On the omniscience of God

[Right Divider]

Which is something that could not be done metaphysically before, and now it can be done.

Metaphysical is the wrong word, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Ever since the computer was invented, A.I. became metaphysically possible.

Supra

Computers enabled the metaphysical possibility of A.I.

Supra

It was always logically possible, but it became metaphysically possible with the invention of computers.

Supra

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical

metaphysical
1 of 2
adjective
meta·phys·i·cal ˌme-tə-ˈfi-zi-kəl
Synonyms of metaphysical
1
: of or relating to metaphysics
metaphysical truth
metaphysical speculation
2
a
: of or relating to the transcendent (see transcendent sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm—
John Dewey
b
: supernatural
fate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have thee crown'd—
William Shakespeare
3
: highly abstract or abstruse
also : theoretical
metaphysical reasoning
4
often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional figurative language
metaphysical poets
metaphysically
ˌme-tə-ˈfi-zi-k(ə-)lē
adverb

AI is none of those things.

 

[JudgeRightly]

obv what you say here is untrue, otherwise everyone would agree with you. I mean they'd all already agree with you, like my example about the Sun's angle in the sky changing with the seasons, that's why I used that example, because there's zero dispute. There's dispute with the Euthyphro dilemma. One day maybe there won't be, is what I'm saying maybe A.I. can do, like how it's already made new proteins based on the structure we need it to have, we can figure out a recipe to make exactly what we need, we've never been able to do that before, and we've never all been in lockstep agreement about the Euthyphro dilemma either, even though I do agree with you, that there is a solution that is correct. (The Christian one.)

You clearly didn't bother to read the article I linked to. Go do so, please.

It sufficiently answers the Dilemma.

 

[Clete]

One was my professor Clete, quit knee-jerk reacting like a little kid. This is just immature coming from you and a manipulation. I expect a LOT better. You have a brain. I like it, use it. If I have irritants, you certainly do too. I appreciate when you meet me halfway between our exasperation points. It is why you came off ignore, and I imagine vise-versa.

It isn't knee jerk, Lon. This isn't the first time I've seen this sort of thing. It isn't even the first time I've seen it from you.

Now Hebrew: Sorry. Fact. Ask any Hebrew scholar. We have a few posters from Israel here on TOL. Ask. Even my professors would agree that ideas don't always convey well when trying to explain something. At times, you'd have long paragraphs to explain something (idea behind NIV). My profs argued whether someone needed a language background to properly understand scripture. The jury answer was along the lines of "not for most things, translation is enough" except of course when a theology is wholly built off of nothing but English understandings. It simply shows the shortcomings of the English language and 'why' any pastor worth his salt is going to have to do Greek and Hebrew.

The problem you have is that the phrase you want to retranslate isn't the point in and of itself. That phrase happens to be part of a whole chapter, all of which is communicating the same point, a point that fits perfectly well with the way pretty nearly every professional ancient Hebrew translator has ever translated it into an actual English bible.

Yup, stuck in translation. Good call to stop with translation issues. Open Theism IS in existence due to translation issues. Fact.

You are a liar, Lon.

Good bye.

 

[Idolater]

Metaphysical is the wrong word, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Supra

Supra

Supra

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysical

metaphysical
1 of 2
adjective
meta·phys·i·cal ˌme-tə-ˈfi-zi-kəl
Synonyms of metaphysical
1
: of or relating to metaphysics
metaphysical truth
metaphysical speculation
2
a
: of or relating to the transcendent (see transcendent sense 1) or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
fleeing from experience to a metaphysical realm—
John Dewey
b
: supernatural
fate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have thee crown'd—
William Shakespeare
3
: highly abstract or abstruse
also : theoretical
metaphysical reasoning
4
often capitalized : of or relating to poetry especially of the early 17th century that is highly intellectual and philosophical and marked by unconventional figurative language
metaphysical poets
metaphysically
ˌme-tə-ˈfi-zi-k(ə-)lē
adverb

AI is none of those things.

It's really more of a philosophical word, here's a more appropriate source:

Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

" If metaphysics now considers a wider range of problems than those studied in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, those original problems continue to belong to its subject-matter. For instance, the topic of “being as such” (and “existence as such”, if existence is something other than being) is one of the matters that belong to metaphysics on any conception of metaphysics. "

A.I. was not metaphysically possible before the invention of the computer. By metaphysical possibility I don't mean it's real, just that it can be real. It could not be real before the invention of the computer. Being as such, existence as such. Real. That's what metaphysics means, philosophically.

 

[Clete]

It's really more of a philosophical word, here's a more appropriate source:

Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

" If metaphysics now considers a wider range of problems than those studied in Aristotle’s Metaphysics, those original problems continue to belong to its subject-matter. For instance, the topic of “being as such” (and “existence as such”, if existence is something other than being) is one of the matters that belong to metaphysics on any conception of metaphysics. "

A.I. was not metaphysically possible before the invention of the computer. By metaphysical possibility I don't mean it's real, just that it can be real. It could not be real before the invention of the computer. Being as such, existence as such. Real. That's what metaphysics means, philosophically.

It isn't that complicated. Metaphysical refers to things that do not exist ontologically. The earth exists ontologically. Time does not. The former is physical, the later is metaphysical. The physical refers to the material world and everything that can be observed, measured, and studied through the senses or scientific instruments while the metaphysical deals with concepts that cannot be directly observed or measured, such as causality, identity, love, time, numbers and other abstractions.

 

[Idolater]

It isn't that complicated. Metaphysical refers to things that do not exist ontologically.

Ontology and metaphysics are synonyms.

The earth exists ontologically. Time does not. The former is physical, the later is metaphysical.

If time does not exist, it does not exist ontologically or metaphysically.

The physical refers to the material world and everything that can be observed, measured, and studied through the senses or scientific instruments while the metaphysical deals with concepts that cannot be directly observed or measured, such as causality, identity, love, time, numbers and other abstractions.

I agree with that, except that the physical is a category of the metaphysical.

 

[Derf]

Things are 'new' to us because we do not know everything. When God does a 'new' thing, in Isaiah, is it 'new' for Him or 'new' for us?

When God created the heavens and the earth, and Adam, the first man, was it new to God? If NEW to God, then God must have done something new, so your point is moot.

Conveyance and context suggest 'to us' only, right? God already truly knew He was going to redeem mankind through His Son.

Importance: We are trying to conceive of something about God and extrapolate. I believe 'in Him' means necessarily that God is 'already there' as far as what we 'can' do like writing a 'new' song. Here is the question: If you have a bump on your navel you never saw before (humorous hint at navel-gazing), is it a 'new' bump? Answer: No. It is a discovery

I have an innie, so a bump would be new, to me and to God. I haven't ever had such a bump on my belly.

. Writing a new song isn't writing new notes, nor even putting notes together in a way that has never been done before. It just 'seems' new to people who do not know everything. IOW, it is indeed 'new to us.'

Except every (every) area in a space can be anticipated/known already by a computer program else a computer couldn't render it. A computer 'can' render a lego house that is in your head, because it is 'already' in the software. I suggest 'new to us' is what you are talking about.

Yes, and no. Legos are new to us, and to all humankind, I'm guessing. (You can guess otherwise, but we're at an impasse to know who's right.)

The problem is that it 1) cannot be new to the computer nor 2) is it good to think of God without the where-with-all to have all of this figured out already, especially if like the computer analogy, everything that 'can' exist is 'in' God's wheel-house already as it were. John 1:3 "Without Him, nothing exists that exists. Doesn't that scripture fill in the blanks quite well?

No, because there are other scriptures that explain that one better. Adam didn't drawn on a list of names generated by God, but Adam drew on the brain God gave him to create the names.

We both should be concerned what Solomon meant, no? If not, what would be the point of discussing anything with you?

I appreciate that you are holding steady to your theme of Solomon's words.

He also said this a few verses later:
Ecclesiastes 1:14 KJV — I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That seems to mean that Solomon's words about nothing new was from experience, not from inspiration (I'm not saying his words weren't inspired, but they were a personal testimony, and only as true as his knowledge and experience). And if the current things were from experience, that means he also must have known (through writings or some such) all the things that had ever been done under the sun.

Or, which is more likely, it was hyperbole or only applied to a subset of all.

 

[Clete]

Ontology and metaphysics are synonyms.

That's completely false. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics but it no more synonymous than are the terms philosophy and theology.

If time does not exist, it does not exist ontologically or metaphysically.

False. Time exist as the idea that it is. It is one of the concepts the best communicates the concept of the "metaphysical". It is pure abstraction. It does not exist outside of a thinking mind.

I agree with that, except that the physical is a category of the metaphysical.

You are flatly wrong. I don't know who's teaching your philosophy class but you should ask for your money back.

 

[Idolater]

It isn't that complicated. Metaphysical refers to things that do not exist ontologically. The earth exists ontologically. Time does not. The former is physical, the later is metaphysical. The physical refers to the material world and everything that can be observed, measured, and studied through the senses or scientific instruments while the metaphysical deals with concepts that cannot be directly observed or measured, such as causality, identity, love, time, numbers and other abstractions.

So is God physical or metaphysical Clete? I need an answer.

 

[Idolater]

That's completely false. Ontology is a branch of metaphysics but it no more synonymous than are the terms philosophy and theology.


False. Time exist as the idea that it is. It is one of the concepts the best communicates the concept of the "metaphysical". It is pure abstraction. It does not exist outside of a thinking mind.


You are flatly wrong. I don't know who's teaching your philosophy class but you should ask for your money back.

Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“ ... [Aristotle's] Metaphysics is about things that do not change. In one place, Aristotle identifies the subject-matter of first philosophy as “being as such”, and, in another as “first causes”. ... [but] One might almost say that in the seventeenth century metaphysics began to be a catch-all category, a repository of philosophical problems that could not be otherwise classified as epistemology, logic, ethics or other branches of philosophy. (It was at about that time that the word ‘ontology’ was invented—to be a name for the science of being as such, an office that the word ‘metaphysics’ could no longer fill.) ... ”

 

[Clete]

So is God physical or metaphysical Clete? I need an answer.

A bit of both, I'd say.

Theology is metaphysical, but is God Himself? Jesus is a human being with a real physical body that can be perceived in normal physical ways (i.e. it can be seen, touched, etc), but talking about Jesus' physical body and the fact the He has one, isn't necessarily the same thing as discussing Jesus Himself.

In short, there are things that blur the line between the physical and metaphysical. It depends a lot on the context of what is being discussed and just what is being said about it. Discussions about the brain can easily become discussions about the mind. Discussions about time very often end up talking about clocks. Discussions about justice often become discussions about rewards and punishments. Etc.

Having said all of that, in the strictest sense of the word, God would have to fall mostly into the metaphysical. The term "metaphysical" refers to things that go beyond the physical, sensory world. God, being the Creator of the physical, is "beyond the physical, sensory world" and thus, is metaphysical, by definition.

 

[Clete]

Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

“ ... [Aristotle's] Metaphysics is about things that do not change. In one place, Aristotle identifies the subject-matter of first philosophy as “being as such”, and, in another as “first causes”. ... [but] One might almost say that in the seventeenth century metaphysics began to be a catch-all category, a repository of philosophical problems that could not be otherwise classified as epistemology, logic, ethics or other branches of philosophy. (It was at about that time that the word ‘ontology’ was invented—to be a name for the science of being as such, an office that the word ‘metaphysics’ could no longer fill.) ... ”

Thank you for conceding the point. You might have bothered to look up the term before making dogmatic statements about it.

 

[Idolater]

A bit of both, I'd say.

Theology is metaphysical, but is God Himself? Jesus is a human being with a real physical body that can be perceived in normal physical ways (i.e. it can be seen, touched, etc), but talking about Jesus' physical body and the fact the He has one, isn't necessarily the same thing as discussing Jesus Himself.

In short, there are things that blur the line between the physical and metaphysical. It depends a lot on the context of what is being discussed and just what is being said about it. Discussions about the brain can easily become discussions about the mind. Discussions about time very often end up talking about clocks. Discussions about justice often become discussions about rewards and punishments. Etc.

Having said all of that, in the strictest sense of the word, God would have to fall mostly into the metaphysical. The term "metaphysical" refers to things that go beyond the physical, sensory world. God, being the Creator of the physical, is "beyond the physical, sensory world" and thus, is metaphysical, by definition.

You said:

“ It isn't that complicated. Metaphysical refers to things that do not exist ontologically¹. The earth exists ontologically². Time does not³. The former is physical, the later is metaphysical. The physical refers to the material world and everything that can be observed, measured, and studied through the senses or scientific instruments while the metaphysical deals with concepts that cannot be directly observed or measured, such as causality, identity, love, time, numbers and other abstractions. ”

So according to you, under my interpretation of you, if God is metaphysical, then He does not exist ontologically¹, like the Earth does². Time does not exist ontologically³ either. God is a "concept" and an "abstraction."

So now please elaborate and clarify so that I appropriately understand where you're coming from, and to help with that, please answer also whether angels (e.g. cf. Matthew 18:10 “ ... angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven ... ”) are metaphysical or physical, please. Is God metaphysical or physical? (please restate, elaborate or clarify) and are angels metaphysical or physical?

 

[Idolater]

Thank you for conceding the point. You might have bothered to look up the term before making dogmatic statements about it.

Oh absolutely. You can see right away from my link that ontology would be a category of metaphysics, where metaphysics includes all substances, topics, or themes that do not change, and that do not fall under other philosophical categories like ethics and epistemology.

This includes of course the historical category of metaphysics, which as Aristotle said and my link shows, is "being itself" and "first causes" (unchanging things).

So obviously if you're using "metaphysical" and it doesn't apply to first causes, then it must apply to "being itself", which is whether or not and in what ways, a substance, topic or theme exists someone ([sic]; somehow) in reality, whether or not physically manifested.

As the word 'metaphysics' became less precise in meaning, someone proposed to make 'ontology' mean 'first causes'–no wait a minute, sorry; to mean 'being itself'.

So I've been using metaphysical to mean being itself, and you're saying that I should have been using ontological instead.

So circling back, @Right Divider, does this make my prior posts make more sense? If instead of saying A.I. is METAPHYSICALLY possible with the invention of computers, to say that A.I. became ONTOLOGICALLY possible with the invention of computers?

 

[Right Divider]

So circling back, @Right Divider, does this make my prior posts make more sense? If instead of saying A.I. is METAPHYSICALLY possible with the invention of computers, to say that A.I. became ONTOLOGICALLY possible with the invention of computers?

So... basically what you are saying is that "Computer programs became possible with the invention of computers".

Very insightful!

Again, metaphysics has NOTHING to do with AI (i.e., a computer running a program).

metaphysics /mĕt″ə-fĭz′ĭks/

noun​

1. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
2. The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline.
   "the metaphysics of law."
3. A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

 

[Shasta]

"Sovereign" doesn't seem to have either an "omnipotence" meaning (your first option) or a "knowledge" meaning (your third option), as far as I can tell. I agree that the Reformers used it to mean meticulous control, but I don't see how it means that in any biblical usage (though it isn't a common biblical word, either).

I think the usage in English, including during the reformers times and not too long afterward, is just who determines what is supposed to happen (laws), and who decides the punishment for violating the laws. Like the kings of England were called "Sovereign", not because they controlled everything meticulously, but because they met the criteria I just gave.

What do you think?

Reformed theology asserts that God is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. This means that God has absolute control over EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE UNIVERSE and nothing happens without God's will. I could cite many clear statements of this belief from their own writings but, really, it is such a universal assumption that I need not. Personally I think it is an abominable doctrine, one which was universally rejected by Christians until, Augustine imported the idea from pagan Manichaeism in the fifth Century.

 

[Derf]

Reformed theology asserts that God is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. This means that God has absolute control over EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE UNIVERSE and nothing happens without God's will. I could cite many clear statements of this belief from their own writings but, really, it is such a universal assumption that I need not. Personally I think it is an abominable doctrine, one which was universally rejected by Christians until, Augustine imported the idea from pagan Manichaeism in the fifth Century.

I agree with you in all that, including the "meaning" of sovereignty according to reformed thought. But I disagree with their meaning of "sovereignty".

 

[Right Divider]

Reformed theology asserts that God is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. This means that God has absolute control over EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE UNIVERSE and nothing happens without God's will.

Again, that is a FALSE definition of SOVEREIGNTY.

sovereignty /sŏv′ər-ĭn-tē, sŏv′rĭn-/

noun​

1. Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state.
2. Royal rank, authority, or power.
3. Complete independence and self-government.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

Sovereignty is about AUTHORITY and NOT "CONTROL".

I could cite many clear statements of this belief from their own writings but, really, it is such a universal assumption that I need not.

You ASSUME wrongly.

P.S. False definitions lead to false beliefs.

 

[Clete]

You said:

“ It isn't that complicated. Metaphysical refers to things that do not exist ontologically¹. The earth exists ontologically². Time does not³. The former is physical, the later is metaphysical. The physical refers to the material world and everything that can be observed, measured, and studied through the senses or scientific instruments while the metaphysical deals with concepts that cannot be directly observed or measured, such as causality, identity, love, time, numbers and other abstractions. ”

So according to you, under my interpretation of you, if God is metaphysical, then He does not exist ontologically¹, like the Earth does². Time does not exist ontologically³ either. God is a "concept" and an "abstraction."

So now please elaborate and clarify so that I appropriately understand where you're coming from, and to help with that, please answer also whether angels (e.g. cf. Matthew 18:10 “ ... angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven ... ”) are metaphysical or physical, please. Is God metaphysical or physical? (please restate, elaborate or clarify) and are angels metaphysical or physical?

Do you really not understand these things or are you just being a jerk or what?

Don't be obtuse. I've answered your question. There is no contradiction and you know it. What are you driving at here?

 

[Clete]

Reformed theology asserts that God is sovereign in creation, providence, redemption, and judgment. This means that God has absolute control over EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN THE UNIVERSE and nothing happens without God's will. I could cite many clear statements of this belief from their own writings but, really, it is such a universal assumption that I need not. Personally I think it is an abominable doctrine, one which was universally rejected by Christians until, Augustine imported the idea from pagan Manichaeism in the fifth Century.

I invite you to read the following....

Do You Understand the Words That Are Coming Out of My Mouth!?​