Aquinas on God's knowledge

  • Thread starter Thread starter thegrons
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey Guys;

Don’t give up on me now… I have been pondering your comments, John has made some great points and frankly a bit above my understanding. buffgbob wrote:* Finally, there is the special case of God’s foreknowledge and His freedom to create the universe however He sees fit. This is what I believe most persons are talking about when discussing this topic. It is typified in the example of Hitler. Thegrons writes, “…then Hitler would have not done what he did not because Hilter freely chose to do so but because this is the world God foreknew and He decided to actulize it.” A friend of mine always yells “loaded question!” whenever I ask him thigns so I laugh when I will apply the same principle but it is applicable. Some people view God’s creation as His different choices of how to make things knowing their outcome. When He chooses one, He precludes the other; He damns Hitler and saves Francis Assisi. Could God not have “tweaked” nature to allow the opposite or the salvation of both? The problem being, the tweaking of nature to provide a specific outcome which ultimately compels men to salvation is exactly the abrogation of free will. The situation assumes that Hitler’s will is a direct product of God and not something free. However, nature is designed to not compel the will for exactly the purpose of its freedom. It is clear that nature is hardly compelling. It is described as the wilderness; that God comes and leads us back to Him. *

And this has me thinking that maybe if our will are truly “free” and God created us with wills that are even beyond His control, than maybe it doesn’t matter which world He actualized because He doesn’t control anyone’s wills to the extent of their coming to Christ for salvation or other matters (which would explain evil)? If that be the case that our wills are beyond His control (Of course we would have to grant that He proposed to create us in the fashion), then nobody could blame the rebellion of satan or man on Him?

Does this make sense to anyone? I mean even if the most staunch Libertarain free will believer allows for God to have absolute control over mans will, than we are mere puppets on a string. Now this concept of God creating beings with true randomness would explain His need to have angels guarding His throne, however it would not imply that He is not the greatest being in the universe or that He could be overthrown because if His power; but at what point do we throw in the towel and fess up that we are little beings in a snow globe on His desk or are we truly free?

Thegrons
 
Continued…I suppose that so long as He is the Creator and we are the creatures, we can argue that we can never be “truly free” for this would require that we have an existence apart from God. I am begining to believe that the Libertarian Free will guys are chasing a form of freedom that doesn’t exist for “in Him we live and move and have our being”.
 
And this has me thinking that maybe if our will are truly “free” and God created us with wills that are even beyond His control,
Click to expand...
Our will has to be free;

God’s essence (nature) is prior to (before) his acts, or manifestations,

If God’s essence (nature) is good, then anything posterior (after) that cannot be a contradiction,

If God’s essence is good, then God’s actions must be good,

If God’s actions must be good, that entails freedom (of the will) for his subjects,

As humans, our will is prior to our intellection, (our will trumps our thoughts),

As such, the only way God could compel us is to interfere with our will, which would entail a direct and total “control” over us, which - even for a good end, is not a good means; and thus, God cannot compel our will in practice; as this would be a contradiction to his good essence.

However, God can direct our intellection (thought) by external signs, such as a vision, or even him directly speaking to us; but this would only encourage our acts, not compel them, and that in general it is such acts of influence would be exersised upon those who’s natural will and inclinations are on the path to them, or such require and embrace them.

So, whilst God can “in theory” as an all powerful being command our will, he cannot do so in practice

An analogy;

A kind old man would never commit an evil act, even to solicit a good end,
In the same way, God, who is infinitely kinder than the kindest of kind old men, would not be practically able to solicit such an end.

Nonetheless, this presumes we have a capacity to know essentially what good and evil acts are in toto (absolutely); which would mean we would be able to judge all of his acts without exception - this is not true, as we are not omniscient – any act God commits per se, must be in accordance with his essence, and even if it appears otherwise, means it is our understandings that are mistaken, not his congruency.
then nobody could blame the rebellion of satan or man on Him?
Click to expand...
The rebellion of Satan, and the rebellion of Man to God are caused by God in part;

Firstly, the existence of Satan, and the existence of Man is a nessecary element to their later rebellion, consequently their rebellion is contingent upon God granting them existence.

Secondly, the free will of Satan, and the existence of Man is a nessecary element to their later rebellion, consequently their rebellion is contingent upon God granting them existence.

However, their rebellion is not nessecarily caused by God; as the essential element of their rebellion; that is the will and praxis is intrinsically the consequence of Satan and Man, in their cases; and the influences to nolition or volition in either case (particularily man’s temptation) is neither an essential priority of, or a compulsion prior to their will and praxis; as their will is prior to their praxis and intellection.

Nonetheless, the free will of Satan and Man is an essential gift from God, in accordance to his essence, as is their existence – so whilst God’s gifts are essential to their later rebellion, the key component is the rebels will.

Think of it like this, a man and a woman have a Child, they also bring up their child in a way that allows him to make his own choices – even if they upset the parents; if the child becomes a murderer – it is not the parents fault essentially as;
Regardless of the childs upbringing; he essentially has the choice to commit the act. Just because his existence is contingent upon his parents; does not mean his acts are incited or nessecarily caused by them. (this is a simple analogy)
I suppose that so long as He is the Creator and we are the creatures, we can argue that we can never be “truly free” for this would require that we have an existence apart from God.
Click to expand...
Just like a child leaving their parents home, yes - the child could not have been born without the parents, but essentially, once the child has become an adult he is essentially free too choose to stay or leave. – whatever the case, it’s good to stay in touch .

Just because somethings existence is contingent upon another thing, does not mean that somethings acts are continually contingent upon that, or another thing.

I hope that made it a bit clearer 👍
 
Thanks for the clarification of your views. I suppose that everyone has a definition of what they consider free will. Even the Calvinists who are hard determinists have a definition of free will and of course the open theist has his definition of free will. I think I have always settled for a definition that allows for a man to say yes or no in any and every moral decision pertaining to the things of God. salvation, ethics and behavior. **John could you address the issue directly viz. How God’s foreknowledge doesn’t preclude free will? **This is the argument I get from open thiests and students that I preach to on college campuses. I once had a young lady say “If God knows everything, how can we have free will?” I was quite impressed with this young womans question… I gave her the response of God’s limited foreknowledge but also followed up with my standard answer that We don’t know how or what God knows and is beyond the domain of our minds.

Even the secular philosophers will argue that foreknowledge precludes free will.

thanks
grons
 
PS John the philosopher would argue that it is not Gods knowledge per se but rather His actualizing one world over another which precludes certain events from being possible which precludes free will how would you argue that?

thx
 
thegrons said:
**John could you address the issue directly viz. How God’s foreknowledge doesn’t preclude free will? **
Click to expand...
Reconciling omniscience with free will is always a tricky one, I shall try to express it in a way that makes it easy for everyone to understand, especially if it may be useful to those whom you interact with at all levels on a campus, because many will not know specific philosophical or theological terms.

For starters, we will have to assume the following (these can be argued at seperate times, but for the sake of this argument give as granted);
God Exists
God is all Knowing
God has Free will

—God knows the future and has Free will

i) There are a finite number of possible future events, but God has infinite knowlege, so is aware of all of the possibilities.

ii) God allows there to be a number of different future events,

iii) God allows this because he gifts humans with free will, in accordance with his nature as good and kind and generous,

iiii) God’s nature as kind and generous is part of his “essence”, and his essence is prior to his praxis (actions). That means, his actions must be in accordance with his essence, or they would be contradictory.

iiiii) The universe, without wills, is “essentially ordered”, that means that no act can occur that is not caused to occur; ie: without humans/animals/god, a rock will only act in accordance with its nature, and only act in one way

iiiiii) There are wills in the universe, that is - mans, God etc.

iiiiiii) Nonetheless, the wills of man are only able to be exercised in accordance with their capacities (man cannot “will” himself to fly, or to be as tall as a skyscraper) - these wills are finite.

iiiiiiii) Thus, as with above there are a finite number of potential occurences in the universe, both willed and unwilled.

iiiiiiiii) Therein, if there is a finite number of occurences in the universe, and God is omniscient etc. etc. back to (i).

iiiiiiiiii) The only exception to the finitude of wills is God, as God is omnipotent, as well as omniscient, then his will can exceed finite values or potentials were he to want this.

iiiiiiiiiii) Therein, God’s will is not constrained by his thoughts, or by events on the world, it is prior to those other things, and as such free from them.

iiiiiiiiiiii) Now, although God is aware of the finite number of “finite willed” and “unwilled” acts and occurences in the universe, he is not constrained by this knowlege, as not only is his will not constrained by elements of finite power or knowlege, but also his will is prior to his actions and thoughts - it can act regardless of the latter.

Ergo, God can know the future, and still have free will

👍
 
I am with you so far… now the libertarian will argue that since God knows all possible worlds, His actualizing one precludes another; and this essentially percludes free will. e.g. If in world a. I choose to eat an bacon and eggs next Friday, and in world b. I eat oatmeal next Friday - If God actualized world be, I have to eat oatmeal and essentially I am not free to eat bacon and eggs since God chose to actualize the world where I would choose to eat oatmeal.

This seems to be the crux of the libertarian argument; how would you respond to this?

Thanks,

grons
 
thegrons said:
I am with you so far… now the libertarian will argue that since God knows all possible worlds, His actualizing one precludes another; and this essentially percludes free will. e.g. If in world a. I choose to eat an bacon and eggs next Friday, and in world b. I eat oatmeal next Friday - If God actualized world be, I have to eat oatmeal and essentially I am not free to eat bacon and eggs since God chose to actualize the world where I would choose to eat oatmeal.

This seems to be the crux of the libertarian argument; how would you respond to this?

Thanks,

grons
Click to expand...
If God actualised a world in which his actualisation denied you of your free will, it would be true to say he had stopped your free will. ie; if God actualised world B, and you had to eat oatmeal, then he would essentially have compromised your freedom too choose.

However, God does not actualise a world in which you must eat oatmeal.

We can take that God knows all the (finite) possible worlds,

Yet he does not actualise one or the other; at least not to the extent wherein your will is compromised. Regardless of any influences and effects God may permit or cause on the world, we are still free as Job’s wife puts it to “curse God and die”.

It is this freedom that exists in all possible worlds - because God is essentially good, he allows us to be potentially bad – there is no world that is sensibly potential where God denies us of our free will.

Just like there is no sensibly potential world where God is essentially evil, or essentially ignorant.

👍
 
John;

I believe that there are logically possible worlds that I could have eaten bacon and eggs of my own free will and there are logically possible worlds where I could have eaten oatmeal of my own free will.

If God chooses to actualize the world where I eat oatmeal, then of necessity I have to eat the oatmeal of my own free will because if I choose to eat bacon and eggs, then God’s foreknowledge is fallible and incorrect.

So you see that the necessity here lies not in my free will but in “which world God chooses to actualize” and “His knowledge of that world”. If God foreknows Q will freely occur, then Q must occur or else God never knew Q. So the necessity lies in the conditional relationship between God’s knowing that Q will occur and Q occuring. Logically speaking if the antecendent (God’s foreknowledge) is true, then the consequent (Q freely occuring) MUST of NECESSITY be true or occur thus precluding Q from not occuring.

This is the logical dilemma that beguiles absolute foreknowledge and free will.

So again in all possible worlds I am free to eat what ever I choose but if God foreknows that I will freely eat oatmeal, then in virtue of His foreknowledge I must eat oatmeal. Hence His foreknowledge has precluded my freedom to eat anything else. Now if God foreknows that I wil eat oatmeal, and I change my mind and eat bacon and eggs, then God was wrong in His knowledge that I would eat oatmeal.

I hope this explains the quagmire that I have to get beyond.

Thanks,

Grons
PS I am not doing this to be argumentive but rather to hear your answer in hopes of settling this dilemma for me because I have always written off God’s forelknowledge and man’s free will as a mystery; but if you have a cogent answer to get beyond this logical bind I would love to hear it!
 
PS I am not doing this to be argumentive but rather to hear your answer in hopes of settling this dilemma for me because I have always written off God’s forelknowledge and man’s free will as a mystery; but if you have a cogent answer to get beyond this logical bind I would love to hear it!
Click to expand...
It is indeed a very interesting subject! 🙂

But I think the major difference is this:
If God chooses to **actualize **the world where I eat oatmeal, then of necessity I have to eat the oatmeal of my own free will because if I choose to eat bacon and eggs, then God’s foreknowledge is fallible and incorrect.
Click to expand...
I hold that God does NOT actualize “this” or “that” world, out of all the potential worlds. He leaves it for us to actualize, with our free will.

Even though God can know all the possible ones,
He cannot know which possible one will be chosen,
Unless he chooses it himself,
He does not choose or actualise which one it will be - because that would violate free will,
But, if he willed it so, he could - even though I suspect that would be contradictory to his good and generous nature.

God’s knowlege includes all the potential occurrences, from you eating oatmeal to eating nothing at all, however because of his choice to allow us to remain free, he sacrifices his certitude, as a gift to us of freedom.

🙂
 
I see,

This is sort of like the open theist’s view in that God doesn’t know the future so therefore our actions are truly free. Only you both arrive at the same conclusion yet for different reasons viz. They say that it is impossible to know something that doesn’t exist such as future free will events…and you say that God simply chooses not to know which world will actualize and leaves it up to use even though He could. So The open theist would say that God’s omniscience is limited to all that is knowable of which the future is not knowable and you would say that God’s omnsicience is “self limited” in order to provide for free will. Or not so much His omniscience but rather His determining which world to actualize is left up to us. So you also say that there is true randomness in the universe?

Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

Thanks,

grons
 
thegrons said:
I see,

This is sort of like the open theist’s view in that God doesn’t know the future so therefore our actions are truly free. Only you both arrive at the same conclusion yet for different reasons viz. They say that it is impossible to know something that doesn’t exist such as future free will events…and you say that God simply chooses not to know which world will actualize and leaves it up to use even though He could. So The open theist would say that God’s omniscience is limited to all that is knowable of which the future is not knowable and you would say that God’s omnsicience is “self limited” in order to provide for free will. Or not so much His omniscience but rather His determining which world to actualize is left up to us. So you also say that there is true randomness in the universe?

Is this an accurate assessment of your position?

Thanks,

grons
Click to expand...
It is a rather accurate, the only thing I would contest is the “true randomness”; essentially, as human wills are limited in conception and generation and are influenced by intellection it would be innaccurate to say that it is “random” as much as it is arbitrary - aside from that, your correct.

👍
 
Well Thank you very much; I have often challenged the argument that God in eternity past saw all possible worlds and then chose which one He wanted to actualize; I think your view is one that I would find acceptable (although when talking about this subject it is rather hard to justify any position) and also jibes with the many prophecies that Christ foretold. When I asked about randomness I was thinking more in general terms; many determinists (athiest or thiest) would say that there is no randomness whether it be on an atomic level or with free moral agents and that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass. I think that God does work within the affairs of man but that our free will acts are random (at least within our power to choose between alternatives that are humanly possible)…

Thanks for the chat, I will have to copy this and send it to some of my friends.

Thegrons
 
thegrons said:
Well Thank you very much; I have often challenged the argument that God in eternity past saw all possible worlds and then chose which one He wanted to actualize; I think your view is one that I would find acceptable (although when talking about this subject it is rather hard to justify any position) and also jibes with the many prophecies that Christ foretold. When I asked about randomness I was thinking more in general terms; many determinists (athiest or thiest) would say that there is no randomness whether it be on an atomic level or with free moral agents and that God has ordained whatsoever comes to pass. I think that God does work within the affairs of man but that our free will acts are random (at least within our power to choose between alternatives that are humanly possible)…

Thanks for the chat, I will have to copy this and send it to some of my friends.
Code: 
  A couple of comments.  I am not sure if I agree (or understand?) with you that there are more worlds than this "one". That God in His infinite knowledge knows all the possible choices mencould make and knows whichone will be chosen  is a giventomesince I focus on the fact that God sees all time and space eternally in the present tense, all in the same single thought. 
   In the beginning, He said, " It is good, very good" concerning all that He created.
Someone said, “Even the secular philosophers will argue that foreknowledge precludes free will.” But just because secular philosophers come to that conclusion, that does not prove they are correct. Some might argue that since they have not seen that for there to be absolute, objective moral responsibilities, (such as that of parents to care for their children), there must then be an all-knowing, All-Loving, All-Powerful Creator to ordain such a Law and to reveal it, and since they do not see this, their thinking is a little cloudy to start with.
That God is infinitely good is a starting point. That God can not take away or override ourfree will is a given. That He knows what (name removed by moderator)uts WILL convince us with our free wills to choose a certain coarse of action is a given. The example of a woman saying a particular thing because she has a lot of evidence that when her husband hears it, He will choose a certain coarse of action shows that the man still has free will, it is just that we are predictable. If wedo not have free will, if we can not choose anything, if it is all ordered by God and we are mere pupits who can not even learn something on our own; then God is an evil entity who is making men suffer for no reason because we can not doanything other than what He orders.
We have free will, God sees exactly which coarse of action each person chooses throughout all space and time, Jesus Christ came to reconcile all things to Himself (without violating anyones free will). It is a done deal. It is not neccessary for me to know exactly how God will convince (by His Grace) everyone to accept Him in the end, He has that covered.

My job is to never stop being truly sorry for all the times I have sinned, and to try and show this sorrow by my efforts to help others learn of His infinite mercy and therefore have hope.

Thegrons
Click to expand...
 
40.png
thegrons:
Gary;

I liked the following cooment you made and think it has some wheels, can you expand on it? Also maybe anwer the question of 'Could God have kept spinning the wheel until He saw a possible world where everyone followed Him"

Here is your quote that I liked: Could God not have “tweaked” nature to allow the opposite or the salvation of both? The problem being, the tweaking of nature to provide a specific outcome which ultimately compels men to salvation is exactly the abrogation of free will. The situation assumes that Hitler’s will is a direct product of God and not something free. However, nature is designed to not compel the will for exactly the purpose of its freedom. It is clear that nature is hardly compelling. It is described as the wilderness; that God comes and leads us back to Him.
Click to expand...
thegrons,

I am sorry that it has taken me so long (an eternity in internet time) to respond to your request. After the hustle and bustle of moving I had put your request at the wayside. However, I was talking to a friend of mine the other night and he was asking about a very similar question. I prayed to the saints and our Lord. Let me elaborate. This first part you may already understand by my previous comments. The idea that God’s foreknowledge is informed by our free actions means that if God created the identical universe a million times, there are a million different outcomes consequent of the persons’ wills involved.

However, your question lets me know that you already know I mean this. “Could God have kept spinning the wheel until He saw a possible world where everyone followed Him.” Let me start with an analogy to answer this question. You are sitting at a roulette table. You bet 33 black. Bold move; that seems unlikely. First roll 17 black. Ouch, you lose. Second roll 12 red, nothing again. … 42nd roll 33 black. You win! OK, you decide none of the other bets count and only the last one will be the real bet. What is happening here? You control the table. The result is rigged because you have the power to control which bet counts.

Do you see how this applies to free will? The roll is only free if you give up control. Free will is only free because it means God willfully doesn’t control the roulette table. Noone (not literally) argues that God *couldn’t *control the universe through deterministic behavior, or even that he couldn’t control it through the manipulation of real randomness. The argument is that he willfully doesn’t control it. He abrogates his control for men to be free. Therefore, in principle, any attempt to frame the question in such a fashion that creation necessarily aligns to his Divine will destroys what freedom of the will is.

Yours in Christ,

Gary
 
Thegrons,

I admit I have not read much of this series, yet I did see that you posted about Molinism. I also think that you have not understood what Molina was trying to say.

God’s middle knowledge is in no way whatsoever effected by his will. That is, he sees possible situations of free creatures, but does not determine them. He is able to do this based on the fact that, by looking into his essence, he is complete actuality, and thus has a knowledge of all possible potentialities. Free creatures, in themselves potentialities, are indeterminate and can really and truly choose this or that. But God, since his knowledge is infinite, can super-comprehend even truly free essences; in other words, his knowledge, since it is had in a mode above the finite creature itself, is able to know in a manner above the free creature itself, what the free creature would freely do, since he comprehends the freeness of the creature in a way unique to himself alone. This is the concept so few understand concerning Molinism. It posits that God’s scientia media is not effected at all by his will. It is rather a consequence of his infinite actuality, by which in his intellect he possesses perfect comprehension of all finite potentialities, that he has knowledge of even truly free or contingent causes. This knowledge, as it were, “flows out of his nature” without his willing it. He knows necessarily, just as he exists necessarily and loves himself necessarily.

Now, that he wills to bring into being such a possible universe is a choice of his will (which itself, Molina argues, is not determined by God’s foreknowledge of him choosing). But the only thing the will makes actual is the existence of said universe, not the free decisions made by the creatures therein. This is because such creatures, in God’s middle knowledge, have always been known as freely acting such and such, due to God’s super-comprehension of them.

It is difficult to articulate to one who has not read closely Cordia part IV by Molina. I would encourage you, however, to do so. The difficulty that must be got over, if one is to understand Molina, is that God’s middle knowledge does not follow his decree of creation or his free knowledge. Rather, it is in every way prior to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top