According to Catholicism, can G-d foresee all possibilities and potentialities of things that do not actually exist or happen?

[zro_x]

That’s interesting.

So, depending on your image of hell, it’s better that God creates a person He already knows is going to go to Hell, where they will suffer unimaginable, unending torture (as described by some of the Saints who had visions of Hell) or they will exist for all eternity without God, thus suffering the spiritual deprivation of the soul not being rejoined with it’s maker, rather than God simply not create this person.

I do not see that as any kind of loving action by an all knowing, all loving Father figure.

Meaning God creates a soul He already knows is damned to an eternity of torture, just so some other soul might be saved

Again, not the actions of any loving Being I can think of

Of course, it would be different if God didn’t actually know, and based on our free will choices, will judge us accordingly at the end of our life.

But then He’s not an all knowing God

Sarah x

 

[Neildown]

Well, either God knows the ultimate end of a human and her soul He has not yet created, or He doesn’t

You may note that I didn’t say yes or no in reference to the original question, but specifically to your quote here:

And yet He still creates this person

In summary though, I do acknowledge that God does know the ultimate end of a human and his/her soul. I omit the last part you included though, as I already illustrated that there isn’t necessarily a soul that hasn’t been created yet.

My point in the response to the second quote was that the conception of human beings is more or less on the shoulders of humanity, aside from however God started the first of us. It is through human bodies that we mate and conceive, and God simply obliges the fact that we conceive by creating a soul for the person being conceived.

If as is being claimed here He does, then I have to ask why create a creature He knows is going to end up in Hell

If you bear a child and you know he/she will grow up and never meet you, or possibly hate you because of a misunderstanding, it isn’t a reason to prevent him/her from living and experiencing life. That is basically exactly what it is with God, at least as far as I am aware. God doesn’t send people to hell so much as people send themselves away from Him. Damnation isn’t so much an example of becoming evil as it is an example of depriving one’s self of good. An absence of good is basically all evil is - the difference isn’t of two separate entities so much as the difference between existence and absence. That being illustrated, even though God knows someone will go to hell (knows a child of His will hate Him and move away from Him) He still respects the fact that that’s his/her decision. Hell/damnation is just more or less a result of the fact that souls deprive themselves of God, who is the source of both life and love in a place that is apparently absent of it.

I understand the free will argument and the stuff around predestination, so I’m not saying God predestined her to go to Hell - the point is, and the claim is, before she existed, before He created her soul, He already knew she would, for whatever reason, end up in Hell.

I think any response to this would tie in with my response above.

As an example, if I have a child and he leaves me forever before he can support himself - then okay, fine, he can have his way. Of course I don’t want him to - I would probably be devastated. I would force him to come back under my roof where I have every necessity for him to grow into a well-nourished individual; but I brought him into the world and he had the freedom to choose his destination. He wanted out so he got out. Same concept, basically.

So I have to ask, what was the point, since the creation of this particular girl’s soul will result in another soul languishing in the horrors of Hell for all eternity

The point is that it was that person’s choice, not God’s. For all future reference, there isn’t a soul in hell that hasn’t paved the way. We believe the way a soul does that paving is through mortal sin, but the circumstances for that are different with every individual on earth.

Unless of course, God didn’t know, and couldn’t know, because of our free will, but that would mean God isn’t all knowing

The fact that God knew something bad would happen to one of His creation (due to it’s own decisions) doesn’t mean anything insofar as His fidelity to His own goodness or His overlook of time. The only way God could keep any souls from going to hell would be to 1) inhibit man’s free will, or 2) not make any souls in the first place, thus also keeping all souls from getting to heaven.

Assuming either of those happened though, there wouldn’t be much point to being an infinitely intelligent, powerful, morally sound, expanding, progressing source of contingency.

 

[zro_x]

That’s interesting.

So, depending on your image of hell, it’s better that God creates a person He already knows is going to go to Hell, where they will suffer unimaginable, unending torture (as described by some of the Saints who had visions of Hell) or they will exist for all eternity without God, thus suffering the spiritual deprivation of the soul not being rejoined with it’s maker, rather than God simply not create this person.

I do not see that as any kind of loving action by an all knowing, all loving Father figure.

Admittedly, it is hard to see this as a loving action, but I think that’s mostly because of the way we percieve the spectrum of experience. I think most people think of pain as negative, nonexistence as neutral, and pleasure as positive. The Buddhists, as I understand them, see nonexistence as neutral, and all human experiences as negative to varying degrees. But I think that the opposite idea, that non-existence is neutral, and all human experiences,even pain, are positive, is at least worth some consideration. with this outlook, non-existence is the worst possible condition, and pain is actually preferable to it.

It is also possible that every person has a different experience spectrum, and that God only creates those that go to hell who want pain more than non-existence.

Meaning God creates a soul He already knows is damned to an eternity of torture, just so some other soul might be saved

Again, not the actions of any loving Being I can think of

God is love. Love is wanting others to be happy. So I see God as a pure utilitarian, who wants maximum happiness for the maximum number for the maximum time span. So, if God needs to doom a person to hell by creating them, while knowing that creating them will save two other souls, the net increase in utility is positive.

And before you ask, no, it may not be possible for God to save all three souls. We know that God needs to make some trade-offs because he is limited to what is logically possible. the existence of hell itself is a perfect example of this.

 

[atheistgirl]

If you bear a child and you know he/she will grow up and never meet you, or possibly hate you because of a misunderstanding, it isn’t a reason to prevent him/her from living and experiencing life. That is basically exactly what it is with God, at least as far as I am aware.

I’m not God though, nor do I have infinite knowledge.

If I **knew ** the next baby I conceive would be damned to hell for eternity, I would not bring that baby into the world.

So I see God as a pure utilitarian, who wants maximum happiness for the maximum number for the maximum time span. So, if God needs to doom a person to hell by creating them, while knowing that creating them will save two other souls, the net increase in utility is positive.

God as a utilitarian

That’s new.

And an interesting thought.

So here, the end does justify the means, and creating an evil human being, and allowing their evil to reign, and hundreds to suffer, is ok so long as hundreds more souls are gained for Heaven - this is an acceptable trade off

God is starting to sound more like my CFO than a Divine Being

She doesn’t care who she burns just so long as we hit our targets and she gets her dividend

Sarah x

 

[zro_x]

God as a utilitarian

That’s new.

And an interesting thought.

So here, the end does justify the means, and creating an evil human being, and allowing their evil to reign, and hundreds to suffer, is ok so long as hundreds more souls are gained for Heaven - this is an acceptable trade off

God is starting to sound more like my CFO than a Divine Being

She doesn’t care who she burns just so long as we hit our targets and she gets her dividend

Sarah x

The actions of your CFO, if accurate, are based on greed, not utilitarianism.

 

[zro_x]

I’m not God though, nor do I have infinite knowledge.

If I **knew ** the next baby I conceive would be damned to hell for eternity, I would not bring that baby into the world.

because you think hell is worse than nonexistence. If I had to choose, I think I’d rather be in hell than non-existant.

God as a utilitarian

That’s new.

And an interesting thought.

So here, the end does justify the means, and creating an evil human being, and allowing their evil to reign, and hundreds to suffer, is ok so long as hundreds more souls are gained for Heaven - this is an acceptable trade off

God is starting to sound more like my CFO than a Divine Being

She doesn’t care who she burns just so long as we hit our targets and she gets her dividend

Sarah x

I’m a little confused. You are obviously implying that the actions of your CFO are greedy. But God’s utilitarianism has nothing to do with greed.

 

[Neildown]

I’m not God though, nor do I have infinite knowledge.

If I **knew ** the next baby I conceive would be damned to hell for eternity, I would not bring that baby into the world.

In emphasizing the fact that that individual will go to hell, you completely ignore the fact that it was entirely through that individual’s free will that it happened. The fact that you conceived that child with full knowledge of his/her life doesn’t make you more or less culpable for the child’s actions. Obviously it will prevent that individual from experiencing hell if that individual doesn’t exist in the first place, but under the circumstances it isn’t immoral for the creator (+judge) to bring the child to existence, only for that individual to willingly and knowingly misuse his/her own life.

In a world where the name of the game is to live completely free of pain, one is striving for something that cannot be sustained for the fact that, practised en masse, it always leads to moral collapse and societal melt-down (therefore it is not by any means a solution to the problems of humanity). Logically, the only real solution to a content humanity living on earth is for humanity to cope with and embrace pain where it is tolerable (and when it is simply the only solution) whilst reducing it where possible, and trying not to inflict it. (In other words, doing what God has told Christians to do for 2000+ years. )

 

[dshix]

because you think hell is worse than nonexistence. If I had to choose, I think I’d rather be in hell than non-existant.

Why would you prefer to be damned than non-existent? Do you realize what Hell is?

 

[atheistgirl]

because you think hell is worse than nonexistence. If I had to choose, I think I’d rather be in hell than non-existant.

I would rather never have existed, than to exist, and then go to a place of eternal torture (based on the testimony of the Saints who had visions of hell).

If God knows I’m going to Hell, and knew I was going to Hell before He created my soul, then it would have been a kindness for Him not to have created me.

It is a cruelty of indescribable magnitude, to deliberately create something you know before you even create it, is going to suffer for all eternity.

In my opinion.

I’m a little confused. You are obviously implying that the actions of your CFO are greedy. But God’s utilitarianism has nothing to do with greed.

It was a little joke as my CFO was on a split screen with me as I was typing

She’ll do whatever it takes - provided it’s moral, legal and ethically sound

Just like God - except He includes making souls He already knows are damned to Hell, if that will save a few others for Heaven.

Sarah x

 

[tdgesq]

The Church does not know whether any human being is or ever will experience hell. It is possible that none will ever experience hell.

 

[atheistgirl]

It is possible that none will ever experience hell.

I agree, but I would go further and simply say none will ever experience hell.

This is because I do not believe there is such a place.

And, since I do not believe in such a place, obviously it does not exist

Sarah x

 

[dshix]

I agree, but I would go further and simply say none will ever experience hell.

This is because I do not believe there is such a place.

And, since I do not believe in such a place, obviously it does not exist

Sarah x

I’m honestly not surprised you don’t believe in Hell. Almost every atheist I know decides Hell doesn’t exist so that they can stop thinking about and worrying about the possibility of going there, and it frees them so that they don’t have to hold themselves accountable for their actions.

 

[tdgesq]

I agree, but I would go further and simply say none will ever experience hell.

This is because I do not believe there is such a place.

And, since I do not believe in such a place, obviously it does not exist

Sarah x

Lol. Well, I guess the point was supposed to be that there is no dilemma between God’s foreknowledge and the ultimate fate of human souls if they all end up experiencing heaven, which is a possibility.

 

[zro_x]

Why would you prefer to be damned than non-existent? Do you realize what Hell is?

I could just as well ask you if you realize what non-existence is.

But to answer your question: I have an intelectual understanding of hell, yes, but of course I can only have a limited understanding of the horrors that go on there. I’ve had nightmares, which are probably some of the closest things to hell in this life, and I think I would prefer an eternal nightmare to non-existence. I value existence itself as good.

 

[dshix]

I could just as well ask you if you realize what non-existence is.

But to answer your question: I have an intelectual understanding of hell, yes, but of course I can only have a limited understanding of the horrors that go on there. I’ve had nightmares, which are probably some of the closest things to hell in this life, and I think I would prefer an eternal nightmare to non-existence. I value existence itself as good.

Non-existence is simply non-existence. I don’t think there is any other accurate way to put it. In general, non-existence means you can’t experience joy or pain because you don’t exist. Nor can you feel any kind of boredom or anything. It isn’t even limbo, it’s just nothing.

Hell, however, is agonizing suffering for all eternity, away from God. I’ll take no pain over infinite pain any day.

 

[atheistgirl]

I’m honestly not surprised you don’t believe in Hell.

Almost every atheist I know decides Hell doesn’t exist so that they can stop thinking about and worrying about the possibility of going there,

I didn’t decide there is no Hell, any more than I didn’t decide there is no pink elephant floating in orbit around an as yet undiscovered planet drinking Jasmin tea

There’s no evidence that such a place exists.

and it frees them so that they don’t have to hold themselves accountable for their actions.

Let’s see now. I’m accountable for my actions to:

My husband.

My kids.

My mom.

My family.

My friends.

My employees.

My business associates.

My customers and clients.

The State.

Law enforcement.

IRS.

Strangers I meet.

And myself.

To name but a few.

Where you get the idea I have no accountability for my actions and that’s why I’m an atheist, I have no clue

Sarah x

 

[Neildown]

If God knows I’m going to Hell, and knew I was going to Hell before He created my soul, then it would have been a kindness for Him not to have created me.

It is a cruelty of indescribable magnitude, to deliberately create something you know before you even create it, is going to suffer for all eternity.

In my opinion.

Whoah now, didn’t I just address this in HD?

 

[zro_x]

I would rather never have existed, than to exist, and then go to a place of eternal torture (based on the testimony of the Saints who had visions of hell).

If God knows I’m going to Hell, and knew I was going to Hell before He created my soul, then it would have been a kindness for Him not to have created me.

That may very well be true.

It is a cruelty of indescribable magnitude, to deliberately create something you know before you even create it, is going to suffer for all eternity.

In my opinion.

In order to show that this, more general satement you made is true, you would have to argue that everyone would rather be non-existnet than in hell. That is simply not the case. My guess is that no soul in hell longs for non-existence.

 

[zro_x]

Non-existence is simply non-existence. I don’t think there is any other accurate way to put it. In general, non-existence means you can’t experience joy or pain because you don’t exist. Nor can you feel any kind of boredom or anything. It isn’t even limbo, it’s just nothing.

Hell, however, is agonizing suffering for all eternity, away from God. I’ll take no pain over infinite pain any day.

Do you think it is true for every person that non-existence is better than infinite pain? If so, how can you justify the existence of souls in hell at all? Why doesn’t God just end a person’s existence after they die?

I personally think that pain just indicates how close we are to non-existence. The more pain we experience, the closer to non-existence we are. No matter how much pain we experience, we* would still exist*, which is good in its own right, at least for the souls eventually going to hell.

 

[meltzerboy]

A few questions: How can eternal pain and torment be better than non-existence? Is there an official Church position regarding what hell means? I know that question has been asked before, and probably by me. I understand now why Judaism does not speculate about heaven or hell, especially the latter. Finally, how did this thread digress so much from the question of the OP (myself)?