Double Predestination?

[ProdglArchitect]

How God could knows something at the same time set it free?

As I said earlier. I know, with absolute certainty, that a person will die today. In fact, I know that a significant number of people will die today. The fact that I know this doesn’t mean I am causing it, or that I desire it.

God “Knows” things because they have already happened, and because they are currently happening, and because they will happen, all at once. I discussed this earlier. He knows our choices because we have already made them, and are making them, and will make them. God is outside of time, and his knowledge isn’t limited by causality the way ours is. It’s a very hard thing to contemplate because all we know is a linear progression of events. God doesn’t work on this linear progression, he works outside of it, and beyond it, and see all of it at once.

 

[oldcelt]

Yes, there are specific things which were foreordained. That doesn’t mean everything was. The things that are pre-ordained are pretty well laid out in the Bible. A good example is Mary becoming the Mother of Christ. Even in that instance, arguable the most explicitly stated instance of preordination in the whole Bible, God still sought out Mary’s “Yes” before actually enacting His Will. He still allowed her to make the choice, preserving her free will.

Please, read it again. Of course, I believe none of it. This a philosophical discussion. So far as Mary…other than a few slim passages in the bible…what other evidence do you have?

John

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Please, read it again. Of course, I believe none of it. This a philosophical discussion. So far as Mary…other than a few slim passages in the bible…what other evidence do you have?

John

I have read it, and reread it. It does not change the reality of the matter at all. Mary was given as a single instance to show that single-predestination is not at odds with free will. I cannot think of any other examples off the top of my head, unfortunately, though I’m sure others on here can.

The fact that you don’t believe it is of little consequence to whether it is true or not. I have presented the argument in the simplest way I know how, so at this point there’s really nothing new I can say on the matter, and will leave it to others.

 

[Bahman]

As I said earlier. I know, with absolute certainty, that a person will die today. In fact, I know that a significant number of people will die today. The fact that I know this doesn’t mean I am causing it, or that I desire it.

God “Knows” things because they have already happened, and because they are currently happening, and because they will happen, all at once. I discussed this earlier. He knows our choices because we have already made them, and are making them, and will make them. God is outside of time, and his knowledge isn’t limited by causality the way ours is. It’s a very hard thing to contemplate because all we know is a linear progression of events. God doesn’t work on this linear progression, he works outside of it, and beyond it, and see all of it at once.

How anything can be created without design? How anything could be free if it is designed?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

How anything can be created without design? How anything could be free if it is designed?

I design a programming language. I implement that language and then give it to others. They can program whatever they want with that language. I have just created something that is free to be whatever the users desires of it.

I paint a painting. It is perfect, exactly what I saw in my head. I put it up for exposition. The viewer draws their own meaning from it that fits within their world view. Their interpretation may differ from my intention, but I have still designed and created something that gives freedom to the user.

God created us, designed us, and made us in His image. He then gave us the freedom of choice. We may enact our wills however we see fit. He has created something that is free.

 

[Bahman]

I design a programming language. I implement that language and then give it to others. They can program whatever they want with that language. I have just created something that is free to be whatever the users desires of it.

I paint a painting. It is perfect, exactly what I saw in my head. I put it up for exposition. The viewer draws their own meaning from it that fits within their world view. Their interpretation may differ from my intention, but I have still designed and created something that gives freedom to the user.

God created us, designed us, and made us in His image. He then gave us the freedom of choice. We may enact our wills however we see fit. He has created something that is free.

No, you have to be better when you provide an example. Your program is not free to do things but it is free to be used. That is a big difference.

 

[oldcelt]

Correct, he does know. Again, however, I remind you that knowing is not the same thing as causing, or even wanting.

For your consideration:

Quote:

We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments.** According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity **all ****future events

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

 

[ProdglArchitect]

For your consideration:

Quote:

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Did you even bother reading that page, or just looks for the first snippet that supported your view?

Predestination (Latin præ, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man’s free will.

Put shortly, as I have been stating… over and over again… God’s knowing is not equivalent to God’s desiring something. Try reading the whole article, you might enjoy it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

No, you have to be better when you provide an example. Your program is not free to do things but it is free to be used. That is a big difference.

The program was analogous to free will. It was designed and given to us by God, and we are free to use it as we see fit.

 

[Bahman]

The program was analogous to free will. It was designed and given to us by God, and we are free to use it as we see fit.

It is not.

 

[thinkandmull]

Just to add something…the “eternal now” argument does not release a creator of responsibility. In that instant of creation that creator still knew everything that would result…everything.

John

No that’s not true. Time is created IN eternity. First there is the will the create, than the sin, than the foreknowledge, ontologically, as then the acts play out in the time we experience

 

[thinkandmull]

Why would God allowing us to make our own decision make -Him- evil?

He creates us for Good, and allows us to accept or reject that purpose. Our decision determines where we meet our final end. Why should He be held responsible for the decisions of His creation?

Because it is evil for someone to sin and punishment does not take away the evil of the loss of the great good of loving God in Heaven. God can’t create evil things in that way

 

[thinkandmull]

Yes, there are specific things which were foreordained. That doesn’t mean everything was. The things that are pre-ordained are pretty well laid out in the Bible. A good example is Mary becoming the Mother of Christ. Even in that instance, arguable the most explicitly stated instance of preordination in the whole Bible, God still sought out Mary’s “Yes” before actually enacting His Will. He still allowed her to make the choice, preserving her free will.

If Mary’s yes was infallibly assured to be given, why is not the salvation of everyone the same way?

 

[thinkandmull]

For your consideration:

Quote:

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

“We may now briefly summarize the whole Catholic doctrine, which is in harmony with our reason as well as our moral sentiments. According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events”

Preordain would mean “confirm” by us who reject Thomistic predestination. God can’t prevent things from happening after He used his will from eternity to create. Again there is an ontological order

 

[Gorgias]

It is not.

Which ‘it’? The programming language, or free will?

Perhaps you can give us a logical claim to evaluate, and not just a raw assertion.

How is it that a programming language does not give those who write code using it the ability to do whatever they wish (within the bounds of syntax and semantics) with the language?

 

[oldcelt]

Did you even bother reading that page, or just looks for the first snippet that supported your view?

Put shortly, as I have been stating… over and over again… God’s knowing is not equivalent to God’s desiring something. Try reading the whole article, you might enjoy it.

I read every bit of it and more…all confirmed the Christian God’s infallible foreknowledge and immutable pre-ordination of all events from all eternity and even admit the conflict with free will.
Again, predestination (preordained events) logically cannot co-exist with free will. I stopped where I did because the only explanations that are offered involve mystery belief. I do not hold to any belief, be it religious or scientific, that claims mystery as an answer.

 

[oldcelt]

That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt — being a corollary from the eternal actuality of Divine knowledge. So to speak, God has not to wait on the contingent and temporal event of the man’s free choice to know what the latter’s action will be; He knows it from eternity. But the difficulty is: how, from our finite point of view, to interpret and explain the mysterious manner of God’s knowledge of such events without at the same time sacrificing the free will of the creature.

newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#ID

 

[Bahman]

Which ‘it’? The programming language, or free will?

Perhaps you can give us a logical claim to evaluate, and not just a raw assertion.

How is it that a programming language does not give those who write code using it the ability to do whatever they wish (within the bounds of syntax and semantics) with the language?

Program language is not comparable to free will. Free will is ability to choose when a program cannot, when the options are liked equally. Free will is very deep and it is related to consciousness, essence of any being with the ability to experience and create. Program language is a method of talking with a hardware.

 

[oldcelt]

But one must be careful to avoid implying that God’s knowledge is in any way dependent on creatures, as if He had, so to speak, to await the actual event in time before knowing infallibly what a free creature may choose to do. From eternity He knows, but does not predetermine the creature’s choice. And if it be asked how we can conceive this knowledge to exist antecedently to and independently of some act of the Divine will, on which all things contingent depend, we can only say that the objective truth expressed by the hypothetical facts in question is somehow reflected in the Divine Essence, which is the mirror of all truth, and that in knowing Himself God knows these things also. Whichever way we turn we are bound ultimately to encounter a mystery, and, when there is a question of choosing between a theory which refers the **mystery **to God Himself and one which only saves the truth of human freedom by making free-will itself a mystery, most theologians naturally prefer the former alternative.

Mystery is no answer at all. It is a device to avoid that which would point to answers outside a particular faith. It is used to complicate the simple answer.

 

[Gorgias]

Program language is not comparable to free will.

No, but that’s not what the analogy was attempting to describe. It’s not that the program has free will, but rather that the use of a programming language is comparable to the use of free will, which is what I believe the analogy was.

Given a programming language, humans can design whatever program they wish; given free will, humans can make any choice that they wish.

The analogy is pretty apt.