I truly can't thank you enough for this video. You are giving shape, giving voice, to a level of meaning that I feel I want to express, but find almost inexpressible. I have known from early childhood that beauty was the great underlying thought of nature. Bringing that thought to the surface, giving it a frame. with its attendant arising thoughts, developing a relationship to it, is my life's best work. I am 85, so that gives you a context for my words, and for my gratitude.
So the crazy thing is I came up with this cosmology mostly by my myself and it seems to be an exact match for Whitehead's. I head researched only the basic notion of pansychism, and all the mechanics of it came to me while doing ketamine. I really hope more people catch on to this stuff, it's revolutionary.
You might check the wikipedia page on the Chinese concept of Shen, the third definition is well articulated, "A third understanding of shen describes an entity as spiritual in the sense of inspiring awe or wonder because it combines categories usually kept separate, or it cannot be comprehended through normal concepts."
Late to the party, but very happy to be here. Transcendent and imminent, struck me as as particularly relevant for consideration. I personally find it very difficult to move beyond abstract thought into experience regarding substance. Like others, I have been very excited by what Whitehead's largely overlooked contribution offers, only to bounce right off and land directly on my ass when attempting to comprehend his writing on my own. Thank you for the good work.
The god/spirit was instantly alone/lonely. Surrounded by absolute nothing. Infinitely. Seems to me it has a conciousness of it's own that we will never fully understand until we return. Suffering helps us understand suffering in others. But an infinite loneliness is incomprehensible. Just what my mind has been wondering lately.
I wonder what Michael Levin at Tufts would think to learn that Whitehead talks about every particle being a society. Levin emphasizes that cells are societies.
1. It would appear that you haven't exactly engaged or understood what Rowan Williams's understanding of 'doing metaphysics' means - nor, for instance, how heavily he's leaning here on the thought of Donald M. MacKinnon (see: "The Problem of Metaphysics") and G.W.F. Hegel, for his understanding of the metaphysical. 2. One should be careful here too, when referring to the God(s) of neo-Platonism in an 'Orthodox' context, - as this position, and its understanding of God is directly critiqued throughout patristics (not abandoned - but most certainly understood critically). In fact, aside from the 'Orthodox' position, the Platonist conception of 'God' is already being critiqued by the ante-Nicene fathers (in other words, the critique being pre-Orthodox and even before the more Trinitarian discussions about the Godhead - which you seem to be referring to in you engagement with Williams?). Whether it is possible to understand the substance of God is what's being debated rather strenuously from Origen of Alexandria to Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, through to scholasticism, Duns Scotus's conception of analogy contra its portrayal in Aquinas, etc. etc. (and even of course as to whether the question itself is legitimate! i.e. of the 'substance of 'God,' other than understanding what He is not... and as to which cannot be resolved dialectically). There is no unifying 'Orthodox' position here at all re the 'substance' of God and the role of our intellect in being able to facilitate such discussions. 3. Metaphysics is seen by Williams, closely following MacKinnon, as having somewhat of an aporetic nature. This background is seminal for understanding his (indirect) position in these pantheism/panentheism debates. If anything, Williams is really responding to the apophatic tradition, from the implications that this aporia here, of the metaphysical, has on the 'workings' (contra any onto-theological approach) of reason. 'Reason' itself as a categorisation is what's being taken apart, with Williams turning the discussion instead towards an understanding of Trinitarian 'disclosure.' I'll leave some of his articles below, where he expounds on this in more depth, as I can't give justice to him here - "Trinity and Ontology" (this was part of a Festschrift on the thought of MacKinnon, entitled "Christ, Ethics and Tragedy: Essays in Honour of Donald MacKinnon," ed. Kenneth Surin) "Hegel and the Gods of Postmodernity" (from: "Shadow of Spirit: Postmodernism and Religion") ""Know Thyself”: What Kind of an Injunction?’" (from: "Philosophy, Religion and the Spiritual Life") "Logic and Spirit in Hegel" (from: "Post-Secular Philosophy: Between Philosophy and Theology") I am aware that none of this may be of interest, and I meant no disrespect here - but if you're going to engage with a writer like Williams and the 'Orthodox' tradition (which you never defined, and thus my attempt at showing the tensions in these discussions...), you need to make clear what understanding of 'God' you're referring to, - as otherwise, it's difficult to understand what's actually being discussed here. I have no qualms over the depictions of Whitehead or Spinoza here, but your depiction here of Williams is not doing him any justice - it's difficult to see as to why you even mentioned him in the first place?
Thanks for this. I was asked to comment by someone present at Williams’ recent talk with McGilchrist, and as you made apparent, I am not familiar with Williams’ influences and really should’ve left him out.
The idea of the 'unmoved mover' can still be integrated here I think, in that the center of something will always be 'still' (internal peace) ... and this stillness allows us to become aware of the process and dynamic creativity of the moment by moment creating of reality, we experience the presence of something here with us but also beyond us. Like the center of a clock, the axis is stationary. or a pendulum on a string, there is a stationary point (not sterile!) , or even with heads and tails, there is the 'silver of the coin' - both/and. It is the source of all creation, the creator of existence itself. grants freedom. has a wish for potential to become actual. totally other and also here with us now, and will depend on an individuals receptivity to it. It is a miraculous mystery that we all participate in. the attempt to understand it in my view is an act of love... which is a fulfilment of mans potential. I read the following recently which I think is appropriate here. "It's permitted for God to touch ordinary life; in fact it is the right order. But it's forbidden for ordinary life to attempt to touch God. This is one of the secret meanings of the story of the Tower of Babel. All of the ordinary parts were long ago cast into the confusion of tongues so that they would be unable to conspire to touch God. This arrangement continues within human beings to this day."
Hi Matt. do you think there could be a comparisson made between the God of Whitehead and Nietzsche´s Will to Power? At least the concept of the lure evokes this in my mind. Your videos on Whitehead and also everything else are extremely helpful. Thank you!
Matt, i awoke to your cosmic meditation so needed for us all trying to awaken to what seems to me greater gradations of what ever means - “MADE IN THE “IMAGE” as those first words of the sacred story - this reference to IMAGE is a big ponder for me. Are we missing this non physical code - seed- entelechy -logos that we can not measure - so it is called the HARD PROBLEM- like bernardo said “WHAT IS A THOUGHT ?” What we ponder with is the imminent but we are stuck in this undefinable essence or ether until like creation story we say LET THERE BE - and our gift of mind we can or may- turn the NADA of our words into action. So as it says we are made of IMAGE . I think one day this very elusive stuff will be part of the theory of physics - we are for now digital angels accepting this weirdness of duality of entanglement -local non local - particle and wave but still who is doing the hovering ? In this sense MIND is like the closest we may ACQUIESCE the mysterium - yes FALL INTO COMMUNION VIA DIRECT- it is unprovable but then thanks to quantum theory we are accepting this hovering over as OBSERVER- ENTANGLEMENT which won the NOBLE PRIZE maybe from digital angel to ELEMENTOS ESPÍRITUS . “ IMAGE” is a DAMN MYSTERY like 137 - said Feynman ! “ THE DIVINE CIRCULATION NEVER REST NOR LINGERS-NATURE IS THE INCARNATION OF THOUGHT! “ EMERSON it is all TRANSUBTANTIATION - MAGICAL -MIND- CONSCIOUSNESS- like Plato’s unwritten Agrapha dogmata - our souls might be this geometric form - (mind) that we can or may reflect the WHOLE ❤ thank - I love your lectures - so calm , your way of speaking. Thanks for my WOW today!
Art and science are tectonic plates that have slid apart, leaving what appears to be a rupture, but it merely that canyon like the one you show. Whitehead’s cosmology tries to describe that canyon, but it’s points are virtual, mapped by linguistic echolocation. Contemporary Theology seeks refuge on the side of art now and has tried to claim as its own Whitehead’s arcane reach for a new cosmology in the hope that it might pull those plates back together. It’s somewhat disingenuous. We’re in a new anti-theological enlightenment/theological dark age, depending on your perspective. The theological tribe need to remember that “Every actual entity is finally its own reason for what it omits” (P&R 45). See Cumhachd Music. “Wigner’s Friend”. Peace.
God has always known himself but God as unconscious is what I am now because reality is a death and rebirth. if he "saves all that can be saved" then all my good judgments are real unless there is something better than them. I travel the world finding the best of fruits to create my garden and the fruits are my spirit. I have a say in reality because i'm part of God. as much as I am something worthy is as much I am the truth. I know how the spiritual world works and so I simply do not give ear to any inferior spirits that try to discount me though they might try to mix with angelic voices. rather than being a fool and blindly accepting everything someone says I only want the best of all things I can synthesize together. I have no time to give ear to the false humility of modern humanity.
The classic theistic conception of God has been finely elaborated by a long tradition of Jewish and Christian thinkers over centuries. If against that one wishes to posit the philosophy of one 20th century thinker, then I think (1) you require a much more sophisticated understanding of the former and (2) you have an obligation to demonstrate why the latter is a superior conception of reality.
I understand how a Jewish, Maimonidean, rationalist theologian can deny all divine immanence (though I disagree that this is good Jewish theology), but how does a mainstream, Christian archbishop deny God's capacity to be immediately present in the created universe? As the kids might say, was the incarnation a joke to you? Was Jesus, in your theology, a stick of furniture? Oy, Christians, make up your minds.
Hmm, I'm not convinced that this picture of things doesn't efface the particularity of the human. It's difficult to conceive of something like beauty as the product of anything other than symbolic (human) representation and thought.
I've come to disagree with the, often taken for granted, position that aesthetics must be limited to the merely phenomenal realm of human valuation. Whitehead's ontology is, in a sense, a theory of beauty; organic, evolving harmonization, states of disequilibrium which propel entities towards the realization of novel confluences of forms or patternicities. Tension catapulting reality toward harmonic resolution. We could call god the poet of the cosmos, but I think it is even more apt to say that he is the conductor of the improvisational orchestra of being. The world is a free-jazz ensemble lol... but like seriously
Individual humans and societies of human beings may develop particular aesthetic landscapes connected by layers of meaning which depend upon the particularities of human psychology, language etc... but this does not, imo, imply that aesthetics can be understood fully in an anthropocentric manner
Although Whitehead's perspective could be described as somewhat non-anthropocentric, I think it revitalizes nature by imbuing it with the beauty we inherit and enjoy. You might find biosemiotics interesting. Towards a Semiotic Biology is a good place to start.
@@jared4034 Biosemiotics is fascinating. Organisms feel, or rather prehend, their environments and other organisms in a manner that can be best understood in terms of an ingression of forms or patterns of harmonization. Meaning is no longer seen as strictly a matter of human signs but rather as an inherent quality of biological relationality in general. (As I understand it anyway)
@@Nalhek On the contrary, I think it implies exactly that, insofar as we're necessarily contained within the horizon of the human. And once again, it's difficult to see how that horizon is anything other than the condition of beauty itself.
The almighty God simply CANNOT exist here now. Why? Because He would be expected to A) know the future AND B) be able to make decisions. But having both abilities A) and B) at the same time is impossible. In fact in front of us there can be a number of "possible futures", but ONLY ONE of them will EVENTUALLY come true and become our ONLY ONE PAST. Well, God is meant to know THAT ONE FUTURE. But this means that God must simply LET IT UNFOLD EXACTLY like it is. God is thus NOT ALLOWED to make any decision, because a decision is a free selection among a number of different possibilities. On the contrary that ONE future is well DETERMINED AND KNOWN to God. NO CHANGES ARE ALLOWED because this would mean that God made mistakes in his PREDICTION of that one future, but God makes NO mistakes. Thus, if God knows the future He CANNOT MAKE ANY DECISION.
he would not have to know all things only what is worth knowing such as that he will have an everlasting kingdom of joy and that he will have others who he gives a room to which is their freedom. then he can arrange spirits based on what they decide which means providence is the arrangement of other spirits which depends on their own states of being. God knows himself and his beloved, that is all he needs. nothing rules over him but all are his and his beloveds servant. "no changes are allowed" is only true if it is good, if it was not then God would never submit to your decree.
@@noxot13 The future is now SET IN STONE. We can have FREE WILL because we do NOT know what is written in the stone and do not care about that. But the omnipotent God MUST KNOW that future instead and that future MUST COME TRUE. This means God would NOT be OMNIPOTENT: He could not even change the weather of tomorrow! He would thus be OBLIGED to let the future set in stone EXACTLY UNFOLD like it is, nothing can be changed. God would NOT BE FREE either, because obliged to TAKE EXACTLY the God's actions already set in stone, down to the tiny detail.
![Jelly Roll - Dead End Road (From Twisters: The Album) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_Mb8CqKW4R8/mqdefault.jpg)
I truly can't thank you enough for this video. You are giving shape, giving voice, to a level of meaning that I feel I want to express, but find almost inexpressible. I have known from early childhood that beauty was the great underlying thought of nature. Bringing that thought to the surface, giving it a frame. with its attendant arising thoughts, developing a relationship to it, is my life's best work. I am 85, so that gives you a context for my words, and for my gratitude.
I realize this video begs a lot of questions about the nature of the human soul in Whitehead's scheme. I'll have to do a follow up about that.
So the crazy thing is I came up with this cosmology mostly by my myself and it seems to be an exact match for Whitehead's. I head researched only the basic notion of pansychism, and all the mechanics of it came to me while doing ketamine. I really hope more people catch on to this stuff, it's revolutionary.
Are your farts smelling particularly good tonight?
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😢😊😢😊😢😊t😊😊😊
You might check the wikipedia page on the Chinese concept of Shen, the third definition is well articulated, "A third understanding of shen describes an entity as spiritual in the sense of inspiring awe or wonder because it combines categories usually kept separate, or it cannot be comprehended through normal concepts."
Just discovered you. Thanks. Great commentary and insights.
Brilliant exposition, beautiful footage.
Late to the party, but very happy to be here. Transcendent and imminent, struck me as as particularly relevant for consideration. I personally find it very difficult to move beyond abstract thought into experience regarding substance. Like others, I have been very excited by what Whitehead's largely overlooked contribution offers, only to bounce right off and land directly on my ass when attempting to comprehend his writing on my own. Thank you for the good work.
The god/spirit was instantly alone/lonely. Surrounded by absolute nothing. Infinitely. Seems to me it has a conciousness of it's own that we will never fully understand until we return. Suffering helps us understand suffering in others. But an infinite loneliness is incomprehensible. Just what my mind has been wondering lately.
I would love to sleep on that land
Thank you for your words
Consciousness is nature achieving art. I love that!
I wonder what Michael Levin at Tufts would think to learn that Whitehead talks about every particle being a society. Levin emphasizes that cells are societies.
1. It would appear that you haven't exactly engaged or understood what Rowan Williams's understanding of 'doing metaphysics' means - nor, for instance, how heavily he's leaning here on the thought of Donald M. MacKinnon (see: "The Problem of Metaphysics") and G.W.F. Hegel, for his understanding of the metaphysical.
2. One should be careful here too, when referring to the God(s) of neo-Platonism in an 'Orthodox' context, - as this position, and its understanding of God is directly critiqued throughout patristics (not abandoned - but most certainly understood critically). In fact, aside from the 'Orthodox' position, the Platonist conception of 'God' is already being critiqued by the ante-Nicene fathers (in other words, the critique being pre-Orthodox and even before the more Trinitarian discussions about the Godhead - which you seem to be referring to in you engagement with Williams?). Whether it is possible to understand the substance of God is what's being debated rather strenuously from Origen of Alexandria to Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, through to scholasticism, Duns Scotus's conception of analogy contra its portrayal in Aquinas, etc. etc. (and even of course as to whether the question itself is legitimate! i.e. of the 'substance of 'God,' other than understanding what He is not... and as to which cannot be resolved dialectically). There is no unifying 'Orthodox' position here at all re the 'substance' of God and the role of our intellect in being able to facilitate such discussions.
3. Metaphysics is seen by Williams, closely following MacKinnon, as having somewhat of an aporetic nature. This background is seminal for understanding his (indirect) position in these pantheism/panentheism debates. If anything, Williams is really responding to the apophatic tradition, from the implications that this aporia here, of the metaphysical, has on the 'workings' (contra any onto-theological approach) of reason. 'Reason' itself as a categorisation is what's being taken apart, with Williams turning the discussion instead towards an understanding of Trinitarian 'disclosure.' I'll leave some of his articles below, where he expounds on this in more depth, as I can't give justice to him here -
"Trinity and Ontology" (this was part of a Festschrift on the thought of MacKinnon, entitled "Christ, Ethics and Tragedy: Essays in Honour of Donald MacKinnon," ed. Kenneth Surin)
"Hegel and the Gods of Postmodernity" (from: "Shadow of Spirit: Postmodernism and Religion")
""Know Thyself”: What Kind of an Injunction?’" (from: "Philosophy, Religion and the Spiritual Life")
"Logic and Spirit in Hegel" (from: "Post-Secular Philosophy: Between Philosophy and Theology")
I am aware that none of this may be of interest, and I meant no disrespect here - but if you're going to engage with a writer like Williams and the 'Orthodox' tradition (which you never defined, and thus my attempt at showing the tensions in these discussions...), you need to make clear what understanding of 'God' you're referring to, - as otherwise, it's difficult to understand what's actually being discussed here. I have no qualms over the depictions of Whitehead or Spinoza here, but your depiction here of Williams is not doing him any justice - it's difficult to see as to why you even mentioned him in the first place?
Thanks for this. I was asked to comment by someone present at Williams’ recent talk with McGilchrist, and as you made apparent, I am not familiar with Williams’ influences and really should’ve left him out.
The idea of the 'unmoved mover' can still be integrated here I think, in that the center of something will always be 'still' (internal peace) ... and this stillness allows us to become aware of the process and dynamic creativity of the moment by moment creating of reality, we experience the presence of something here with us but also beyond us. Like the center of a clock, the axis is stationary. or a pendulum on a string, there is a stationary point (not sterile!) , or even with heads and tails, there is the 'silver of the coin' - both/and. It is the source of all creation, the creator of existence itself. grants freedom. has a wish for potential to become actual. totally other and also here with us now, and will depend on an individuals receptivity to it. It is a miraculous mystery that we all participate in. the attempt to understand it in my view is an act of love... which is a fulfilment of mans potential.
I read the following recently which I think is appropriate here.
"It's permitted for God to touch ordinary life; in fact it is the right order. But it's forbidden for ordinary life to attempt to touch God. This is one of the secret meanings of the story of the Tower of Babel. All of the ordinary parts were long ago cast into the confusion of tongues so that they would be unable to conspire to touch God. This arrangement continues within human beings to this day."
The Beautiful is everpresent 💚
brilliant
I loved that
Anyone interested in whitehead should read Noumenautics by Peter Sjöstedt-H
Hi Matt. do you think there could be a comparisson made between the God of Whitehead and Nietzsche´s Will to Power? At least the concept of the lure evokes this in my mind. Your videos on Whitehead and also everything else are extremely helpful. Thank you!
my friend have I got a book for you to read!!!!! Noumenautics by Peter Sjöstedt-H is a book about exactly this
Matt, i awoke to your cosmic meditation so needed for us all trying to awaken to what seems to me greater gradations of what ever means - “MADE IN THE “IMAGE” as those first words of the sacred story - this reference to IMAGE is a big ponder for me. Are we missing this non physical code - seed- entelechy -logos that we can not measure - so it is called the HARD PROBLEM- like bernardo said “WHAT IS A THOUGHT ?” What we ponder with is the imminent but we are stuck in this undefinable essence or ether until like creation story we say LET THERE BE - and our gift of mind we can or may- turn the NADA of our words into action. So as it says we are made of IMAGE . I think one day this very elusive stuff will be part of the theory of physics - we are for now digital angels accepting this weirdness of duality of entanglement -local non local - particle and wave but still who is doing the hovering ? In this sense MIND is like the closest we may ACQUIESCE the mysterium - yes FALL INTO COMMUNION VIA DIRECT- it is unprovable but then thanks to quantum theory we are accepting this hovering over as OBSERVER- ENTANGLEMENT which won the NOBLE PRIZE maybe from digital angel to ELEMENTOS ESPÍRITUS . “ IMAGE” is a DAMN MYSTERY like 137 - said Feynman !
“ THE DIVINE CIRCULATION NEVER REST NOR LINGERS-NATURE IS THE INCARNATION OF THOUGHT! “ EMERSON
it is all TRANSUBTANTIATION - MAGICAL -MIND- CONSCIOUSNESS- like Plato’s unwritten Agrapha dogmata - our souls might be this geometric form - (mind) that we can or may reflect the WHOLE ❤ thank - I love your lectures - so calm , your way of speaking. Thanks for my WOW today!
Art and science are tectonic plates that have slid apart, leaving what appears to be a rupture, but it merely that canyon like the one you show. Whitehead’s cosmology tries to describe that canyon, but it’s points are virtual, mapped by linguistic echolocation. Contemporary Theology seeks refuge on the side of art now and has tried to claim as its own Whitehead’s arcane reach for a new cosmology in the hope that it might pull those plates back together. It’s somewhat disingenuous. We’re in a new anti-theological enlightenment/theological dark age, depending on your perspective. The theological tribe need to remember that “Every actual entity is finally its own reason for what it omits” (P&R 45). See
Cumhachd Music. “Wigner’s Friend”. Peace.
ruclips.net/video/REAHQvblVgQ/видео.html the mcgilchrist-williams dialogue
God has always known himself but God as unconscious is what I am now because reality is a death and rebirth. if he "saves all that can be saved" then all my good judgments are real unless there is something better than them. I travel the world finding the best of fruits to create my garden and the fruits are my spirit. I have a say in reality because i'm part of God. as much as I am something worthy is as much I am the truth. I know how the spiritual world works and so I simply do not give ear to any inferior spirits that try to discount me though they might try to mix with angelic voices. rather than being a fool and blindly accepting everything someone says I only want the best of all things I can synthesize together. I have no time to give ear to the false humility of modern humanity.
The classic theistic conception of God has been finely elaborated by a long tradition of Jewish and Christian thinkers over centuries. If against that one wishes to posit the philosophy of one 20th century thinker, then I think (1) you require a much more sophisticated understanding of the former and (2) you have an obligation to demonstrate why the latter is a superior conception of reality.
I understand how a Jewish, Maimonidean, rationalist theologian can deny all divine immanence (though I disagree that this is good Jewish theology), but how does a mainstream, Christian archbishop deny God's capacity to be immediately present in the created universe? As the kids might say, was the incarnation a joke to you? Was Jesus, in your theology, a stick of furniture? Oy, Christians, make up your minds.
Hmm, I'm not convinced that this picture of things doesn't efface the particularity of the human. It's difficult to conceive of something like beauty as the product of anything other than symbolic (human) representation and thought.
I've come to disagree with the, often taken for granted, position that aesthetics must be limited to the merely phenomenal realm of human valuation. Whitehead's ontology is, in a sense, a theory of beauty; organic, evolving harmonization, states of disequilibrium which propel entities towards the realization of novel confluences of forms or patternicities. Tension catapulting reality toward harmonic resolution.
We could call god the poet of the cosmos, but I think it is even more apt to say that he is the conductor of the improvisational orchestra of being.
The world is a free-jazz ensemble lol... but like seriously
Individual humans and societies of human beings may develop particular aesthetic landscapes connected by layers of meaning which depend upon the particularities of human psychology, language etc... but this does not, imo, imply that aesthetics can be understood fully in an anthropocentric manner
Although Whitehead's perspective could be described as somewhat non-anthropocentric, I think it revitalizes nature by imbuing it with the beauty we inherit and enjoy.
You might find biosemiotics interesting.
Towards a Semiotic Biology is a good place to start.
@@jared4034 Biosemiotics is fascinating. Organisms feel, or rather prehend, their environments and other organisms in a manner that can be best understood in terms of an ingression of forms or patterns of harmonization. Meaning is no longer seen as strictly a matter of human signs but rather as an inherent quality of biological relationality in general. (As I understand it anyway)
@@Nalhek On the contrary, I think it implies exactly that, insofar as we're necessarily contained within the horizon of the human. And once again, it's difficult to see how that horizon is anything other than the condition of beauty itself.
The almighty God simply CANNOT exist here now. Why? Because He would be expected to A) know the future AND B) be able to make decisions. But having both abilities A) and B) at the same time is impossible. In fact in front of us there can be a number of "possible futures", but ONLY ONE of them will EVENTUALLY come true and become our ONLY ONE PAST. Well, God is meant to know THAT ONE FUTURE. But this means that God must simply LET IT UNFOLD EXACTLY like it is. God is thus NOT ALLOWED to make any decision, because a decision is a free selection among a number of different possibilities. On the contrary that ONE future is well DETERMINED AND KNOWN to God. NO CHANGES ARE ALLOWED because this would mean that God made mistakes in his PREDICTION of that one future, but God makes NO mistakes. Thus, if God knows the future He CANNOT MAKE ANY DECISION.
he would not have to know all things only what is worth knowing such as that he will have an everlasting kingdom of joy and that he will have others who he gives a room to which is their freedom. then he can arrange spirits based on what they decide which means providence is the arrangement of other spirits which depends on their own states of being. God knows himself and his beloved, that is all he needs. nothing rules over him but all are his and his beloveds servant. "no changes are allowed" is only true if it is good, if it was not then God would never submit to your decree.
@@noxot13 The future is now SET IN STONE. We can have FREE WILL because we do NOT know what is written in the stone and do not care about that.
But the omnipotent God MUST KNOW that future instead and that future MUST COME TRUE. This means God would NOT be OMNIPOTENT: He could not even change the weather of tomorrow! He would thus be OBLIGED to let the future set in stone EXACTLY UNFOLD like it is, nothing can be changed. God would NOT BE FREE either, because obliged to TAKE EXACTLY the God's actions already set in stone, down to the tiny detail.
@@claudiozanella256 part of omnipotence is the ability to be weak and limited.