What God Knows

[Rade]

I have a question. C. S. Lewis argues in the book Mere Christianity that God is outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but simply observe them. In other words, he claims....all the days are "Now" [the moment within time also called the "Present"] for Him [God]. Note: [] are my addition to what Lewis says.

But, then Lewis claims....In a sense, He [God] does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.

So, my question. Suppose a moment within time A that is prior to some action that person P will do in a future moment B. Is it then the argument of Lewis that God is not "all knowing" given his assumption that God has no knowledge of future action of P in the moment of time A ? Seems to me to be logically so, but then, a surprise that Lewis takes this less than all knowing view of God.

If the above is a true understanding of Lewis philosophy, then I think Lewis may have the situation correct vis-a-vis the relationship of God, to Time and Knowledge. The idea that God exists only within the moment = "now or present", and not within time, is completely in line with the definition of time presented by Aristotle. For example, Aristotle argues that anything that is forever can only exist outside of time and within the 'now', a moment within time. And I think that all concepts and arguments of God indicate that God is forever--infinite in terms of existence.

Now, if Einstein is correct, then one can take the argument of Lewis a step forward and argue that God also is outside of "space", given the General Relativity requirement that "space-time" are linked. Thus even more constraint on the knowledge of God, God then knows nothing about time or space (which by definition of Aristotle are intermediate between moments), God is limited to knowledge of the internal reality of the "now".

Let me take this one more step. If M-Theory of Cosmology ends to be correct, it tells us that within an 11th dimension of space and time, our universe was created when two membrane-like universes collided at some 'moment'. Following Lewis, God would have been present at that 'moment' within the 11th dimension and thus logically, a small part of God could then be part of all existence (call them strings, things, objects, etc.) that resulted. Thus, the claim that 'God is within everything at once" obtains meaning when the ideas of C. S. Lewis and M-Theory are combined (well, at very minimum it does within my limited mind). Gives perhaps new meaning to claim of M-Theory to be "Theory of Everything" (it then includes God).

Now, take your personal definition of God and plug it into the explanation above, then see if it matches with your expectations.

Fire away.....

[Moontanman]

I think that first you would have to assume the existence of god, then you would have to assume that god is Omnipotent, then you could assume that god knows everything. But them you would have to think of what it means to ass u me

[Michael Mooney]

I think the world would be a better place and religions would find mutual ground if the word God were replaced by the concept of the Conscious Cosmos. We could say that God = Consciousness, except that, just like individual parts of cosmos like us humans, we *are* conscious beings who *have* bodies. So we are not just consciousness, nor would God be, as above.
According to the above definition/paradigm God *is* Consciousness and *has* a body, the whole cosmos.
The "time" question (who knows what ans when) is easily resolved by a complete understanding of "presentism." (I tend to avoid ..."isms", but it is a philosophy which I have always endorsed, as obvious in all my writings on "time." (It is always now. "The future is not here, now *present* nor is the past... which leaves the ongoing, perpetual *now* as all there *is* in the "temporal sense.")

So, in context of all the above, God is omnipresent awareness, which obviously implies omniscience if the whole cosmos as it is right now is God's body, unlike us little pieces of the Whole.
Of course this begs the question called the "problem of evil", ("Why does God allow evil?... enter free will vs determinism debate...), but omniscience is not the same as omnipotence... which opens another whole can of worms!

Michael

[pamela]

Originally Posted by Rade

I have a question. C. S. Lewis argues in the book Mere Christianity that God is outside of time and therefore does not "foresee" events, but simply observe them. In other words, he claims....all the days are "Now" [the moment within time also called the "Present"] for Him [God]. Note: [] are my addition to what Lewis says.

well its been 20 years since i read Mere Christianity but if memory serves me correctly, i remember where he was coming from and will post based upon that

But, then Lewis claims....In a sense, He [God] does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already "Now" for Him.

So, my question. Suppose a moment within time A that is prior to some action that person P will do in a future moment B. Is it then the argument of Lewis that God is not "all knowing" given his assumption that God has no knowledge of future action of P in the moment of time A ? Seems to me to be logically so, but then, a surprise that Lewis takes this less than all knowing view of God.
He does not consider time as we deem it.The God of Lewis, dictates that time simply does not exist-essentially everything is now

If the above is a true understanding of Lewis philosophy, then I think Lewis may have the situation correct vis-a-vis the relationship of God, to Time and Knowledge. The idea that God exists only within the moment = "now or present", and not within time, is completely in line with the definition of time presented by Aristotle. For example, Aristotle argues that anything that is forever can only exist outside of time and within the 'now', a moment within time. And I think that all concepts and arguments of God indicate that God is forever--infinite in terms of existence.

there again, forever is now and actually does not exist

Now, if Einstein is correct, then one can take the argument of Lewis a step forward and argue that God also is outside of "space", given the General Relativity requirement that "space-time" are linked. Thus even more constraint on the knowledge of God, God then knows nothing about time or space (which by definition of Aristotle are intermediate between moments), God is limited to knowledge of the internal reality of the "now".

Lewis' God would be both within space and outside of space

Let me take this one more step. If M-Theory of Cosmology ends to be correct, it tells us that within an 11th dimension of space and time, our universe was created when two membrane-like universes collided at some 'moment'. Following Lewis, God would have been present at that 'moment' within the 11th dimension and thus logically, a small part of God could then be part of all existence (call them strings, things, objects, etc.) that resulted. Thus, the claim that 'God is within everything at once" obtains meaning when the ideas of C. S. Lewis and M-Theory are combined (well, at very minimum it does within my limited mind). Gives perhaps new meaning to claim of M-Theory to be "Theory of Everything" (it then includes God).

Your assertion here would be within the guidelines of what Lewis was trying to convey.In all things-now

Now, take your personal definition of God and plug it into the explanation above, then see if it matches with your expectations.

Fire away.....

[pamela]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

I think the world would be a better place and religions would find mutual ground if the word God were replaced by the concept of the Conscious Cosmos. We could say that God = Consciousness, except that, just like individual parts of cosmos like us humans, we *are* conscious beings who *have* bodies. So we are not just consciousness, nor would God be, as above.

the world would be a better place if we accepted each other and our differences and dropped the need to label

According to the above definition/paradigm God *is* Consciousness and *has* a body, the whole cosmos.
The "time" question (who knows what ans when) is easily resolved by a complete understanding of "presentism." (I tend to avoid ..."isms", but it is a philosophy which I have always endorsed, as obvious in all my writings on "time." (It is always now. "The future is not here, now *present* nor is the past... which leaves the ongoing, perpetual *now* as all there *is* in the "temporal sense.")

For Lewis though, the past is still present in now.There is no concept of time, there fore every thing is simultaneously occuring.It is only the individuals perception that occurs in now

So, in context of all the above, God is omnipresent awareness, which obviously implies omniscience if the whole cosmos as it is right now is God's body, unlike us little pieces of the Whole.

For Lewis it would be all intertwined as if God was in everything such as matter, energy space and lack of space-all encompassing

Of course this begs the question called the "problem of evil", ("Why does God allow evil?... enter free will vs determinism debate...), but omniscience is not the same as omnipotence... which opens another whole can of worms!

emotions and actions are the offspring of free will.It is not that God allows evil but God allows free will and its actions based in love and hate

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

I think that first you would have to assume the existence of god...

I think first you would have to define "god". Until then all discussions about god are meaningless.

[pamela]

Rade's question asks of each individuals concept of God and how the concept of Lewis plays into that.It does not ask if there is a god and do you believe in the existance there of.In order to respond to the post one has either to have a belief in a god, or take the position of commenting on Lewis' god

Now, take your personal definition of God and plug it into the explanation above, then see if it matches with your expectations.

[HydrogenBond]

If god was in a speed of light reference C, an infinite sized universe would look like a point in his reference, using special relativity. At C reference, the old paradox of god being infinite and infinitesimal at the same time applies; infinite contracted to a point. So far so good by assuming C and special relativity SR.

If you consider a point-instant at C, since both distance and time are singular we have simultaneity since there is no distance or time separation to create distance or time delays or relative reference effects. The universe is integrated at C.

If we slowed from the C reference, space-time expands. Now things don't appear integrated, due to the separations in time and distance and what appears to be the loss of simultaneity. Also the paradox of both infinite and infinitesimal no longer apply, with the farthest from C reference creating the largest separation. Yet within the C reference, this is not the case, because we are still under simultaneity. This creates another paradox of how can things be integrated but also dissociated, with dissociation appearing the highest when we are further from the C reference?

One way to explain this; the more expanded space-time the more complicated the integration appears, since the true integration takes infinite time to develop. In a short period of time, we don't have enough data to see the big picture and have a tendency to deduce things out of context of infinite time.

Let me give an analogy. This is based on an eastern story. The young student wishes to learn from the master. The master reluctantly tells him he can follow, but he must keep quiet and hold his comments. In this abbreviated version, the master sees a young boy hide money under a rock and the master goes over and takes it. The student is besides himself. and tells the master how upset he is to find his teacher was a thief. But the master said, I know the boy who hid the money. We were not the only ones who saw him hide it. There were thieves watching also. I took the money, so it would not be stolen. I will give it back to him later.

In the shorter space-time context of the student (immediate present data collection) the student deduced thief, which was valid with that narrow data. But in the bigger picture of extended space-time, like more moves before and ahead in the chess game of reality, the master was helping. At the tiny finite reference, we can take things out of the context of the simultaneity of the C reference. When we lament, why would god allow the master to be a thief and steal from the boy, it is because we are looking in a narrow way and don't have an extended reference that sees properly.

[Michael Mooney]

Pamela:

the world would be a better place if we accepted each other and our differences and dropped the need to label

Agreed. But the Old Man in the Sky will simply not do for an intelligent designation/definition of God. That's why I first gave my own (gnostic) experience of God.

For Lewis though, the past is still present in now.There is no concept of time, there fore every thing is simultaneously occuring.It is only the individuals perception that occurs in now

I'm not up to speed on Lewis but I thought he was more intelligent than to claim that the past is still present, if words have any meaning at all.

For Lewis it would be all intertwined as if God was in everything such as matter, energy space and lack of space-all encompassing

For the gnostic, there is only God. Maybe the same for Lewis?

emotions and actions are the offspring of free will.It is not that God allows evil but God allows free will and its actions based in love and hate.

Agreed. I mentioned free will vs determinism to head off the age old debate, "Whence evil if God is all powerful?"... Which is not the same as all knowing, as omnipresent consciousness would have to be by definition.
(One side of the argument goes that God is not a creator of robots programed to do His/Her will... all for the good, of course, but that folks are *allowed* the freedom to choose, as you said.)

But if "there is only God", it is a false duality to speak of God (The Whole) *allowing* us "parts" freedom to choose. The meaning of non-dual consciousness is that there is no separation between "us humans" and God, the Conscious Cosmos, including "us."

Michael

[pamela]

Originally Posted by Michael Mooney

Pamela:


Agreed. But the Old Man in the Sky will simply not do for an intelligent designation/definition of God. That's why I first gave my own (gnostic) experience of God.

yeah but that works for you and how you apply it the concept above, and not every one has that perception of a deity

I'm not up to speed on Lewis but I thought he was more intelligent than to claim that the past is still present, if words have any meaning at all.

i do not think that it is about intelligence or the lack of, maybe its just my explanation that is lacking.Your perception determines the present, you cannot see the past but the past is still there.Maybe a good way to describe it would be this. Picture a wall-you cannot see thru it, but there is something behind the wall which is the next room

For the gnostic, there is only God. Maybe the same for Lewis?

He was a gnostic and at one point an atheist and another time he was a Christian

Agreed. I mentioned free will vs determinism to head off the age old debate, "Whence evil if God is all powerful?"... Which is not the same as all knowing, as omnipresent consciousness would have to be by definition.
(One side of the argument goes that God is not a creator of robots programed to do His/Her will... all for the good, of course, but that folks are *allowed* the freedom to choose, as you said.)


But if "there is only God", it is a false duality to speak of God (The Whole) *allowing* us "parts" freedom to choose. The meaning of non-dual consciousness is that there is no separation between "us humans" and God, the Conscious Cosmos, including "us."

Michael

well that would put the believer on the same level as God and hence making them gods as well.The essence of God would be in the person as God would be in everything, but Lewis does not suggest that the believer is deity or even partial deity