Can God remember everything?

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

Eternity (in the most theological definition) is not an infinite regress of time. There is no such thing as "ago". There is no such thing as "before" and "after". As Aquinas defines it "no beginning, no end, no succession, no change".

But as I often point out, even the world's greatest Christian apologist, William Lane Craig sometimes gets this hopelessly muddled and starts talking as though eternity was in infinite regress of time.

Sorry, this is nonsense.

If there is "no change" there can be no events. God would therefore have never done anything at all.

 

[barrymore]

Well, if you are of the Neo-Platonist persuasion, God is thought.

 

[Complexity]

Mu.

Unask the question.

 

[Robin]

Sorry, this is nonsense.

Er, yes. But are you doubting that this is the common theological definition of eternity?

Here is Saint Tom himself:

Thus eternity is known from two sources: first, because what is eternal is interminable--that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole.

St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica Part 1 Question 10​

In this case he is clarifying the definition from Boethius:

"Eternity is the simultaneously-whole and perfect possession of interminable life."

Boethius (De Consol. v)​

If there is "no change" there can be no events. God would therefore have never done anything at all.

Also could never have thought, or formed an intention never mind acted upon it.

It is, as you say, nonsense.

 

[Robin]

Well, if you are of the Neo-Platonist persuasion, God is thought.

I am not sure that this is what a neo-Platonist says or that "God is thought" really makes any sort of sense (for example, if God is thought then what is it that thinks?).

In any case it does not really solve anything because even if we were to regard God as thought, we would still have to consider whether we mean "thought" as we understand it.

We experience thought as a succession, as changeable. Something happening in time.

So if God was this kind of thought then the question about the first thought would be still be reasonable.

 

[Wowbagger]

God doesn't really need to remember anything, at all, if you think about it. If he forgets something, he can either:
1. Pop back in time, to watch what happened, "live".
OR
2. Change the present according to whatever he desires, no matter what the past is like. For example: If he wants to punish someone for sinning, but can't remember what the sin was, he can simply choose a sin, and retroactively adjust the world in such a way that that sin was committed.

 

[Robin]

God doesn't really need to remember anything, at all, if you think about it. If he forgets something, he can either:
1. Pop back in time, to watch what happened, "live".
OR
2. Change the present according to whatever he desires, no matter what the past is like. For example: If he wants to punish someone for sinning, but can't remember what the sin was, he can simply choose a sin, and retroactively adjust the world in such a way that that sin was committed.

But of course God can't do any of those things. He can't pop back in time because he is timeless.

He can't retroactively change anything because, as noted before, he is timeless and there is no "retro" for God to be active on. Also he cannot adjust the world because then he would have a different perception of the world and he can't because he is immutable.

 

[barrymore]

I am not sure that this is what a neo-Platonist says or that "God is thought" really makes any sort of sense (for example, if God is thought then what is it that thinks?).

In any case it does not really solve anything because even if we were to regard God as thought, we would still have to consider whether we mean "thought" as we understand it.

We experience thought as a succession, as changeable. Something happening in time.

So if God was this kind of thought then the question about the first thought would be still be reasonable.

Well, for example the Aristotelian God was purely engaged in self-thought. Neo-Platonists starting with Plotinus fall along similar lines.

Most medieval philosophers agreed that no matter how you "define" God, it does not make sense to use our adjectives to define Him. We should only define Him in a negative fashion (say what he is not). So if you extend that to thought, he does not think like us.

 

[Robin]

Well, for example the Aristotelian God was purely engaged in self-thought.

Do you have a cite?

Neo-Platonists starting with Plotinus fall along similar lines.

So God is engaged in self-thought and also God is thought, yes?

In other words they are saying that thought is something that can think.

Can thought think?

Most medieval philosophers agreed that no matter how you "define" God, it does not make sense to use our adjectives to define Him. We should only define Him in a negative fashion (say what he is not).

I am not sure I can recall even one medieval philosopher saying this, do you have an example?

So if you extend that to thought, he does not think like us.

But our only definition of "thought" comes from what we are doing right now.

So God is, or does something else, we know not what, and we arbitrarily label it "thought".

 

[Wowbagger]

But of course God can't do any of those things. He can't pop back in time because he is timeless.

On the contrary: He can pop back in time because he is timeless.

It's sooooo easy for him to pop back and forth through time (from our perspective), that the concept of time doesn't even need to mean anything to him, at all. Well, unless he chooses to think about what the Universe looks like from our perspective, for a little while.

He can't retroactively change anything because, as noted before, he is timeless and there is no "retro" for God to be active on. Also he cannot adjust the world because then he would have a different perception of the world and he can't because he is immutable.

If God is all-powerful he can change anything he wants. He can even be both mutable and immutable at the same time, without contradiction, because he is..... all powerful.

 

[Robin]

On the contrary: He can pop back in time because he is timeless.

It's sooooo easy for him to pop back and forth through time (from our perspective), that the concept of time doesn't even need to mean anything to him, at all. Well, unless he chooses to think about what the Universe looks like from our perspective, for a little while.

Ah, from our perspective. So he is not popping back in time, he is changing our perceptions and memories.

But of course our new perceptions and memories exist in perfect simultaneity with our old perceptions and memories, neither precedes or succeeds the other. So God has not changed anything, he is just simultaneously keeping two sets of books.

If God is all-powerful he can change anything he wants. He can even be both mutable and immutable at the same time, without contradiction, because he is..... all powerful.

(mutter,mutter)lousy Cartesians(mutter,mutter)

 

[barrymore]

Do you have a cite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_view_of_a_god
and related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noesis

So God is engaged in self-thought and also God is thought, yes?

In other words they are saying that thought is something that can think.

Can thought think?

He contemplates himself. He is not thinking about anything else because he is not "aware" that anything else exists.

I am not sure I can recall even one medieval philosopher saying this, do you have an example?

All of them as far as I know--I would be interested in seeing any (respected ones) that did not think this.

Plotinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#Plotinus.27_theory)

Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology)

Avicenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna#Avicennian_philosophy)

Augustine (see first paragraph: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/aug-god.html)

Aquinas (see Article 2 of Part 2 of Summa: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas1.html)

Al-Farabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi#Metaphysics_and_cosmology)

Also, Saadia & Al-Ghazali.

But our only definition of "thought" comes from what we are doing right now.

So God is, or does something else, we know not what, and we arbitrarily label it "thought".

Right.

 

[Radrook]

Ok. I don't start many threads here because there is just so much stuff that has already been discussed. This is particularly true of religion and threads discussing the existence or nature of God.

I would be interested in seeing responses to this question from both believers and non-believers. It presents somewhat of a paradox considering all the "omni" designations usually attributed to God. Theists, please do not reply that this is one of those unknowable, forbidden questions. I am looking for thoughtful speculation and any conclusions the question might lead to.

Anyway, the question is, can God remember the very first thing that he did?

No because under the definition of God you are offering there is always something prior that he thought and thinking is doing. However, if we postulate an eternal omiscient God then that God would remember when he began to create since creation involves a breginning.

 

[Dutchman]

God, in his infinite wisdom, has long ago decided to forget everything he did, immediately after he did it, to avoid contradictions and to keep his head from exploding. Probably the best decision he ever made

 

[Wowbagger]

So God has not changed anything, he is just simultaneously keeping two sets of books.

No he doesn't. The changes he makes becomes "the books". You can think of God as The Ultimate Retconner.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Can God remember everything?

Ask the people who built him.

 

[Robin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelian_view_of_a_god
and related: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noesis

Let me quote you from the top of the Wiki page: "This article does not cite any references or sources.". Quite. The same goes for the second cite.

He contemplates himself. He is not thinking about anything else because he is not "aware" that anything else exists.

Again, you attributed two ideas to neoplatonism:

"God is thought".
"God thinks"

So does thought think?

All of them as far as I know--I would be interested in seeing any (respected ones) that did not think this.

Plotinus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus#Plotinus.27_theory)

Maimonides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology)

Avicenna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna#Avicennian_philosophy)

Augustine (see first paragraph: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/augustine/aug-god.html)

Aquinas (see Article 2 of Part 2 of Summa: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas1.html)

Al-Farabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Farabi#Metaphysics_and_cosmology)

Also, Saadia & Al-Ghazali.

In all of these links, there is only one (Maimonides) that bears out your contention.

As far as I know most theologians see a place for negative theology, but only alongside positive theology.

Since you like Wiki, I will quote you from the entry on negative theology:

In contrast, making positive statements about the nature of God, which occurs in most Western forms of Christian theology, is sometimes called cataphatic theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology (my underlining)​

And later:

While Aquinas felt positive and negative theology should be seen as dialetical correctives to each other, like thesis and antithesis producing a synthesis

ibid​

So I cannot see any support for your claim that most of them thought God could only be defined by negatives.

 

[barrymore]

Let me quote you from the top of the Wiki page: "This article does not cite any references or sources.". Quite. The same goes for the second cite.

According to Aristotle, the unmoved mover, now identified as God (ho theos), eternally does one thing (but this is not self-movement), which is the best thing: God thinks. Likewise, God thinks about the best thing, which is thought (since thinking is the best of activities), so that thought and its object are the same: God's thinking about his own thinking.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm

Again, you attributed two ideas to neoplatonism:

"God is thought".
"God thinks"

So does thought think?

God is thought, God thinks. It is the same thing--it is a noun and a verb. It might seem like two dimensions, but it is the same thing.

In all of these links, there is only one (Maimonides) that bears out your contention.

As far as I know most theologians see a place for negative theology, but only alongside positive theology.

Give me an example of one you have an issue with specifically. Most of them mention positive theology because it is pretty much necessary to have a reasonable discussion about God, but negative theology is the ideal.

Since you like Wiki, I will quote you from the entry on negative theology:

In contrast, making positive statements about the nature of God, which occurs in most Western forms of Christian theology, is sometimes called cataphatic theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology (my underlining)​

And later:

While Aquinas felt positive and negative theology should be seen as dialetical correctives to each other, like thesis and antithesis producing a synthesis

ibid​

So I cannot see any support for your claim that most of them thought God could only be defined by negatives.

Negative theology can only be used if one wants to be exact as possible. All use positive attributes in some way because it points our minds in the right direction, but in the end, it is not the same. The wiki article that you quote says as much--read the sentence right about the one you have about Aquinas.

 

[Robin]

Just for completeness and since he has been mentioned, here is Plotinus' defintion of eternity, which matches the ones given earlier:

We know it (eternity) as a Life changelessly motionless and ever holding the Universal content (time, space and phenomena) in actual presence; not this now and now that other, but always all; not existing now in one mode and now in another, but a consummation without part or interval. All its content is in immediate concentration as at one point; nothing in it ever knows development: all remains identical within itself, knowing nothing of change, for ever in a Now since nothing of it has passed away or will come into being, but what it is now, that it is ever.

Plotinus Enneads Third ennead, seventh Tractate "Time and Eternity"​

 

[154]

Time is a physical property. "Remembering" is academic.

God knows absolutely everything about you.