(November 5, 2013 at 3:29 am)Rational AKD Wrote:These are not variants of the idea of what it means to think. They are variants in the different concepts the word may represent.Quote:I know about thinking, because I can experience it: ideas fade in and out, mostly not of my own volition. I'm a witness to a dynamic virtual space where those ideas play off each other. Now, you say God is timeless. That means he does not have ideas fading in and out. He does not have a dynamic virtual space where his ideas play off each other, because change means time. He therefore does not think. But, you claim, God's thinking is very different than our thinking. No, it's not. It can't be. Because if it doesn't involve a flow of changing ideas (change requiring time, remember), it's not properly called thinking. It's something else.that is merely your personal experience of how thinking works, not the actual definition. according to Merriam-Webster, we have three definitions.
Merriam-Webster Wrote:1. to believe that something is true, that a particular situation exists, that something will happen, etc.out of these, number 3 is most applicable. the basic requirements for God to think is to have thoughts in his mind which doesn't entail the changing of said thoughts. the only aspects of thought God cannot possess are the concepts of pondering, contemplating, or remembering. God cannot possess these because he has all knowledge and to do any of these would require new unknown information.
2. to have an opinion about someone or something
3. to form or have (a particular thought) in your mind
If I say, "I think that boy's name is John," I'm not really formulating ideas about his name. I'm just stating an idea I hold about the person as the name pops into my mind.
If you are arguing that God is basically a name for platonic ideals, then you can use that definition. If you are arguing for a Judeo-Christian God who interacts with people in any way, you cannot.