Can a Timeless God Really Understand us?

[seer]

Yes, but that's not what Shunya was saying when you disagreed with him.

Then school me, because we certainty can know some things about God's essential nature. Are not omniscience, love, justice, mercy part of His essential nature? Or is Shuny just saying that we can't know the stuff God is made of?

[One Bad Pig]

Then school me, because we certainty can know some things about God's essential nature. Are not omniscience, love, justice, mercy part of His essential nature?

Yes, and we can know that much.

Or is Shuny just saying that we can't know the stuff God is made of?

No. God moves in mysterious ways, which we seldom comprehend.

[seer]

Yes, and we can know that much.

Well Shuny said we could not know His essential nature. But can can know at least some things about that essential nature.

No. God moves in mysterious ways, which we seldom comprehend.

Yes, I agree, generally. But we even here we can know some things about the ways of God, like He rewards faith and punishes rebellion.

[shunyadragon]

Well Shuny said we could not know His essential nature. But can can know at least some things about that essential nature.

Actually my view agrees with Thomas Aquinas on this issue:

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

© Copyright Original Source

Aquinas then argues for the existence of God beyond this apophatic view of God in his 'five ways'

Actually I owe Robrecht for a clarification on the point.

[seer]

Actually my view agrees with Thomas Aquinas on this issue:

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

I answer that, A thing can be self-evident in either of two ways: on the one hand, self-evident in itself, though not to us; on the other, self-evident in itself, and to us. A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as "Man is an animal," for animal is contained in the essence of man. If, therefore the essence of the predicate and subject be known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all; as is clear with regard to the first principles of demonstration, the terms of which are common things that no one is ignorant of, such as being and non-being, whole and part, and such like. If, however, there are some to whom the essence of the predicate and subject is unknown, the proposition will be self-evident in itself, but not to those who do not know the meaning of the predicate and subject of the proposition. Therefore, it happens, as Boethius says (Hebdom., the title of which is: "Whether all that is, is good"), "that there are some mental concepts self-evident only to the learned, as that incorporeal substances are not in space." Therefore I say that this proposition, "God exists," of itself is self-evident, for the predicate is the same as the subject, because God is His own existence as will be hereafter shown (3, 4). Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.

© Copyright Original Source

Aquinas then argues for the existence of God beyond this apophatic view of God in his 'five ways'

Actually I owe Robrecht for a clarification on the point.

Then you have to explain why both your religion and mine describes God. That He is all-knowing, all merciful, just, truthful and such. These are essential qualities of His nature.

[shunyadragon]

Then you have to explain why both your religion and mine describes God. That He is all-knowing, all merciful, just, truthful and such. These are essential qualities of His nature.

. . . because we believe what our scripture teaches us concerning these attributes of God.

[seer]

. . . because we believe what our scripture teaches us concerning these attributes of God.

So do you agree that we can know some true things about God - correct?

[JimL]

So do you agree that we can know some true things about God - correct?

Of course you can't know, you can't even know that god exists, its a belief, so how could you know anyhing about a belief?

[seer]

Of course you can't know, you can't even know that god exists, its a belief, so how could you know anyhing about a belief?

Unless God has spoken to man. Which would be a historical fact. Not merely a belief.

[JimL]

Unless God has spoken to man. Which would be a historical fact. Not merely a belief.

That would also be a belief as far as anyone who has not been spoken to by god, which means that no, they can not know the essence of a thing that they don't even know exists.

[shunyadragon]

Unless God has spoken to man. Which would be a historical fact. Not merely a belief.

God talking to man cannot be considered a fact, because there is no objective evidence, and also many different people claim that talks to them saying different things.

[shunyadragon]

So do you agree that we can know some true things about God - correct?

Well ah . . . seer, it gets on touchy turf what you consider true things about God. Our points of agreement have long been established.

[seer]

God talking to man cannot be considered a fact, because there is no objective evidence, and also many different people claim that talks to them saying different things.

That is just stupid. I'm speaking to you right now - is that a fact? If I was speaking to you over coffee, that to would be a fact even if we could not prove it be objective evidence later.

[seer]

Well ah . . . seer, it gets on touchy turf what you consider true things about God. Our points of agreement have long been established.

No you said: Knowing the attributes of God through God's prophets is not the same as knowing the essential nature of God.

How is it that God's attributes don't, in some real sense, reflect his essential nature?

[shunyadragon]

No you said: Knowing the attributes of God through God's prophets is not the same as knowing the essential nature of God.

How is it that God's attributes don't, in some real sense, reflect his essential nature?

They reflect God's essential nature, but they do not represent God's essential nature. I believe Aquinas actually addressed this limited knowledge of God's essence and truth from the human perspective.