RE: A timeless being cannot create
July 20, 2019 at 12:54 am
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2019 at 1:07 am by Belacqua.)
(July 19, 2019 at 3:55 pm)tackattack Wrote: 4. It's a little ridiculous to say "it's false to say God knows things". That's a bit of word salad you are concocting there. I'll just give you a reference https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_...rt_359.cfm
It's not word salad, but it is unfamiliar. I found it difficult to grasp at first.
I looked at the Blue Letter Bible web site. No doubt you're correct: most Christians probably think of omniscience in the way he describes, if they bother to think about it at all.
If they went on to get a doctorate in Thomist epistemology, they would react to that web site's description by saying, "That's OK as far as it goes," or "That's right in a manner of speaking." Most Christians probably don't think about the difference between uni-vocal, equi-vocal, and analogous words, so they would just assume that the verb in "God knows X" and the verb in "I know X" refer to exactly the same activity.
(July 19, 2019 at 5:11 pm)mcc1789 Wrote: I'm at a loss to see how creation can occur with no act from God.
Yeah, I can't give a good answer to this either. I suspect that there are certain prerequisites necessary to grasp the explanation, and I don't have them yet. I'm no expert.
At this point I only know some analogies and some warnings about what NOT to say. Those might be useful while we hunt down more complete explanations.
First, it's wrong to think of God making the world by analogy to a watchmaker making a watch, or an artist painting a portrait.
An artist will spend a certain amount of time making the portrait, and after it's finished the artist and the picture have separate existences. The painting can exist long after the painter dies.
A better analogy is to your face in a mirror. Your face creates an image in the mirror, but as soon as you go away, the image disappears. We could say that the presence of your face sustains the existence of the image in the mirror. This is how God is said to create world. The beginning point -- if there was one -- is not the important thing. The continued reflection is what matters.
As for if God can be said to act, or to do something, this may be just a language issue.
Currently I have a vase of lilies in my entry hall. The hall smells nice, thanks to the lilies. Is it appropriate to say that the lilies acted, or did something, to make the hall smell nice? Or is it better to say that the hall just smells nice because of the way the lilies are? If you want to say that the lilies acted (in some way) then I'd be more willing to accept that God acted.
Similarly, does the sun illuminate the earth because of an act it takes? Or just because of the way the sun is? If it's OK to say that the sun acts to illuminate the earth, then it's probably OK to say that God acts to create the world. Analogically.
With these images in mind, we can think of our old friend Bonum est diffusivum sui -- the good spreads itself.
Remember that God is said to be the Good. Goodness itself, the Form of the Good. But a goodness that keeps to itself is a contradiction in terms. You can't have a good which is selfish. So by its nature, the Good must diffuse, or emanate, goodness. Not by grabbing handfuls and throwing it out, or by looking around, feeling sorry for people, and divvying it out, but by an impersonal emanation.
