64. God's Knowledge of Things Not in Act

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Problem: How Does God Know Non-Beings? #

• The Fundamental Difficulty: Truth and being are convertible; therefore knowledge seems restricted to things that exist in act
• The Question at Hand: If God’s knowledge is only of things that truly are, how can He know things that are not in act—including creatures in potency, future events, and evil?
• The Core Issue: Distinguishing between being in act and being in potency, and understanding how knowledge can extend to both

Being in Act vs. Being in Potency #

• Being Simply (Simpliciter): What exists in act—fully actualized
• Being in Some Way (Secundum Quid): What exists in potency—capable of actualization but not yet actualized
• Critical Principle: Things that are not in act may still have a mode of being in potency—either as:
  • Capable of being actualized by God (active potency)
  • Capable of being actualized by creatures (passive potency)
  • Capable of being thought or imagined or signified in some way
• God’s Knowledge Extends to All These Modes: Whatever can be in any way whatsoever—whether in act or in potency—is knowable to God

God’s Knowledge of Future Contingents #

• The Problem from Origen: Origen argues that God foreknows something not because it will be future, but rather because it is future that God knows it as future—suggesting the future causes God’s knowledge
• Berquist’s Clarification: This confuses the order of knowing with the order of causality
• The Solution: God’s knowledge is eternal and does not unfold in time as ours does
• Boethius’s Solution: God’s knowledge is like the center of a circle; past, present, and future are all present to God simultaneously, just as points on a circumference are all present to the center (though before and after each other)
• Key Distinction: The way we know does not have to be the way things are. God can know the past now, future things now, and singular contingent things in a single eternal act without making them eternal

Three Modes of Divine Knowledge #

1. Knowledge of Vision (Scientia Visionis): Knowledge of things that are, were, or will be in act—things God wills or permits to exist
2. Simple Understanding (Intelligentia Simplex): Knowledge of things that neither are, were, nor will be in act—things that are merely possible or in God’s power to make
3. Knowledge Through Essence: God knows all things in knowing Himself; His essence contains the forms of all things

The Distinction Between Simple and Qualified Being #

• This distinction (corresponding to Aristotle’s “second kind of mistake outside speech”) is essential to resolving the paradox
• Example: A thing is not simply without qualification a non-being, but it may be a non-being in some respect (in potency)
• Meno’s paradox (from Plato’s dialogue): How can you learn what you don’t know? Solution: You know it in some way (as a general form or possibility) even if you don’t know it simply (in its specific actuality)

Key Arguments #

Against God Knowing Non-Beings #

Objection 1 (from epistemology):

• Knowledge requires likeness between knower and known
• Non-beings cannot have any likeness to God (who is being itself)
• Therefore, God cannot know non-beings

Objection 2 (from causality):

• God’s knowledge is a cause of things
• Non-beings have no cause (non-being has no cause)
• Therefore, God does not have knowledge of non-beings

Objection 3 (from the metaphysics):

• The knowable is before knowledge and is a measure of it (Aristotle, Metaphysics X)
• That which is posterior and measured cannot be the cause
• Non-beings are not (not in the order of being)
• Therefore, God’s knowledge cannot be a cause of non-beings

Aquinas’s Response: The Threefold Answer #

1. Being Has Multiple Senses:

• Being is said in act and in potency
• Things in potency have a mode of being and truth
• Example: A seed is truly a potential oak tree; this truth is knowable
• Therefore, non-beings in potency are knowable to God

2. Likeness is Not Univocal:

• Since God is being itself, each thing has likeness to God insofar as it participates in being
• Things in potency, though not in act, still have a remote likeness to God by virtue of their capacity to be actualized
• Every agent makes something like itself; God could not create matter unless matter had some likeness to God (however distant)
• Therefore, potential beings are knowable through this participatory likeness

3. Knowledge Is Joined with Will:

• God’s knowledge is a cause of things only when joined with His will
• Therefore, it is not necessary that whatever God knows either is, was, or will be in act
• Only those things God wills to be, or permits to be, are actualized
• Things that are merely possible are known by God as able to be (in potency)
• Therefore, God knows non-beings as things that are capable of being, even though His will does not effect their actualization

Important Definitions #

Being in Act (Actus) vs. Being in Potency (Potentia) #

• Act: Fullness of actuality; what is completely realized
• Potency: The capacity to be actualized; what is capable but not yet realized
• Principle: Act is before potency simply (simpliciter), though in a particular thing, potency may temporally precede act
• God is pure act (actus purus) with no potentiality whatsoever

Simply vs. In Some Way (Simpliciter vs. Secundum Quid) #

• A distinction used to resolve apparent contradictions
• Example: I am not standing simply, but I am standing in ability (in some way)
• Critical for understanding how God can know what is not in act: things are not simply without qualification, but they are in some way (in potency)

Science of Approbation (Scientia Approbationis) #

• God’s knowledge insofar as it is joined with His will
• God’s knowledge becomes causative through the will
• Distinguished from mere intellectual knowledge separated from will

Knowledge of Vision (Scientia Visionis) vs. Simple Understanding (Intelligentia Simplex) #

• Knowledge of Vision: Concerns things that are, were, or will be in act—the actual course of history and creation
• Simple Understanding: Concerns things that are never actualized—counterfactuals, might-have-beens, and mere possibilities
• Both are eternal in God; the distinction is not temporal but ontological (based on the mode of being of the thing known)

Examples & Illustrations #

The Potential Oak and the Seed #

• A seed is not an oak tree in act, but it is a potential oak tree
• This potentiality has a mode of being and truth
• Therefore, it is knowable to God, even though not in act

Standing in Ability #

• When asked “Are you standing now?”, one cannot say simply “yes” if one is sitting
• But one is standing in ability (in potency)
• Similarly, non-beings are not simply, but they are in some way (in potency)

God’s Choice and Conception #

• God chose for your parents to meet, which caused your existence
• Yet even given their meeting, your chances of conception were very small (among hundreds or thousands of sperm)
• This shows how God’s knowledge and choice extend to specific contingent actualities
• Emphasizes the gratuity of God’s creative choice: you exist contingently through God’s will

The Circle and Points #

• Points on a circle’s circumference are before and after each other in sequence
• But to the center point of the circle, all circumference points are equally present
• Similarly, past, present, and future are before and after each other in time
• But to God’s eternal knowledge (the “center”), all moments of time are equally present
• This illustrates how God can know temporal things in an eternal act without making them eternal

Knowledge of High and Normal Blood Pressure #

• One cannot know what abnormal (high) blood pressure is without knowing what normal (healthy) blood pressure is
• The definition of abnormal includes the standard of normal
• Similarly, to know what is lacking in a creature requires knowing what the creature should have
• Thus God’s knowledge of goods extends to knowledge of the lacks opposed to those goods

Questions Addressed #

Q: How can God know things that do not exist in act? #

A: Things that do not exist in act may still exist in potency—either in God’s power to actualize, in creatures’ power to actualize, or in the power of thought and imagination. Since being is said in multiple ways (act and potency), and God’s knowledge extends to all modes of being, God knows potential beings as capable of actualization.

Q: Does God’s knowledge make creatures eternal if His knowledge is eternal? #

A: No. God’s knowledge is eternal, but things are in God’s knowledge according to the way they are. Things are in His knowledge in act, but they may be in act at a particular time in the temporal order. God’s knowledge does not determine the temporal mode of being; it only determines that they will be actualized according to His will.

Q: If God knows non-beings, does His knowledge cause them to exist? #

A: God’s knowledge becomes causative only when joined with His will. God’s knowledge of possible non-beings does not cause them to exist; only the things God wills to be, or permits to be, are actualized. Knowledge of mere possibilities is not causative of their actualization.

Q: How can likeness between knower and known exist if non-beings have no likeness to God? #

A: Things in potency, though not in act, have a remote likeness to God by virtue of their capacity to participate in being. Moreover, God is being itself, so whatever participates in any mode of being (whether actual or potential) has likeness to Him through that participation.

Notable Quotes #

“Those things which are not in act are in the ability or power either of God himself or the creature.” — Thomas Aquinas

“Whatever things therefore by the creature are able to come to be or to be thought or to be said, God knows all these things, even if they are not in act done.” — Thomas Aquinas

“Being is said in many ways: in act and in ability.” — Thomas Aquinas (paraphrasing Aristotle)

“The way you know them doesn’t have to be the way things are.” — Duane Berquist (on the central problem of epistemology)