Q14 1

Simplified_Commentary_of_the_Summa.tex

@@ -1269,9 +1269,11 @@ \subsection{Question 13. The names of God}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
 
 
-
 \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Article 1. Whether there is knowledge [Scientia]?}
+\gls{Habit: An effect from repeated act producing an aptitude to reproduce them.}
+The arguement, while seemingly not authentic, questions whether or not God can have knowledge as the way we gather knowledge is over time. Further, knowledge leads to potency, which we know that God has no potency. (Remember potency is the ability to change.) Finally, Anti-Thomas says that we learn things through our interactions with them, nothing can affect God, so He can not learn.
+Aquinas explains that unintelligent beings have contracted and limited forms. Since God is neither of these things, He is intelligent. Since God is intelligent, infinite I.7 and without a material body I.7.1, or flaw I.4, not only is he intelligent, but he is infinitely and perfectly so.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1280,7 +1282,12 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 2. Whether God understands Himself?}
+In the previous article we covered the perfect, all-knowing nature of God. Now the question is, can the infinite fully known Himself. For a embodied individual this would be impossible, for to know something would take up space and that increased space would require its own space of allocated knowledge. God has no body, and more importantly no textit{potentcy}. As pure act God can understand himself as his intellect is in it of itself who He is.
+
+I've used the analogy of trying to record every atom in the universe previously in this work and it still applies. If you wanted to record the position of every atom in the universe, with perfect efficiency you would need a "computer" consisting of equally many atoms. Since God has no potentcy and His being is His essence, He is this self embodied machine... analogically speaking. More succinctly, and less heretically put, by having perfect intellect it follows that He knows Himself perfectly.
+
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1289,22 +1296,31 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 3. Whether God comprehends Himself?}
+To comprehend something means to fully encapsulate that thing, Anti-Aquinas argues that if God were to comprehend Himself then He would be finite and therefore not God. This is a very solid arguement, but neglects the imperative detail that when something can comprehend itself it is not limited by the comprehension, rather that there is nothing hidden within that thing to itself. This only exists with God, so basically it's an arguement of misuse of generalization of a near universal definition.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{On the contrary}
 \paragraph{I answer that}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 4. Whether the act of God's intellect is His substance?}
+We've hit on this many times in previous questions I.7.3 comes to mind. I feel that this need no further remarks at this time.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
 \paragraph{On the contrary}
 \paragraph{I answer that}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 5. Whether God knows things other than Himself?}
+This is rather a humorous question at first glance as it tries to keep putting limits on the infinite. Can the All-knowing God, who knows himself perfect, know things about things outside of Himself? The vision of a elderly southern woman saying "Child, I just told you." readily comes to mind.
+To return to a more informational and less informal dialogue, on a deeper level the question asks, if "God knows himself perfectly, how can he know things outside of Himself without becoming multiple?" The answer, which is less than obvious, is that God sees things outside Himself through Himself as its cause. Since we are from Him, we are within His knowledge. If you made a piece of furniture, you would know what it is made of and how. Likewise, God made \textit{all of creation} and therefore knows it as its creator.
+
+Fun thought experiment, if God knows everything outside of Himself through Himself, then could there be another self-generating source outisde of Him that He is unaware of...? \footnote{Return to I.11.4}
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1313,7 +1329,9 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 6. Whether God knows things other than Himself by proper knowledge?}
+What this question asks in plain English is, "Does God know things outside of himself in their own distinct way, or in a generalized way?" That is to say, does God know, <Insert the reader's name> is a human being who has the properties that are belonging to the group of human being or that <Insert reader's name> is <Insert all distinctive property about reader>?
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1322,7 +1340,9 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 7. Whether the knowledge of God is discursive?}
+When you see discursive read "of the nature of discourse". That is to say, "Does God think things over?". The answer to which is no, since God is pure act and to "think" would be to have potentcy. Thought in this case is to deliberate over something; which God does not do. See II.83 for the importance of prayer.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1331,7 +1351,9 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 8. Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?}
+This whole question is rather tricky, so feel free to go and grab a cup of ice cream and re-read this one. The question can be rephrased as, "Does God know things that are?" As is typical, the nuance of the question is the crux of the problem. Rather than God knowing things that are because they are, things are because God knows them to be. Since God is the first cause, things are they way that they are because God willed them to be that way. Thus, the universal forces are constant and measurable because God willed them to be so. Oreo is the best flavor of ice cream because God had willed it to be that way since before creation was...
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1340,7 +1362,10 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 9. Whether God has knowledge of things that are not?}
+Yes boys and girls, the annoying kid get's to play the role of Anti-Aquinas, but Aquinas respects it none the less. Does God know what isn't? 
+Yes, he knows all possible outcomes because he knows the weight of the potentcy within creation. Put a ball perfectly balanced on a needle, God knows that the ball could stay, pop, fall, or become a stack of hay if He willed it. Moral of the story, if it could happen God conceived it before it was.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1349,7 +1374,9 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 10. Whether God knows evil things?}
+God is perfect, can He know of evil? Can you parents know that you ate the whole cake even though they told you not to... without having themselves sinned? Yes, God can know evil through our accidentals. Reply to Objection 4 has an interesting point, evil can not know itself as the nature of evil is a privation of good. Since knowledge is a good, pure evil can not know itself.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1360,7 +1387,9 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 4.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 11. Whether God knows singular things?}
+This is the continuation of the articles within this question. If we know that God's knowledge is perfect I.4 and infinite I.7 it is nescessary that His knowledge be of every single thing. The answer isn't just He can, but that He must.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1369,7 +1398,9 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 12. Whether God can know infinite things?}
+I.7, I14.11. This is a nescessary reality given God's perfect I.4, infinite I.7 knowledge.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1378,7 +1409,14 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 13. Whether the knowledge of God is of future contingent things?}
+Does God know what will be? Yes, but not in the way that we think of things. God being outside of time see the entire timeline and all the events therein at the same time. He is "sees" your breakup at the same time as your future marriage, if such a thing will occur. This is because as the source of cause of all things He knows perfectly what will occur from them. This is not to say that something will occur because God knows it, but that God knows it will occur.
+
+Suppose you have perfect knowledge. In this thought experiement you have a son, you know your son so perfectly that at 5 P.M when you come home he will have spent his day riding his bike through the mud and will have caused a mess. Did your son cause a mess because you knew he would, or did you know him and the mess was a consequence of his nature. 
+
+We will discuss free will in I.83.
+
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1387,14 +1425,18 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 14. Whether God knows enunciable things?}
+Say that I want to convey an idea to you; such as the idea of conveying an idea. I would have to do so through discourse, that is over time with words. This question asks if God can comprehend enuciable things, or things that must be put into words. As the origin of our essence, He knows our very thoughts through His own essence as the first cause. 
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{On the contrary}
 \paragraph{I answer that}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 15. Whether the knowledge of God is variable?}
+Can God learn something new? No, His knowledge is His essence and His essence is unchanging. I.9.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Objection 3.}
@@ -1403,7 +1445,13 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 3.}
+
 \paragraph{Article 16. Whether God has a speculative knowledge of things?}
+Speculative knowledge is knowledge of what is, or truth. Practical knowledge is how does one apply this. See I.1.
+
+God only has speculative knowledge through Himself, but in this He has practical knowledge of all things. This distinction exists because unlike us, God's intellect is infinite I.7.
+
+To us, physics is the study of knowledge, and engineering is the application of that knowledge. Because I know the fundamentals of these physical constraints I can make a ruleset for the most stable structure possible. In God the knowledge of what is the most stable structure is a truth.
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}
 \paragraph{Objection 2.}
 \paragraph{On the contrary}
@@ -1412,8 +1460,6 @@ \subsection{Question 14. God's knowledge}
 \paragraph{Reply to Objection 2.}
 
 
-
-
 \subsection{Question 15. Ideas}
 \paragraph{Article 1. Whether there are ideas?}
 \paragraph{Objection 1.}