Does God suffer from Loneliness?

[EndTimes]

Love wants to share itself is a companion to you need at least two, to love.

That’s been debunked…

_

 

[Maximus1]

Debunked how?

 

[EndTimes]

Debunked how?

Check this out - Does God suffer from Loneliness?

 

[Inquiry]

He would do it to have more people to love. Love wants to share itself. More important it wants to share itself unreservedly and without expectation. Indeed the expectation of a need fulfilled is counter to love..

If God needed something from us that would be a transaction, not love.

 

[EndTimes]

He would do it to have more people to love.

Love wants to share itself. More

No.

The first line is Selfish

The second? UnSelfish Love

Anything Else?

 

[mary15]

Thank you

 

[Inquiry]

Wrong. The first line is unselfish. That’s what the part you cut out was about.

God wanted/wants more people to give of Himself to. He doesn’t need to do this, He wants to do it for their sake. Unselfish.

 

[Maximus1]

I will read it, but loneliness is not an issue that I raised. Loneliness would evidence limitation or imperfection.
I asked why for two reasons:
First, God did create us
And
Second, there must be a reason he acted. I assume he finds benefit or joy in some way.
Pope Francis and Thomas Merton define mysticism the same. They describe a CULTIVATION of intimacy with God. " Intimacy"
Your article will delve as far as
" glorifying God." That doesn’t address my question either. I think about someone like Trump who, let’s face it, loves to glorify himself and have others do it. From a self interest perspective it attributes a flaw to God if it is WHAT GOD GETS OUT OF IT. That is why glorifying God will specifically deal with benefit to us and remain silent on my question.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Molinism is considered heretical. And it in no way resolves any of the theological issues regarding free will and omniscience.

Very incorrect. Check your facts before you assert something. Molinism is not at all considered heretical in the Church. In fact, it was championed by many Saints, including St. Robert Bellarmine. The Church has not anathematized Molinism in any way. And it does give a very good answer to your question, if understood correctly. Just asserting it doesn’t answer any of the questions/issues you have without giving a reason is poor argumentation. In fact, St. Robert Bellarmine would very much disagree with you.

Can you define simplicity?

That God is not composed of parts. As I said before:

What it does do is keep God as divine and creator and the first efficient Cause, for if He was composed of parts then who put those parts together? Things that are composed most be composed together. Therefore, if God has no causer, then God must be simple and not a composition, for nothing can put Him together.

You didn’t in no way answer that. You just said i am making a mistake that I didn’t even say. Again as I said:

I think I see a strawman!

All you have done is create strawmen in my argument. Please answer the actual doctrine of Divine Simplicity, that is that God is not composed of parts. And if you disagree with that, remember that the Church Herself believes this and it is a dogma of faith, so one cannot be Catholic without believing this.

most theologians place limitations on God’s knowledge

Again your just asserting “most”. Give me some orthodox examples. But any orthodox theologian would disagree with you. I have read of no theologian putting limits on God’s knowledge. In actuality they all affirm God’s absolute omniscience and then develop a doctrine preserving that. No good theologian would do what your trying to do.

When you say God is ‘simple’, or God is ‘logic’ - you are doing the exact same thing. Which is fine. However, you then continue to make statements that are inherently dis-proven by your premises.

Never said that God is just His Logic. In fact, I said God is His attributes, all of them. I would take some time to research Divine Simplicity before you attempt to refute it. It’s obvious you don’t have a correct understanding. I would go to the link i sent in the last post. It is St. Thomas Aquinas argument for Divine Simplicity. See if you can refute it.
And lastly, I have made no statement that inherently disproves my premise. You can, AGAIN, assert that I have, but give me some examples. I think once you discover what Divine Simplicity actually is instead of arguing against a straw-man, then you will see that I am not disproved at all but in fact justified.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Thee official position of the Church appears to be inconclusive, as it does not take sides on the Thomism vs Molinism debate.

The official Catholic position that Pope Paul VI defined was the no Catholic may call another Catholic a heretic if one believes in either Thomism as proported by Banez or Molinism championed by the Jesuits. Pope Paul VI stated that either may exist side by side in the Catholic Church. So anyone calling a Molinist who is Catholic a heretic, must be rebuked for that. The Church will not accept that.

How does one reconcile free will with an omniscient God?

What do you mean by free will? Define free will, for there are many different opinions on free will. A molinist can answer the question of reconciling libertarian free will with an all knowing God via middle knowledge. Here is a rundown of Molinism: God has three types of knowledge

1. Necessary knowledge- knowledge of all truths and all possible truths, such as all possible worlds and possible people; God must necessarily know this. if God is all knowing. (Something you deny)
2. God’s free knowledge- God’s knowledge of His free actions through His decrees, such as decreeing the murder of the Messiah.
3. God’s Middle knowledge- the knowledge of counter-factual’s, that is, the knowledge of those things aren’t necessarily true, such, what I eat for dinner tonight. God has knowledge of all such possible outcomes.
   There is your answer. Man is still free to make choice A or not-A. Yet, God is still all-knowing because He knows all possible choices that we will make, therefore preserving mans free will and God’s sovereignty and omniscience. No issues.

unless you can differentiate the God of Simplicity vs the God of Complexity, your statements are meaningless.

Umm…the very terms differentiate. Divine Simplicity means God is not composed of parts, which means that God is His existence and essence, there is no differentiation. While a God composed of parts would not be His existence but composed of His existence and essence as two different things. Now the question comes in, what composed God of His parts? For a composition isn’t naturally united. That’s why it is a composition, it is composed together by something else. If God was composed to together, He can’t have done it, for if the composition of God is what makes God that which God is, then God didn’t composed the parts when they were separate, because then He wasn’t God but something else. Therefore, since God can’t compose Himself, then what did compose Him? Then that falls into a regress unless we have a God that is absolutely simple, one that is not composed of parts. There is the difference between the two and a brief explanation of Divine Simplicity.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Divine Simplicity is rejected by nearly all modern Catholic philosophers - vehemently so.

Absolutely false and ignorant! They would not be Catholic if they denied Absolute Divine Simplicity. It is a Catholic Dogma! One has to believe it to be Catholic. And again another ASSERTION with no substance. You have given no names of these supposed Catholic philosophers who deny a Catholic dogma.

God MUST be independent of his creation.

Absolute Simplicity doesn’t mean that God is not independent of His creation. That shows an ignorance on your part of Divine Simplicity. Creation is not an attribute or essence of God. Ridiculous to say so. You are arguing a straw-man again.

In essence, he has no attributes.

Wrong. In essence, He is His attributes. One cannot divorce essence and existence in God. They are the same in God. God’s attributes are His essence and His essence is His existence. Now if you disagree, and God’s essence and existence are seperate, which came first? And in that question, if God’s attributes are that which make up God, how were those attributes put together? For a composition is not united by nature but put together by something else.

Catholic theology requires that God is beyond, or outside, his creation. Divine Simplicity violates that doctrine.

Catholic theology require Divine Simplicity for it is a DOGMA.

But for you to raise the concept in a Catholic forum makes me question your understanding of it.

I raise it because it is a DOGMA OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH! You seem to not know your own claimed Church’s dogmas.

has limits on omniscience

If God has limits on omniscience then he is not God, but limited. And as you admitted earlier, it means God is not perfect and degrades God. Pretty simple

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

First, you didn’t even read all of my arguments. It is very obvious. I will repeat again in bold letters, and beg of you to answer this. DIVINE SIMPLICITY IS A DOGMA OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. FOR ONE TO BE A CATHOLIC THEY MUST ACCEPT DIVINE SIMPLICITY.
There we go. If you have issue with the doctrine then you have issue with the Catholic Church and Her theology.

Middle knowledge doesn’t solve the problem of free will. If you subscribe to Molinism, you are sacrificing God’s omnipotence.

Again, you are asserting. You didn’t prove at all that God’s omnipotence is being sacrifice. You just said it is. To make an assertion true, you must prove it. So, please prove that Molinism sacrifices God’s omnipotence.

. Specifically, who’s to say counter-factuals even exist, or more so - have truth values?

This doesn’t make any sense. Counterfactual’s exist the fact that there are counterfactuals. For example, consider the following pair of conditional statements:

(1) If John were to ask Stefana to marry him, she would accept; and

(2) If John were to ask Stefana to marry him, she would not accept.

Counterfactuals are if statements that are conditional. Therefore, since I have used a counterfactual, I have proven counterfactuals exist.

How can you say it is “true” that I won’t eat a hot dog tomorrow?

This is a wrong example of a counterfactual. A true one one would be:

1. If you were given the option of eating a hotdog, you would eat it and
2. If you were give the option of eating a hotdog, you would not eat it.

Then, isn’t there a counter-factual where God doesn’t exist?

I think you have the wrong definition of how Molinist uses counterfactuals. Molinist use it in the creaturely freedom sense. This question doesn’t make sense. Now, God knows all free choices a person would make, and knows all feasible choices that a free human would make. Therefore, God knows all things, including the future of all things that are feasible for any possible human.

it does not resolve the issue of free will from a Catholic worldview (God is omniscient AND omnipotent).

This is an assertion. You haven’t given any proof that Molinism limits omnipotence. Give a proof that it does.

You haven’t answered any of the criticisms I raised regarding Divine Simplicity (which, as I mentioned, is almost universally derided by Christian theologians).

Another assertion. First, it is not even close to being universally derided by Christian theologians. Stop lying. (I do like how you conveniently changed from Catholic theologians to Christian theologians to try and broaden your scope, sneaky.)

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Specifically, if God is simply his attributes - logically he can only be ONE attribute. God is God, nothing more.

Amen! I never said anything different. Here is Catholic Answers response: " Because of God’s absolute simplicity (the fact that there are no parts within him, either physical or metaphysical), all of God’s attributes are one with his essence, which is existence itself. God is his eternity, which is his power, which is his will, which is his intelligence, and so on. Talking about God’s different attributes are just different ways of talking about the one and same reality. Although we distinguish his attributes in thought, they are not distinct in reality." Here is the link: https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-are-we-to-understand-gods-attributes
Please take a read and not just rush to debate me.

You seem to be a proponent of Divine Simplicity but do not have any understanding of the refutations of it, even by Catholicism itself.

I have a full understanding. It seems to be you who first, doesn’t even know what your Catholic Church teaches about Divine Simplicity, and second, have even a grasp of what Divine Simplicity is. Please do some more research instead of just winging it.

And lastly, you never even responded to my criticism of composition within God. Please answer that before trying to refute Divine Simplicity. If you can’t answer it, then Divine Simplicity is true.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Divine Simplicity means God is not composed of parts, which means that God is His existence and essence, there is no differentiation. While a God composed of parts would not be His existence but composed of His existence and essence as two different things. Now the question comes in, what composed God of His parts? For a composition isn’t naturally united. That’s why it is a composition, it is composed together by something else. If God was composed to together, He can’t have done it, for if the composition of God is what makes God that which God is, then God didn’t composed the parts when they were separate, because then He wasn’t God but something else. Therefore, since God can’t compose Himself, then what did compose Him? Then that falls into a regress unless we have a God that is absolutely simple, one that is not composed of parts. There is the difference between the two and a brief explanation of Divine Simplicity.

Please rebut this argument instead of just questioning my knowledge on the Divine Simplicity. Thank you

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I don;t care one way or the other regarding what the Church says

Oh so you’re not a Catholic? Then why does your profile say you are a “Cultural Catholic”? A Cultural Catholic is one who identifies with Catholic Tradition/teaching but doesn’t actively practice the faith, such as attend Mass or Holy Days of Obligation. But you are saying you don’t agree with Catholic Dogma so therefore, according to Catholicism, not a Catholic. I would recommend changing your religion to more in line with what you believe. Here is the reference for de fide belief in Divine Simplicity:
**"Correspondence by Pope St. Leo the Great (reigned 440–61) affirms God’s simplicity and immutability. Simplicity is affirmed in the Council of Lateran IV (1215) and again as recently as Vatican I (1870). "**https://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/

I can tell you that many Catholic theologians disagree with Divine Simplicity. Look up Plantinga to start.

Plantinga isn’t Catholic…

God knows all contingents but cannot change the result of the state you start within.

False. This is not what Molinism teaches. It teaches that God preserves our free-will by not determining what we do. He can do so if He pleases. It is not that He cannot change how events proceed, but that He chooses not to, to preserve our free-will. But, God does change some events, example: the murder of the Messiah, hardening the heart of pharaoh, bringing good out of the evil of Josephs slavery, and the list goes on in Scripture. But He didn’t negate their free-will, He provided a feasible reality for them to make those choices that accomplish His will. God could change any event in creation, but He choose to preserve free-will by doing it a different. Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything, but that He has unlimited power. Like I have said before, He cannot do that which is logically impossible because He is His logic, therefore He can’t go against His nature.

God knows not only everything that is and will be, but everything that COULD be - then he must also know what a universe without him would be like.

Even thought this “refutation” is ridiculous, i’ll play along: God does know what a universe without Him would be like. IT WOULDN’T EXIST. There you go, so God does know all things that could be. He knows that a universe without Him wouldn’t exist because a universe without the First Efficient Cause cannot be.

You can of course say that God thus MUST exist for Molinism to be true, but this is self-referencing and a logical fallacy.

God must exist for any theology to be true…name one theology that doesn’t require God to exist…oh wait…you can’t

you can read many philosophers and theologians pointing out these flaws.

And you can read just as many affirming Molinism and disproving the critics…please, this isn’t even an argument. It’s called the fallacy of authority.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Lastly, you haven’t even attempted to respond to my argument for Divine Simplicity, therefore meaning that you don’t have a refutation, given that I have given you two chances to respond. I will take that as concede on your part that God is simple and not composed of parts. Thank you!

Here is wonderful podcast on Divine Simplicity that I recommend for a listen, very informative and instructrive:

I will pray that you learn from it.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Plus - this is a theological issue, not necessarily dogmatic

Absolute simplicity is a dogmatic issue. One must agree with it according to two councils to be Catholic. Our discussion on Molinism is up for debate, as we are doing, and one can hold to Molinism or not and still be Catholic. But one must hold Divine Simplicity to be Catholic. It is De Fide. Watch the video I sent.

I would describe them as Christian Theists.

I would agree. Hey look! We can agree at least on something!

But he CANNOT change the realm of middle knowledge itself. Therefore he is not omnipotent.

Your argument is non-sensical. Saying that since God can’t change something, then God is not omnipotent means that you have no idea what omnipotence it. Middle knowledge is not a realm, like the third dimension. It is the very knowledge of God. Your argument can be used against you. It is like saying God knows all thing in the past and present, and yet, He cannot change what He knows about the past and the present, therefore God is not omnipotent. One doesn’t lead to the other.

I am not hungry, so I do not eat a hot dog in the next ten minutes.
One counterfactual God knows (but the rest of us do not - middle knowledge) is that if I were hungry, I would have eaten a hot dog.

You are misunderstanding counterfactuals. Another way to explain then is subjunctive conditional statements. We are talking about future events, so an example would be: IF I am not hungry, then I will not eat a hotdog. And the counterfactual is: If I am not hungry, then I will eat a hotdog. Now, one of these is feasible and not feasible to you as a person. God knows everything about you, therefore He knows all feasible outcomes of said situation and will arrange things to lead to the one He wills.

But he cannot change middle knowledge - he is only fully aware of it.

God cannot change His knowledge of things that could be and all things that will be, but the fact God can’t change His knowledge is like saying that God can’t change His eternity therefore He is not omnipotent. God cannot go against His nature, therefore God cannot change His knowledge since He is His knowledge and can’t change His nature. But God can change creatures since they are not immutable as He is. Your argument is wishwash.

It sacrifices Go’d omnipotence for omniscience and free will.

No sacrifice. Merely says God can’t change His nature. Now if God isn’t simple, then you might have a point…but He is simple, so your argument has no foundation.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

In other words, there is no world in which God does not exist, making him exist necessarily. This is an assertion.

It is not an assertion. It is proven by the cosmologcial argument of First Efficient Cause and the rest of Aquinas’s five ways.

All you’ve done is claim that an omniscient God exists because a God that exists must be omniscient. It doesn’t follow.

If God is to be perfect, and being the First Effecient Cause He must be perfect, since if He is not perfect there is something more perfect than Him and He is not the First Efficient Cause, then it follows that He must be perfect in knowledge of all things, since He is perfect. That would include the future since the future is a thing and will happen, therefore God must have perfect knowledge of the future to be God, therefore the First Efficient Cause is omniscient. Logic does not work with you. Here is another way to think about it from Aquinas himself: Now [God] is the first principle, not [material], but in the order of efficient [cause], which must be most perfect. For just as [matter], as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most [actual], and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of [actuality], because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.
And again: Since as was shown above (Article 9), [God] [knows] all things; not only things actual but also things possible to Him and creature; and since some of these are future contingent to us, it follows that [God][knows] future contingent things.

because the first efficient cause, as stated in cosmological arguments, is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.

Wrong. Read above.

that contingent facts do not have truth value

Contingient facts are true. For instance, it is true that if James proposes to Anna, then she will accept or if James proposes to Anna, then she will not accept. The Counterfactual statements are true as a whole, for one of them will happen. Therefore contingent facts are true in the fact they are called fact.

God does not know the future, and therefore we can have free will.

Does not solve any problems for it introduces that God is no omniscient meaning He is not God, therefore degrading His perfection, meaning He is not perfect. If God does not know the future, then we cannot trust prophecy in Sacred Scripture. If God is not omniscient, HE IS NOT GOD.
You can keep your limited God, I will stick with the unlimited God.

 

[mary15]

I am the proud mother of this thread

 

[mary15]

you guys make me proud.

bless your hearts for your commitment to philosophical discourse