How does God perform thinking?

[tonychanyt]

Human beings perform reasoning in a stepwise manner. We begin with some facts and derive some other facts by deduction. We assume, calculate, deduce, derive, and conclude. That is our thinking process.

God is omniscient. He knows everything. He does not think the way we do. Isaiah 55:

8 “For my thoughts are not your thought, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

God knows everything. There is no need for God to perform step-by-step analysis the way we do.

Can God do math calculations faster than a super-computer?

Yes, furthermore, God knows the answer before the question is presented to the super-computer.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Human beings perform reasoning in a stepwise manner. We begin with some facts and derive some other facts by deduction. We assume, calculate, deduce, derive, and conclude. That is our thinking process.

God is omniscient. He knows everything. He does not think the way we do. Isaiah 55:

In fact, our use of the word, "think", itself is presumptive; and when applied to God, is necessarily ignorantly understood.

God knows everything. There is no need for God to perform step-by-step analysis the way we do.

Can God do math calculations faster than a super-computer?

Yes, furthermore, God knows the answer before the question is presented to the super-computer.

The idea goes much farther than just thinking. There is reason to say that for God to think is to do, to say is to create, and to create is to be immanent, to do the infinite is no harder than to do the temporal limited, and it goes on and on. For God to see is to cause.

Nothing exists in and of itself, except God. It is WE who must consider each thing something in/of itself.

 

[KevinT]

Human beings perform reasoning in a stepwise manner. We begin with some facts and derive some other facts by deduction. We assume, calculate, deduce, derive, and conclude. That is our thinking process.

God is omniscient. He knows everything. He does not think the way we do. Isaiah 55:


God knows everything. There is no need for God to perform step-by-step analysis the way we do.

Can God do math calculations faster than a super-computer?

Yes, furthermore, God knows the answer before the question is presented to the super-computer.

I mostly agree, but assert that God can create a universe with randomness which removes the consequence of God’s foreknowledge forcing an inflexible future and removing individual will.

KT

 

[Mark Quayle]

I mostly agree, but assert that God can create a universe with randomness which removes the consequence of God’s foreknowledge forcing an inflexible future and removing individual will.

KT

Pursue that notion logically. It ends with self-contradiction.

 

[tonychanyt]

I mostly agree, but assert that God can create a universe with randomness

Right. There are random events and probabilities in this universe.

which removes the consequence of God’s foreknowledge

God's foreknowledge includes what will happen and what could happen.

Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

 

[Mark Quayle]

KevinT said:
I mostly agree, but assert that God can create a universe with randomness

Right. There are random events and probabilities in this universe.

How do you prove this? How is "random" more than a human concept-by-ignorance?

God's foreknowledge includes what will happen and what could happen.

Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Where does the verse imply that the "mighty works done in [Capernaum] [could have] been done in Sodom"? It only says that if they had been done, Sodom would have remained. I think you have inferred something not implied.

 

[tonychanyt]

KevinT said:
I mostly agree, but assert that God can create a universe with randomness


How do you prove this?

Roll a die.

How is "random" more than a human concept-by-ignorance?

I used the definition of "random" in probability and statistics.

Where does the verse imply that the "mighty works done in [Capernaum] [could have] been done in Sodom"? It only says that if they had been done, Sodom would have remained. I think you have inferred something not implied.

I used the definition of "if" from first-order logic. Are you using the word "implied" in the FOL sense?

If you are not using these definitions, then we cannot proceed with the argumentation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

KevinT said:
I mostly agree, but assert that God can create a universe with randomness
tonychanyt said:
Right. There are random events and probabilities in this universe.
Mark Quayle said:
How do you prove this?

Roll a die.

The die is cast, but the Lord determines its outcome. Prov 16:33

Mark Quayle said:
How is "random" more than a human concept-by-ignorance?

I used the definition of "random" in probability and statistics.

Meaning what —that it is only useful as shortcut across the unknown, or that it is a solid factual principle?

Mark Quayle said:
Where does the verse imply that the "mighty works done in [Capernaum] [could have] been done in Sodom"? It only says that if they had been done, Sodom would have remained. I think you have inferred something not implied.

I used the definition of "if" from first-order logic. Are you using the word "implied" in the FOL sense?

I'm not well enough versed on formal FOL to argue this point. I'm saying that when the "if-then" statement is all you have, there is no implication that the "if" could have happened, but only that if it HAD happened, then you have a given result.

What I want to know is if you indeed take "random", "chance", and the like, to have causative ability. To me, that is self-contradictory nonsense.

If you are not using these definitions, then we cannot proceed with the argumentation

What are these definitions?

 

[tonychanyt]

What are these definitions?

Google them to find out. After that, if you still have a more specific question, ask me here

 

[Mark Quayle]

Google them to find out. After that, if you still have a more specific question, ask me here

Let me try again: Definitions of what, are you asking me to agree to?

 

[Grafted In]

How does all this explain how God can make decisions that He later regrets?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let me try again: Definitions of what, are you asking me to agree to?

Ok. I reviewed and you ( @tonychanyt ) seem to be referring to the definitions of "random" and "if", which I understand you to say you used as they are defined in FOL, and "random" in particular, as it is used in statistics and [mathematical] probability. I'll try to figure out if that means that you want me to accept those definitions as merely tools in constructing logical progression, or as valid fact.

FOL, I think, simply uses "if" as a proposition, and does not assign value to its truth. Thus, it seems to me, you have to be using the verse you quoted as merely an intellectual exercise, and, as I said, not implying at all that it was actually possible for those works to be done in Sodom. Yet you speak as though it were possible for those works to be done in Sodom. Seems to me contradictory.

Statistics and the math used to guess at probability, both attempt to predict something that can't be known by the predictor. The word, "random", then, remains a stand-in for "I don't know".

 

[Mark Quayle]

How does all this explain how God can make decisions that He later regrets?

It doesn't

 

[tonychanyt]

Let me try again: Definitions of what, are you asking me to agree to?

Definitions of "random" and "if". Read #8

 

[tonychanyt]

How does all this explain how God can make decisions that He later regrets?

Good question. See Does the LORD regret?

 

[tonychanyt]

FOL, I think, simply uses "if" as a proposition, and does not assign value to its truth.

As a compound proposition, it does.

Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and "if" is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

P = The mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom.
Q = It would have remained until this day.

Case 1:

A human spoke statement R. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then Q matters not, and R is true, according to the FOL truth table of the "if" operator.

Case 2::

Jesus spoke R. He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's "if".

 

[tonychanyt]

As a compound proposition, it does.

Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and "if" is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

P = The mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom.
Q = It would have remained until this day.

Case 1:

A human spoke statement R. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then Q matters not, and R is always true, according to the FOL truth table of the "if" operator.

Case 2::

Jesus spoke R. He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's "if".

 

[Mark Quayle]

As a compound proposition, it does.

Consider the compound proposition: If P, then Q where P and Q are simple propositions and "if" is a first-order logical operator.

Let R = If the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

P = The mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom.
Q = It would have remained until this day.

Case 1:

A human spoke statement R. We know that historically, P did not happen. It was not true in reality. If P is false, then Q matters not, and R is true, according to the FOL truth table of the "if" operator.

Case 2::

Jesus spoke R. He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true.

You can choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion. That's up to you. Here, I have explained his assertion R in terms of FOL's "if".

Jesus did not assert any possibility that the works done in Capernaum could have been done in Sodom. You said it yourself: "Jesus spoke R. He was saying this: Assume that P is true. If P is true, then Q will be true as well. Jesus asserted R to be true." That is, Jesus was using propositional logic. He did not say that P is true. He is saying that R is true, which includes the theoretical notion of P. IF one assumes P to be true, then R is true.

Of course, you aren't claiming that Jesus is saying, "'Assume P is true' makes P true". That's a superstitious look at the language of the Bible. Jesus was not denying history. So why take this tack in trying to defend the notion that "chance" and "random" are more than our shortcut for, "I don't know"?


Don't insult me with insinuating that I choose not to believe in Jesus' assertion.

 

[tonychanyt]

Jesus did not assert any possibility that the works done in Capernaum could have been done in Sodom.

Let proposition P1 = Jesus asserted that if the mighty works done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Is P1 true?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Let proposition P1 = Jesus asserted that if the mighty works done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Is P1 true?

Yes, Jesus asserted that if the mighty works done in Capernaum had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. —True.