The reality is there are things that God cannot do. He cannot do evil. And there are things that God necessarily would do given a particular end in mind. He would choose the best possible world, and the best possible world is only that which fulfils the greatest good for his creatures.
Will not do.
It’s impossible. God doesn’t simply choose to be Good, God’s nature is goodness itself.
No need to force anyone.
This proposition is rejected. You cannot axiomatically declare anything about God’s nature, especially when his actions (and non-actions) contradict the hypothesis of God’s love.
There is a world of difference between “slaves” and those who freely and volitionally choose “good” and also freely and volitionally reject “evil”.
This is a straw-man of God’s omniscience. God only knows who is good and who is bad because he created them. Had he not created a person it would be impossible for God to know their choices because they never existed. Secondly it goes against their freewill and therefore the dignity of a creature to remove their potential choices from existence. God isn’t going to erase a person just because they make bad choices since that would go against the value that God has given them as living creatures.
Not necessarily. You’re getting into the realm of the question of “middle knowledge” here. I’d argue that His omniscience only entails those He creates, not those He doesn’t create. Therefore, there’s no “He could defer creating them” option. On the other hand, if you’re merely talk about “before” as in “the period of time interior to the universe prior to their conception”, then that’s a merely trivial assertion.
You can reject it all you want. We reject your rejection.
But there is nothing wrong with showing that the existence of freewill is consistent with a God whose nature is love.
You contradict the official and Catholic definition of “omniscience”. “Before I created you in the womb, I already knew you”. So, since you do not accept the Catholic definition of omniscience (to know everything, past, present and future), what are you talking about?
I never said that God didn’t know you before you were made in the womb. I’m saying that you have created a straw-man of what that fact entails.
This straw-man is the official teaching of the church.
God cannot know what he did not create. So it’s not possible for God to not create beings based on their choices before they were created. That’s a contradiction, and you have made that error based on a straw-man of God’s omniscience, not the teaching of the church.
That would present a deception about human nature.
So you deny the concept of middle knowledge. Read the dogmas of the church:
I don’t understand the word “deception” here. It would be a simple choice for God to decide: “I will create Jack, but not Jill” - because Jack will accept me, but Jill will reject me. Jill’s existence or lack of it would not curtail Jack’s freedom.
If He had to filter the human race the whole truth about us would be unknown.
I think you’re confusing the assertions of Aquinas with “the dogmas of the Church.” Nevertheless…
You’re saying the same thing twice, here. Both of these are covered by the “knowledge of vision”.
For those who claim that “middle knowledge” is not part of God’s omniscience, this “middle” is what is neither “not actual” (and therefore, not part of the “knowledge of vision”) and not “merely possible” (and therefore, not part of the “knowledge of simple intelligence”).
Not sure if you’re talking to me. Both “all real things” and the actual “free acts of rational creatures” fall under “knowledge of vision”, according to the Supplement to the Summa Theologiae:
Are these wings exclusive to you, or are they granted to all mankind?