we do not have a paid clergy? I think you have to go back to B.H. Roberts to actually find a theologian of any stature in the church leadership.

[Nathair/|\]

But Zerinus you claimed you were a theologian. As a theologian I would expect you to be familiar with how terms are used in that discipline and know how they apply to Mormonism. Having to ask me to define them shows you are not. This is not a criticism of how you interpret the scriptures or your ability to use them. You seem quite capable in that. I suspect you are confusing knowledge of the scriptures as equivalent to theology. It is not.

For example let's take the term eternal. We use it a lot in Mormonism. We work towards eternal rewards, we practice eternal marriage, we believe in an eternal God and eternal life. (We even have some crazy concepts about 'Eternal' not always being eternal when it comes to punishment and such.) These are all concepts that you can find and defend with the scriptures quite well. The theological question would be: What do we mean by 'eternal' and how do our beliefs about 'eternal' vary from other Christians? In mainstream Christianity 'eternal' is normally equated with timelessness & unchanging, but in Mormonism we tend to look at it as progression within time and space without beginning or end, except of course if we are talking about “Eternal Punishment” but that seems to be another discussion. Those are two radically different ways to look at the same word. As it applies to the OP many religions defend God's omniscience based on the belief that God exists outside of time (timelessness) and space (a non material being) and has the ability to see all of time at once and therefore knows all that will happen because it is right there in front of him. Mormonism, on the other hand, tends to view God as existing in both time and space and even believe he is progressing in some sense. (This is my work and my glory to bring to pass. . . sort of thing. Along with the “no such thing as immaterial matter” concepts we espouse.) So if God has not yet experienced the future then does the possibility exist that he may not know with 100% certainty what it contains? And going back to my question, if God has not yet experienced the future, is he finite (in the theological sense) and not absolute?

As I said, I am not a theologian but I believe you are not either. Frankly as Mormons we don’t do much theology; we seem to be a lot more interested in history. What would a trained LDS theologian do since we do not have a paid clergy? I think you have to go back to B.H. Roberts to actually find a theologian of any stature in the church leadership.

I like what Orson Scott Card said, that we don't live by theology, we live by stories.

[zerinus]

But Zerinus you claimed you were a theologian. As a theologian I would expect you to be familiar with how terms are used in that discipline and know how they apply to Mormonism. Having to ask me to define them shows you are not. This is not a criticism of how you interpret the scriptures or your ability to use them. You seem quite capable in that. I suspect you are confusing knowledge of the scriptures as equivalent to theology. It is not.

I refer you to my post #50 earlier in this thread. There I explained how I am a theologian and what I understand by theology. If your idea of theology is to show off by throwing around a bunch of theological jargon, then I am not a theologian in that sense. I refer you again to the above post. That explains my position in that regard clearly enough.

For example let's take the term eternal. We use it a lot in Mormonism. We work towards eternal rewards, we practice eternal marriage, we believe in an eternal God and eternal life. (We even have some crazy concepts about 'Eternal' not always being eternal when it comes to punishment and such.) These are all concepts that you can find and defend with the scriptures quite well. The theological question would be: What do we mean by 'eternal' and how do our beliefs about 'eternal' vary from other Christians? In mainstream Christianity 'eternal' is normally equated with timelessness & unchanging, but in Mormonism we tend to look at it as progression within time and space without beginning or end, except of course if we are talking about “Eternal Punishment” but that seems to be another discussion. Those are two radically different ways to look at the same word. As it applies to the OP many religions defend God's omniscience based on the belief that God exists outside of time (timelessness) and space (a non material being) and has the ability to see all of time at once and therefore knows all that will happen because it is right there in front of him. Mormonism, on the other hand, tends to view God as existing in both time and space and even believe he is progressing in some sense. (This is my work and my glory to bring to pass. . . sort of thing. Along with the “no such thing as immaterial matter” concepts we espouse.) So if God has not yet experienced the future then does the possibility exist that he may not know with 100% certainty what it contains? And going back to my question, if God has not yet experienced the future, is he finite (in the theological sense) and not absolute?

You are now confusing theology with philosophy. True theology is firmly grounded in God's revelation to man. Speculative questions for which definitive answers cannot be given from such revelation does not belong to the realm of theology, or at best are peripheral to it.

As I said, I am not a theologian but I believe you are not either. Frankly as Mormons we don’t do much theology; we seem to be a lot more interested in history. What would a trained LDS theologian do since we do not have a paid clergy? I think you have to go back to B.H. Roberts to actually find a theologian of any stature in the church leadership.

I think you have just got the wrong idea of what theology is. Joseph Smith was the first and greatest of Mormon theologians; even though he had not received any formal training in traditional Christian theology. He wrote a series of lectures on theology which has since come to be known as the Lectures on Faith. They are without doubt the greatest theological treatise on the subject of faith that has ever been written since Christianity was invented. And they are firmly based on scripture, not on philosophical speculations or bandying around theological jargon. In the catechism to the first lecture, he gives the following definition of theology, quoting from Buck's Theological Dictionary:

It is that

revealed science

which treats of the being and attributes of God—his relations to us—the dispensations of his providence—his will with respect to our actions—and his purposes with respect to our end.

Notice that he does not invent his own definition. He finds a definition in a traditional theological book that he likes, and uses that one. And also notice that it defines theology as a revealed science. That does not leave any room for the kind of philosophical speculation that you are engaging in, and like to pass off as "theology". That is not theology.

[TAO]

Are you trying to say that P cannot be false?

No, I'm saying P is dependent on future events. No matter how you change those future events, it will always effect P, thus always resulting in foreknowledge. It's why God doesn't coerce - it would cause a 'go back and time and do something that causes your parents to die' thing.

Again, here's the question I asked: Come noon on Friday, can it be false, given what I've said above, that P? The answer should be either "Yes, it can be false that P", "No, it cannot be false that P", "I like contradictions, it can be true and false!", "It's neither true nor false", or "I don't know".

Again, I am saying that you are looking at it in the wrong direction. Technichally, in God's eyes, your future actions are in the past. At least in terms of forseeing. No matter how much you change your future events, he will always see what will ultimately occur. Again, that's one reason he doesn't let you see his foreknowledge - he just instructs on it as he feels is important.

It's a difficult concept to grasp because, if we're talking about libertarian free will, then grasping that that sort of free will is compatible with the sort of foreknowledge zerinus espouses is the same as grasping the truth, if it could be true, of "all living cats have hearts and no living cats have hearts".

No, I am talking about free will, as in 'the ability to choose, or judge between'. Yes, our ability to judge or choose between is based on variables. But if those variables have always existed, no one thing is forcing you to do something. Because there is always, always something before it. If you can't reach 'a base situation' (aka creation ex nihlo) you will always have free will because you've always existed in one form or another, being buffered by different variables all the time. You, a group of variables being changed infinitely in the past and in the future.

Again, I may be wrong, but those are my thoughts about it.

[Biz]

No, I'm saying P is dependent on future events. No matter how you change those future events, it will always effect P, thus always resulting in foreknowledge. It's why God doesn't coerce - it would cause a 'go back and time and do something that causes your parents to die' thing.

Again, I am saying that you are looking at it in the wrong direction. Technichally, in God's eyes, your future actions are in the past. At least in terms of forseeing. No matter how much you change your future events, he will always see what will ultimately occur. Again, that's one reason he doesn't let you see his foreknowledge - he just instructs on it as he feels is important.

No, I am talking about free will, as in 'the ability to choose, or judge between'. Yes, our ability to judge or choose between is based on variables. But if those variables have always existed, no one thing is forcing you to do something. Because there is always, always something before it. If you can't reach 'a base situation' (aka creation ex nihlo) you will always have free will because you've always existed in one form or another, being buffered by different variables all the time. You, a group of variables being changed infinitely in the past and in the future.

Again, I may be wrong, but those are my thoughts about it.

What about God destroying the Wicked?

In the Old Testament we hear of stories like the flood in which God destroyed the people of the earth because they were wicked. We are taught in the New Testament God will destroy the people with fire at the Second Coming. Why would he destroy them? Does it not take away their agency which is a eternal law which is used to explain why God does not intervene in human affairs cause he would cease to be God for breaking a law he instituted? A flood and fire caused by God for the purpose of killing the wicked is a intervention. Is it possible that God in order to obtain more glory relies on the unorganized intelligences he organized into spirits to obey laws and progress becoming powerful beings thus giving him power?

If so, is this a explanation for him killing the wicked because they provide for him no "utility" in making him obtain more power and Glory? I would like to see the scripture saying God is happy or something similar. We know in Enoch he wept for the wickedness of his children or creation. Is it because they were failing to live the laws he instituted, thus causing him to not to obtain as much power and glory as he otherwise would have obtained? Or is it because they could not obtain the power he enjoys? If so why kill them for being wicked? Everyone has their ups and downs and it would be hard at the judgment bar for God to explain to the spirit who has yet to receive his immortal physical body that God killed his body because he God knew they would never obey the higher law. That is not agency that is a form of dictatorship. Then what is the purpose of this life? Is it really to learn for ourselves? If God could tell the spirit he killed it's physical body because the spirit was wicked and God knew that he/she would never change then it seems like gaining a physical body should be done in a different way. That is if that were the case which it almost essentially is or will be for some people.

Biz

[TAO]

What about God destroying the Wicked?

Yep, he does that too. Perhaps he does that because they try to infringe too much on other people, but either way, I'll leave it to his judgment.

In the Old Testament we hear of stories like the flood in which God destroyed the people of the earth because they were wicked. We are taught in the New Testament God will destroy the people with fire at the Second Coming. Why would he destroy them? Does it not take away their agency which is a eternal law which is used to explain why God does not intervene in human affairs cause he would cease to be God for breaking a law he instituted? A flood and fire caused by God for the purpose of killing the wicked is a intervention. Is it possible that God in order to obtain more glory relies on the unorganized intelligences he organized into spirits to obey laws and progress becoming powerful beings thus giving him power?

He takes away their agency to harm other people on Earth. He does not take away their agency to choose the gospel eventually (they go to the spirit world) nor to do numerous other things. What I meant by God not intervening really was that he doesn't intervene alot, sorry if I left it too explicit XD. There's a certain point where God has to 'step in' ya' know. Because agency is only worth so much. Just as there are other laws, of his own, that he breaks at times, because the laws of justice happen to be more important. I'm sure we will appreciate it later actually.

If so, is this a explanation for him killing the wicked because they provide for him no "utility" in making him obtain more power and Glory? I would like to see the scripture saying God is happy or something similar. We know in Enoch he wept for the wickedness of his children or creation. Is it because they were failing to live the laws he instituted, thus causing him to not to obtain as much power and glory as he otherwise would have obtained? Or is it because they could not obtain the power he enjoys? If so why kill them for being wicked? Everyone has their ups and downs and it would be hard at the judgment bar for God to explain to the spirit who has yet to receive his immortal physical body that God killed his body because he God knew they would never obey the higher law. That is not agency that is a form of dictatorship. Then what is the purpose of this life? Is it really to learn for ourselves? If God could tell the spirit he killed it's physical body because the spirit was wicked and God knew that he/she would never change then it seems like gaining a physical body should be done in a different way. That is if that were the case which it almost essentially is or will be for some people.

Biz

Nah, everyone has utility except a S.O.P I think. Even someone who goes to the telestial kingdom. They all are worth something. Even those who go to O.D. are worth something to God after that, I think... because he still loves them alot. I don't think he'd give us up for an instant even if we weren't utilitous to him, after all, was it not said that even if we obeyed all of his commandments, even if we served him with our whole souls, we would be unprofitable servants? I don't think God is so much concerned about growing as he is serving other people, that is part, of his work and his glory =).

Hmmm.... I think why he was crying in Enoch is because they would not be able to obtain what he has... they would not be as... happy. I think it makes God cry to know that we will not be as happy as he is... for only a simple thing. Because even though it's simple, it is so important. And he suffers to see them be made so... sad. For although we will be happy, I think that there will be some essence of sadness for those of us who do not make it... a small remembrance of sadness... of what we could have become.

And nah, I think God would leave a wicked person upon the Earth normally. He takes them up when he absolutely has to, I think, that I do, that I hope.

Best Wishes,

Your friend,

TAO