RE: A question about Thomism
July 25, 2023 at 9:18 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2023 at 9:22 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Depends on whether we're talking about god, or everything else. Simultaneity for everything else is exactly what you think it is. Simultaneity for god is something else, as god exists outside of time. So, for example, the sorts of temporal causes we're familiar with require some component of simultaneity in order to be proposed as a cause. For me to cut the cheese, the knife has to move with my hand, through the cheese, as I think about cutting the cheese.
For the a-temporal god.....well, I'm going to cut to the chase and say that there's actually no way in human language for me to properly describe what/how it is that god, outside of time, has simultaneous access to all moments in time, the source of it's future-knowledge. It has the descriptive appearance of simultaneity - but that must be false, because there are no moments -for god- for things to be simultaneous in.
Remember, god has every property, but possesses every property in an utterly different way than anything else. The only way I can think of to even refer to the idea is maybe to attach a G in front of it, call it Gsimultaneity, and leave the apparent semantic or linguistic contradictions as they are and without elaboration or correction - asserting that they can only be apparent and not actual, and that there's no way a human could correct them anyway.
In short, it's a fucking mystery, in the classical sense of the term.
For the a-temporal god.....well, I'm going to cut to the chase and say that there's actually no way in human language for me to properly describe what/how it is that god, outside of time, has simultaneous access to all moments in time, the source of it's future-knowledge. It has the descriptive appearance of simultaneity - but that must be false, because there are no moments -for god- for things to be simultaneous in.
Remember, god has every property, but possesses every property in an utterly different way than anything else. The only way I can think of to even refer to the idea is maybe to attach a G in front of it, call it Gsimultaneity, and leave the apparent semantic or linguistic contradictions as they are and without elaboration or correction - asserting that they can only be apparent and not actual, and that there's no way a human could correct them anyway.
In short, it's a fucking mystery, in the classical sense of the term.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
