Does God's omniscience contradict free will?

[NowHereThis]

As I asked, what does the conversation between God and humanity look like in the case you propose? Does God reveal himself at all (else how would people choose him)? What does he reveal? I sense a huge can of worms.

If revelation and conversation is necessary, he could do no more or less than he did for Abraham, who still received commendation for his faith in the Letter to the Hebrews, showing that direct revelation and commendable faith do not contradict.

The other alternative is to do exactly as he has done in our current universe, with the caveat that the only people born are those who accept Jesus upon hearing from evangelists.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

So perhaps you would agree that from an “eternal now” standpoint, God knows everything, but from a linear, time-bound perspective, God doesn’t know the results of free will choices until they happen?

Not exactly, I would tend to say that, ordinarily, there just isn’t a linear time-bound perspective in which God’s knowledge exists.

Of course, He can put any amount of His knowledge that He chooses to inside any particular point of our linear(ish) time if He wants, but if He does, and unless He restricts it, it could easily be knowledge that involves the future in a certain and incontrovertible way.

What I’m saying though is that the certain knowledge that I will do something, even should that knowledge enter into time before I do it, does not change the fact that I did it because I decided to.

The key to this issue is that while for us humans, cause and effect are generally limited by time (the effects of what I do now won’t be seen until the future), that is not the case for God. He can change the past based on the future (or what it would be), He can know things that we haven’t decided, etc etc.

If it helps, think of looking down on a 1-dimensional line from outside, seeing something further along the line and using that to modify some attribute earlier along the line. The fact that I modified something earlier along the line than what happened further down really has no implications whatsoever to why the thing originally happened further down the line.

And of course, MichaelHowling is absolutely right, none of this can be totally understood by us. Like St. Augustine and the child trying to fit the whole ocean into a hole he dug on the beach.

Course that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t put as much water in the hole as we can, only that we should accept before starting out that it won’t be the whole ocean. And that’s ok.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . before he creates, that the child he’s going to create will end up in hell. . . .

God exists within eternity, once He has created something/someone in time, He knows before, during and after the person has chosen, what he has chosen. That person has to choose in order for God to know that he has chosen.

What you are suggesting is that God could have just created people who would choose to love Him. What would be the point of that?

God created everything and permitted the existence of hell which came about through sin.
So hell exists. It exists as does all creation through His act of being. He knows the suffering of hell.
Those in hell exist within His infinite ocean of compassion.
The beauty and goodness that I see in this system is in the dedication of those who acted in love, when they could have done evil, and the seeing of justice to those who brought evil into the world.
You really think that unrepentant sexual predators, butchers of mankind, people that brought ruin on their neighbours could ever be worthy of heaven? Satan, the father of lies who seduces us into sin, out of His hatred of God, could he be anywhere but in a sulfurous lake of torment. This is actually pretty awesome, given that nothing has to exist.

 

[NowHereThis]

Not exactly, I would tend to say that, ordinarily, there just isn’t a linear time-bound perspective in which God’s knowledge exists.

Of course, He can put any amount of His knowledge that He chooses to inside any particular point of our linear(ish) time if He wants, but if He does, and unless He restricts it, it could easily be knowledge that involves the future in a certain and incontrovertible way.

What I’m saying though is that the certain knowledge that I will do something, even should that knowledge enter into time before I do it, does not change the fact that I did it because I decided to.

The key to this issue is that while for us humans, cause and effect are generally limited by time (the effects of what I do now won’t be seen until the future), that is not the case for God. He can change the past based on the future (or what it would be), he can know things that we haven’t decided, etc etc.

If it helps, think of looking down on a 1-dimensional line from outside, seeing something further along the line and using that to modify some attribute earlier along the line. The fact that I modified something earlier along the line than what happened further down really has no implications whatsoever to why the thing originally happened further down the line.

And of course, MichaelHowling is absolutely right, none of this can be totally understood by us. Like St. Augustine and the child trying to fit the whole ocean into a hole he dug on the beach.

Course that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t put as much water in the hole as we can, only that we should accept before starting out that it won’t be the whole ocean. And that’s ok.

I agree that God’s knowledge is not a direct cause of the decisions we make. That’s not the issue to me. If we’ve established that God can create based on knowledge of what that person will decide, then we can move on to the question:

would God use that knowledge to create only those who freely (not caused by said knowledge) choose him, thus avoiding creation of a single soul bound for hell?

If so, why hasn’t he? If not, why not?

 

[MichaelHowling]

Lastly, appart from all this debate…

If what your proposing is true …then why does Christ mention Hell and the possibility of going there ?

 

[snarflemike]

If revelation and conversation is necessary, he could do no more or less than he did for Abraham, who still received commendation for his faith in the Letter to the Hebrews, showing that direct revelation and commendable faith do not contradict.

The other alternative is to do exactly as he has done in our current universe, with the caveat that the only people born are those who accept Jesus upon hearing from evangelists.

But what does God tell us about our fate, our options? Does he tell us “do whatever you want, you’re saved in any case”? If not, why not?

 

[NowHereThis]

God exists within eternity, once He has created something/someone in time, He knows before, during and after the person has chosen, what he has chosen. That person has to choose in order for God to know that he has chosen.

What you are suggesting is that God could have just created people who would choose to love Him. What would be the point of that?

God created everything and permitted the existence of hell which came about through sin.
So hell exists. It exists as does all creation through His act of being. He knows the suffering of hell.
Those in hell exist within His infinite ocean of compassion.
The beauty and goodness that I see in this system is in the dedication of those who acted in love, when they could have done evil, and the seeing of justice to those who brought evil into the world.
You really think that unrepentant sexual predators, butchers of mankind, people that brought ruin on their neighbours could ever be worthy of heaven? Satan, the father of lies who seduces us into sin, out of His hatred of God, could he be anywhere but in a sulfurous lake of torment. This is actually pretty awesome, given that nothing has to exist.

They could be if they accept the forgiveness of Jesus, right? That’s what I’m proposing here: God only creates those who will freely accept the forgiveness of Jesus.

 

[MichaelHowling]

Also, using your logic…

why did he create people to drown them in the flood
why did he create people to rain down judgement on Sodom and Gomorah
etc etc.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I agree that God’s knowledge is not a direct cause of the decisions we make. That’s not the issue to me. If we’ve established that God can create based on knowledge of what that person will decide, then we can move on to the question:

would God use that knowledge to create only those who freely (not caused by said knowledge) choose him, thus avoiding creation of a single soul bound for hell?

If so, why hasn’t he? If not, why not?

Yes, He could, and no He hasn’t. I think my original post on this fell victim to the page turn, so here it is again:

"To exist is better than to not exist, otherwise annihilation would beat out hell. Course, the people there don’t see it that way, but people who end up in Hell kind of obviously aren’t the most reliable guides to good and bad.

But of course God has no desire that we end up in Hell. He simply does not, it seems, wish to play the games of “you have free will, but not really because I’ll only make you if you’ll do as I like.” "

Unfortunately, I have a flight in 7 hours, so I will be logging off, but the statement that existence is good (and in fact that the two are, in purest form, more or less equivalent) comes from my (admittedly amateur) reading of Aquinas. Mostly here: newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

EDIT: “and no He hasn’t” should technically be changed to “and we have no reason to think that He has”. The hypothesis that all end up in heaven (without denying that any particular person could potentially end up in Hell) is, so far as I understand, compatible with Catholicism. Though I tend to think it’s not true, I don’t believe that it has definitively been said to be false.

EDIT to the EDIT: though I’m pretty sure that even if it is true that all attain heaven (which I don’t think it is), that this would not be because of selective creation on God’s part, but by some other method. (IE, a way by which all people would end up choosing God no matter what, rather than there being people who God actually decided not to create so that they would not go to Hell.)

 

[NowHereThis]

Also, using your logic…

why did he create people to drown them in the flood
why did he create people to rain down judgement on Sodom and Gomorah
etc etc.

Those are excellent questions.

The Bible does make it seem as though God didn’t know that the people of the flood would be so evil (else why regret making them? Genesis 6:5-7), and that he was unaware of the amount of evil in S&G (Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”)

 

[Robertanthony]

They could be if they accept the forgiveness of Jesus, right? That’s what I’m proposing here: God only creates those who will freely accept the forgiveness of Jesus.

Nobody seems to be able to respond to the core of your question. I happen to think Hell is a horrible thing, that n-o-t-h-i-n-g is worse than hell, that being dead or never having been conceived are far and away better fates than Hell. I was reminded of a philosopher (into New Age stuff, hedonist, denies the Christian God) ,who’s still alive, a few days back. Read a bit about him, found out his mother had him when she was 44-45. I was troubled by that finding. I thought: if she hadn’t been able to conceive at that age or if she hadn’t chosen to have a child, she would have likely saved a soul from going to Hell. Therein lies my main “problem” with God. Despair and hopelessness are hard to bear down here, God submits souls to an eternity of utter despair. If there isn’t something cruel about that, I wonder what is. One pregnancy out of 3 ends ups in miscarriage, if all miscarried babies had had a chance at life, surely some would have ended up in Hell. So they have no chance of ever being lost, whereas all the babies who are born do.

Your idea is wonderful but God didn’t think it was for reasons that are his.

 

[NowHereThis]

But what does God tell us about our fate, our options? Does he tell us “do whatever you want, you’re saved in any case”? If not, why not?

Ok, try this:

God: I am your creator. I have created the universe and all that is in it in order to meet you, and I desire only to be with you forever. All that I am, all that I have, is yours, if you but say the word.
Human: my lord, I would not have it any other way!

Except more-so, because God would presumably be able to express the sentiments of a perfect lover far better than that.

 

[wmw]

Why would God not allow evil? It’s really a very good thing for us since Mercy abounds to overcome it. Paul taught this and was very quick to also say that we should not sin all the more, it doesn’t work to purposely seek evil or to purposely put yourself in harms way to seek out becoming a victim.

I think the main thing to understand this is that God rights all wrongs; so, all justice is fulfilled. The victim will be rewarded 10 fold in heaven for the harm done and the sinner has the possibility of collecting his full justice or being forgiven in repentance and absolution.

The prime example of how God turns evil to good is the pascal mystery. His suffering is an example of the harm done while the resurrection and saving the souls of the whole world results from the perfect acceptance of the evil done. The good news is that this is true of all our sufferings and we join in the work of God turning the evil into good by offering up our suffering the way Jesus did.

You on the other hand are saying God should choose unwisely, and less advantageously for those not in hell in the end. God has also determined that existing in hell is better than non-existence. Otherwise, in his Omnipotence he would choose to unmake the souls rather than allow them there. Again I’m not saying that hell isn’t miserable and to be avoided, but it is better than not being.

This helps people to also start to understand that contraception is in some ways at least as bad as murder. Non-existence is far worse than spending an eternity in hell and people are purposely giving potential people that very much worse option.

 

[Robertanthony]

Why would God not allow evil? It’s really a very good thing for us since Mercy abounds to overcome it. Paul taught this and was very quick to also say that we should not sin all the more, it doesn’t work to purposely seek evil or to purposely put yourself in harms way to seek out becoming a victim.

I think the main thing to understand this is that God rights all wrongs; so, all justice is fulfilled. The victim will be rewarded 10 fold in heaven for the harm done and the sinner has the possibility of collecting his full justice or being forgiven in repentance and absolution.

The prime example of how God turns evil to good is the pascal mystery. His suffering is an example of the harm done while the resurrection and the saving the souls of the whole world results from the perfect acceptance of the evil done. The good news is that this is true of all our sufferings and we join in the work of God turning the evil into good by offering up our suffering the way Jesus did.

You on the other hand are saying God should choose unwisely, and less advantageously for those not in hell in the end.** God has also determined that existing in hell is better than non-existence. Otherwise, in his Omnipotence he would choose to unmake the souls rather than allow them there. Again I’m not saying that hell isn’t miserable and to be avoided, but it is better than not being.**
**This helps people to also start to understand that contraception is in some ways at least as bad as murder. Non-existence is far worse than spending an eternity in hell **and people are purposely giving potential people that very much worse option.

 

[NowHereThis]

Nobody seems to be able to respond to the core of your question. I happen to think Hell is a horrible thing, that n-o-t-h-i-n-g is worse than hell, that being dead or never having been conceived are far and away better fates than Hell. I was reminded of a philosopher (into New Age stuff, hedonist, denies the Christian God) ,who’s still alive, a few days back. Read a bit about him, found out his mother had him when she was 44-45. I was troubled by that finding. I thought: if she hadn’t been able to conceive at that age or if she hadn’t chosen to have a child, she would have likely saved a soul from going to Hell. Therein lies my main “problem” with God. Despair and hopelessness are hard to bear down here, God submits souls to an eternity of utter despair. If there isn’t something cruel about that, I wonder what is. One pregnancy out of 3 ends ups in miscarriage, if all miscarried babies had had a chance at life, surely some would have ended up in Hell. So they have no chance of ever being lost, whereas all the babies who are born do.

Your idea is wonderful but God didn’t think it was for reasons that are his.

Thank you for the compliment. It does seem like the determining factor in this discussion is whether hell is worse than non-existence. Like you, I come down on the side of hell being worse, and I can think of at least one scripture which I interpret as supporting this position:

Matthew 18:6-7 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

If you cause someone else to sin, you’ll wish you were drowned in the sea compared to the woe that awaits you. That’s how I read that passage.

 

[Aloysium]

They could be if they accept the forgiveness of Jesus, right? That’s what I’m proposing here: God only creates those who will freely accept the forgiveness of Jesus.

unfortunately, parables such as the seven foolish maidens, the rich man and Lazarus, the servant, who altho forgiven, failed to forgive his debtor, etc, suggest that it can get too late at some point to ask His forgiveness

at that point it would not be true repentance but rather simply not wanting to face the consequences of one’s behaviour in life

we do believe in Purgatory; but there appear to be ppl who are beyond redemption

you may be right about everyone ultimately going to heaven, but I don’t see any evidence for it

 

[NowHereThis]

unfortunately, parables such as the seven foolish maidens, the rich man and Lazarus, the servant, who altho forgiven, failed to forgive his debtor, etc, suggest that it can get too late at some point to ask His forgiveness

at that point it would not be true repentance but rather simply not wanting to face the consequences of one’s behaviour in life

we do believe in Purgatory; but there appear to be ppl who are beyond redemption

you may be right about everyone ultimately going to heaven, but I don’t see any evidence for it

I’m not saying that this world is like that. I’m saying that God could create a world that would be like that.

 

[wmw]

I’m not saying that this world is like that. I’m saying that God could create a world that would be like that.

God is able to do wrong or imperfect things, but is too wise to do so. I was trying to explain why this is the best of worlds. Lucifer chose to not accept being a lesser being that most of humanity. This at least started his downfall and then went into trying to play God. It is coming form this world that enables us to be above the Angels in Heaven.

 

[wmw]

Thank you for the compliment. It does seem like the determining factor in this discussion is whether hell is worse than non-existence. Like you, I come down on the side of hell being worse, and I can think of at least one scripture which I interpret as supporting this position:

Matthew 18:6-7 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!

If you cause someone else to sin, you’ll wish you were drowned in the sea compared to the woe that awaits you. That’s how I read that passage.

The man with the mill stone around his neck still exists; Hell is worse than this and non-existence may be worse than this. This scripture doesn’t tell us anything about a comparison between Hell and non-existence.

 

[wmw]

Still, it is not a teaching of the church that not existing is worse than Hell. So, you may choose well not to follow my logic that God does not sweep away all the damned into oblivion by a choice that it is better for them to be in Hell than not to be.

The better counter argument is that from Jesus’ statement about Judas at the last supper. Just before the institution of the Eucharist.

Mark 14:21 For the Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him,* but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

So is this saying that Judas would have been better off never existing or still being made a soul of a babe in the womb that dies and is still born?

I say again it is not a required belief, but it is the only otherwise satisfying reason to always have the dragon, his demons, and completely fallen finally forever locked away in an eternal Hell rather than ended without also violating any of the required beliefs.