Free Will

[tonyrey]

Your problem disappears in the context of "In

It makes no sense in the domain of **physical **causation.

I won’t settle for glossing over a logical contradiction with a ‘mystery’ until I can understand the logic of it. To me, the Trinity makes logical sense. The Eucharist makes logical sense.

Is love logical?

Saying that NOTHING about God changes, not even his state of action, makes no sense.

You are forgetting that God is not just another creature but the Ultimate Reality, the Source and Foundation of everything that exists. Or are you a disciple of Heraclitus?

“There is nothing permanent except change” ?

 

[tonyrey]

So to sum up my questions thus far:
Why is it necessary that God cannot have a changing** perspective **or state of action?
Why is it necessary that eternity be one unchanging **instant **without succession?

You are thinking of God in terms of an individual and eternity in terms of time!

 

[FurtherSuntime]

God is indeed no everyday object, but logic still applies – he cannot simultaneously possess the contradictory perspectives of “Derek is in heaven with me” and “Derek is not in heaven with me.” Where I am in relation to God changes, and even though God’s position does not change, God’s perspective of his position relative to mine does change. That perspective is one bit of information that comprises ‘everything’, in terms of ‘God knowing everything.’

Just because some parts of ‘everything’ may change does not necessitate that God would, at any given time, cease to know any one thing, rendering his nature of ‘knowing everything’ changed.

So to sum up my questions thus far:
Why is it necessary that God cannot have a changing perspective or state of action?
Why is it necessary that eternity be one unchanging instant without succession?

Very interesting. Good to see someone is wondering about the same things I am. Looking forward to the explanation as well any expectations in faith… along with supporting reasons
which demonstrate a well thought out approach.

We are asked to disregard time relative to Gods Nature
Seems to make sense . Problem is, almost every explanation requires a God considering time…Compliments, should be interesting

 

[shaky]

Did Jesus not have a perspective of the past and the future?

I’m not saying God’s mind is illogical. In fact, I have been trying to say how God’s mind MUST be perfect and logical – and since perspective is active in the mind, God’s perspective could not be self-contradicting: it cannot be “I am turning Lot’s wife into salt” and “I am not turning Lot’s wife into salt” simultaneously. That would be entirely illogical.

Unless… it is not “I am turning” or “I am not turning” which indicates a present tense surrounded by a past and future tense, but rather “I turn” which is an absolute devoid of all tense…

Or as I now understand it… God creates, and God sustains.

But there are a few things left to reconcile… such as Christ experiencing the perspective of past/present/future, and in heaven will we still have that perspective? The martyrs asked “How much longer until?”

How Can christ function with a free-will if he has perspective of all future. Jesus did indicate that he did not know when he will finally return. Only the father knows when he will return.

Who was it that visited Abraham and Moses. The Father or the Son.?

Whoever did visit Abraham did not know the future!!

When you look at Genesis> 22:12< why would God ask Abraham to sacrafice his Son if God knows what Abraham would do anyway??
On reading this passage it is obvious that God did NOT know what Abraham would do untill Abraham was about to carry out what God told him to do.
Because he Said> ‘‘NOW i KNOW’’ you fear God. ‘‘SEEING’’ that you have not withheld your Only Son from me.

Here is Just a few more examples> Jeremiah 32:35+19:5, Gen 18:21 to Prove God did not know what was happening.
Also when God took the children of Israel out of bondage of Egypt into the desert. He Told Moses that he would lead him to the Promised land. But later God was not happy about things and told Moses that he would NOT lead him to the Promised Land.
If God KNEW the whole future anyway why did he blatantly lie to Moses in the First Place by telling Moses i will lead you to the Promised land??

 

[ivebeenshown]

It makes no sense in the domain of **physical **causation.

Is love logical?

Depends. ‘Love’ as in ‘like/enjoy’ or ‘love’ as in ‘love not in word but in deed’?

You are forgetting that God is not just another creature but the Ultimate Reality, the Source and Foundation of everything that exists. Or are you a disciple of Heraclitus?

“There is nothing permanent except change” ?

No, I have not forgotten that, and no, I don’t believe ‘nothing is permanent except change’, because I have affirmed and reaffirmed that God’s nature does not change. That he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent is an absolute and everlasting truth.

 

[Shike]

This might look complicated, but it’s what I learned in my philosophy of religion class:

1. necessarily God knows that p (where p is some proposition like the cat will be on the mat or something)
2. If God knows that p then p will come true.
3. Necessarily p will come true.

The conclusion, number 3, doesn’t logically follow. Basically, premise one cannot instantiate the antecedent of premise two because they are not the same.

Doh! I was thinking about what I said and I realize I left out a crucial part about premise two and that I represented it wrong. As the argument stands now, it is logically valid.

Here is the proper argument:

1. nec( God knows that p )
2. nec (If God knows that p, then p will come true)
3. nec (p will come true)

Now I can say that the conclusion 3 doesn’t follow from 1 & 2. The nec in premise 2 would have to distribute to both the antecedent and the consequent of the conditional instead of just the entire conditional. But as it stands there is no reason for making that jump.

Sorry about that mistake. It should be good now.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Thinking on this this morning, The Church does show a clear acceptance in some of whats being discussed in its regard for the events at Fatima. Mary tells the children that If Russia does not consecrate and so on, specific happenings will be in event.

Therefore , in answer to why is it necessary that God cannot have a changing perspective or state of action , it would appear that it is not necessary, otherwise the church would have rejected the story.

If God has no changing perspective or state of action within his being, all thats left is 100%
mystery, because you’ve just described nothingness. Empty & without.

Its interesting how when idea’s or questions present themselves…the forum members are quick to suggest reading Aquinas, Augustine and so forth as though they know the answer
is to be had. Problem is, no one can ever explain after having studied these things. Its forever evasive and always comes to the hopeless suggestion…go read this or that.

Its obvious that reading the intricate teachings, that idea’s cannot be grasped , otherwise we would have ready explanations . Therefore, teachings in these matters as far as I can see are either poorly constructed, or poorly thought out without concrete merit.

Jov Witness are always saying the same…read, read and you will get it.

Everyone seems to know and comprehend the “teachings” but no one knows what they are , save the contradictory proclamations.

Idea’s surface which represent clear thinking and we have 3 possibilities…

1. Go read this or that, I can not explain it
2. You are straying from the teachings and are out of order.
3. The thread fizzles out.or the topic is smoke screened

 

[Shike]

Is there any valid reason that God must be entirely immutable even in regards to his state of action?

Yes, as I already mentioned. It would seem to be an inevitable conclusion from God’s essence being the same as His existence. As you said yourself, His knowledge would change from one moment to another moment. That means His nature would change.

Also, is there any infallible or dogmatic statement from the Church which specifies that God is atemporal or unchanging as it specifically regards his state of action?

I don’t know. I remember reading a list of condemned natural philosophy propositions somewhere, but as of right now I cannot find it. There’s got to be a lot out there about the unchanging nature of God… encyclicals, councils, ect.

But I really recommend reading the Summa Theologica by Aquinas, at least the first 100 pages or so to get a good familiarity. Each point Aquinas proves builds upon the previous in a necessary fashion. There seems to be a vast amount of crucial information that you are not taking into account when you engage in these problems.

I’m not saying you can’t engage in them, I’m only saying that you’d be at a very severe disadvantage without a good familiarity of the first bit of Aquinas’ Summa.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Yes, as I already mentioned. It would seem to be an inevitable conclusion from God’s essence being the same as His existence. As you said yourself, His knowledge would change from one moment to another moment. That means His nature would change.

I don’t know. I remember reading a list of condemned natural philosophy propositions somewhere, but as of right now I cannot find it. There’s got to be a lot out there about the unchanging nature of God… encyclicals, councils, ect.

But I really recommend reading the Summa Theologica by Aquinas, at least the first 100 pages or so to get a good familiarity. Each point Aquinas proves builds upon the previous in a necessary fashion. There seems to be a vast amount of crucial information that you are not taking into account when you engage in these problems.

I’m not saying you can’t engage in them, I’m only saying that you’d be at a very severe disadvantage without a good familiarity of the first bit of Aquinas’ Summa.

Ciao,
Michael

Do you understand the implications within the active medium of brainwashing and exactly why it
works?

 

[Shike]

God is indeed no everyday object, but logic still applies – he cannot simultaneously possess the contradictory perspectives of “Derek is in heaven with me” and “Derek is not in heaven with me.” Where I am in relation to God changes, and even though God’s position does not change, God’s perspective of his position relative to mine does change. That perspective is one bit of information that comprises ‘everything’, in terms of ‘God knowing everything.’

One solution to your problem may be this: instead of saying “Derek is in heaven with me” and “Derek is not in heaven with me” why not say “At this point in Derek’s life he is in heaven with me” and “At this point in Derek’s life he is not in heaven with me”… and then say God knows those truths from eternity.

Just because some parts of ‘everything’ may change does not necessitate that God would, at any given time, cease to know any one thing, rendering his nature of ‘knowing everything’ changed.

The change from knowing “Derek is not in heaven with me” to “Derek is in heaven with me” breaks God’s knowledge up into a temporal series of events. Such a temporal change of knowledge (regardless if the previous truth was not lost) would necessitate that God’s essence isn’t His existence. A philosophical no-no.

So to sum up my questions thus far:
Why is it necessary that God cannot have a changing perspective or state of action?
Why is it necessary that eternity be one unchanging instant without succession?

1. Changing perspective or state of action require a change in God’s knowledge, which would mean a change in God’s essence.
2. You’re looking at it backwards. We find that God, necessarily doesn’t experience time in a changing series with succession.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Shike]

Thinking on this this morning, The Church does show a clear acceptance in some of whats being discussed in its regard for the events at Fatima. Mary tells the children that If Russia does not consecrate and so on, specific happenings will be in event.

Therefore , in answer to why is it necessary that God cannot have a changing perspective or state of action , it would appear that it is not necessary, otherwise the church would have rejected the story.

You need to spell out your argument. So far as it goes now, it doesn’t follow:

1. Mary tells children of possible future events
2. God’s perspective changes or His state of action

Its interesting how when idea’s or questions present themselves…the forum members are quick to suggest reading Aquinas, Augustine and so forth as though they know the answer
is to be had. Problem is, no one can ever explain after having studied these things. Its forever evasive and always comes to the hopeless suggestion…go read this or that.

To be fair I have been giving answers that have more content than just go read the Summa. It is important to realize that, when dealing with the work of Aquinas, you have a long series of necessary conclusions that build off each other… a seamless garment if you will. Who wants to explain hundreds of pages of arguments every time someone has a question? Nor is it very plausible to do so.

Its obvious that reading the intricate teachings, that idea’s cannot be grasped , otherwise we would have ready explanations . Therefore, teachings in these matters as far as I can see are either poorly constructed, or poorly thought out without concrete merit.

Who’s “we”? A lot of what Aquinas says makes perfect sense and is in line with Catholic teaching. Be careful not to pigeon-hole yourself outside the possibility of learning a truth just because you think it will be easy to grasp.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Shike]

Do you understand the implications within the active medium of brainwashing and exactly why it
works?

Are you implying that I am brainwashed or that I am attempting to brainwash someone?
It’s a book. They have the freedom to read it or not. It’s philosophy. They have the duty to see if the arguments logically follow.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Is love logical?

That would take a whole nother thread of discussion.

You are forgetting that God is not just another creature but the Ultimate Reality, the Source and Foundation of everything that exists. Or are you a disciple of Heraclitus?

“There is nothing permanent except change” ?

No, I am not forgetting that God is the uncreated Creator. And it makes no sense to compare me to Heraclitus when I have acknowledged numerous times that God’s divine nature is immutable, constant, eternally unchanging – omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent.

 

[ivebeenshown]

One solution to your problem may be this: instead of saying “Derek is in heaven with me” and “Derek is not in heaven with me” why not say “At this point in Derek’s life he is in heaven with me” and “At this point in Derek’s life he is not in heaven with me”… and then say God knows those truths from eternity.

The problem still remains, because when we speak of relativity, the inverse applies as well. So “At this point in Derek’s life he is not in heaven with me” is inversely “At this point in Derek’s life (a point in time) I am in heaven without Derek” and “At this point in Derek’s life he is in heaven with me” is inversely “At this point in Derek’s life (a point in time) I am in heaven with Derek.” God’s position has not changed, but his perspective of my relation to him would necessarily change.

The change from knowing “Derek is not in heaven with me” to “Derek is in heaven with me” breaks God’s knowledge up into a temporal series of events. Such a temporal change of knowledge (regardless if the previous truth was not lost) would necessitate that God’s essence isn’t His existence. A philosophical no-no.

So you’re saying that if something about God’s knowledge changed, even if through and surrounding each change he still knew everything (effectively keeping the property of ‘omniscience’ constantly) it would necessitate that "God’s essence isn’t His existence?"

First of all, what does that even mean? Is “God’s essence is his existence” formally defined as dogmatic, and what would the implications be?

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The best way to try and comprehend is with sight. We look and see our focus. A focus representing time. All about the focus are other credible focus’s.

Substitute man and focus, for God and time:thumbsuproblem solved, if one is to believe the idea of a God who is without the constrictions of time(or nature of process). Not my inclination however.

 

[Shike]

The problem still remains, because when we speak of relativity, the inverse applies as well. So “At this point in Derek’s life he is not in heaven with me” is inversely “At this point in Derek’s life (a point in time) I am in heaven without Derek” and “At this point in Derek’s life he is in heaven with me” is inversely “At this point in Derek’s life (a point in time) I am in heaven with Derek.” God’s position has not changed, but his perspective of my relation to him would necessarily change.

And what does “perspective” here mean other than knowledge?

If you say that God has both perspectives from eternity it is not a contradiction… it only is for those beings who are temporal. Your concept of perspective applied to God is still too anthropomorphic. It is true that we only have one perspective that changes… is it the same with God?

So you’re saying that if something about God’s knowledge changed, even if through and surrounding each change he still knew everything (effectively keeping the property of ‘omniscience’ constantly) it would necessitate that "God’s essence isn’t His existence?"

Sort of. Realize that if something about God’s knowledge changed it does in fact mean that his omniscience changes, however slightly. And yes, if God’s knowledge changes then it would seem to follow that God’s essence isn’t His existence.

First of all, what does that even mean? Is “God’s essence is his existence” formally defined as dogmatic, and what would the implications be?

That is a very good and lengthy questions. Aquinas spends a huge portion of the Summa deriving the implications of that conclusion (to list a few: wholly simple, one, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, omn-ibenevolent, atemporal, immaterial, ect.)

As for the dogma question, I do not know enough to answer. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if some councils have answered that question in the early days of the Church.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[FurtherSuntime]

You need to spell out your argument. So far as it goes now, it doesn’t follow:

1. Mary tells children of possible future events
2. God’s perspective changes or His state of action

To be fair I have been giving answers that have more content than just go read the Summa. It is important to realize that, when dealing with the work of Aquinas, you have a long series of necessary conclusions that build off each other… a seamless garment if you will. Who wants to explain hundreds of pages of arguments every time someone has a question? Nor is it very plausible to do so.

Who’s “we”? A lot of what Aquinas says makes perfect sense and is in line with Catholic teaching. Be careful not to pigeon-hole yourself outside the possibility of learning a truth just because you think it will be easy to grasp.

Ciao,
Michael

Thankyou for the comprehensible entry replying to my quote. In this reply will be the explanation which unfolds the answer to your second entry with respects to brainwashing.

With regards to an argument re Fatima Story, I felt given the acute attention to the matter at hand, any argument would fall upon rebut if not self explanatory. Therefore in view of time well spent… I chose not to expand on the thinking.

With respects to teachings which engage a massive series of conclusions which build off each other…In reality, this is not hard core science which follows a factually reliable process . Many conclusions regarding the nature of God are not only built on some abstract thought, but entirely non-concrete items.

Many short thoughts orchestrated by St Thomas offered I find highly questionable. For example Aquinas remarked that God is the cause of the hardness of the heart. St. Augustine says that God does not cause the human being to become worse.

In true honesty, I fear spending the time on such a massive series of semi-abstract conclusions built by someone who constructed the above statement.

Adding to my reluctance is why, such a massive undertaking is necessary in mans attempt to place God in a container of thought. Many realities in science are such that attempts to contain are met with failure. Forcing knowledge and understanding has its limits.

By virtue of the time spent studying an idea which is subject to above , one none the less
has ego to deal with. In other words, we are compelled to “consider” that with which we found worthy of such an undertaking. In simple terms, a suggestion to self, in the credibility of the idea.(Aquinas) Self brainwashing is a reality.

To be clear , I am not anti St Thomas Aquinas, simply don’t like getting into something which we “know” will always be referred by myself to others in the same manner…well you’ll have to read the idea. I believe , it is well known that idea’s built on assumptions and non-concrete idea’s loose integrity through the quantity, of tools used

Edit…Goofed on #34 The best way to try and comprehend is with sight. We look and see our focus. A focus representing an obstacle. All about the focus are other credible focus’s.(Obstacles)…
God…Time
( no biggy)

 

[ivebeenshown]

And what does “perspective” here mean other than knowledge?

If you say that God has both perspectives from eternity it is not a contradiction… it only is for those beings who are temporal. Your concept of perspective applied to God is still too anthropomorphic. It is true that we only have one perspective that changes… is it the same with God?

…well, it actually would still be a contradiction. If eternity is one unchanging moment, it would be contradictory to say “I am in heaven with Derek and simultaneously I am in heaven without Derek.” It is logically impossible to be both of those things simultaneously within one moment.

Nothing could be “A” and “not A” simultaneously without being logically invalid.

Sort of. Realize that if something about God’s knowledge changed it does in fact mean that his omniscience changes, however slightly. And yes, if God’s knowledge changes then it would seem to follow that God’s essence isn’t His existence.

Omniscience, or ‘knowing all things’, may be described as “the nature of God as it regards God’s knowledge.”

If God’s perspective (knowledge concerning his position in relation to other beings or his place in time, etc.) changed, it would not necessitate that the nature of God as it regards God’s knowledge had ever changed – the only possible way that the nature of God’s knowledge could change (hypothetically of course, since it cannot actually change) is if it changed from ‘knowing all things’ to ‘not knowing all things.’ As long as God knows all things, His nature as it regards His knowledge has not changed.

That is a very good and lengthy questions. Aquinas spends a huge portion of the Summa deriving the implications of that conclusion (to list a few: wholly simple, one, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, omn-ibenevolent, atemporal, immaterial, ect.)

As for the dogma question, I do not know enough to answer. Though I wouldn’t be surprised if some councils have answered that question in the early days of the Church.

Ciao,
Michael

I actually stumbled upon Summa Theologica and my brain is getting exercised now. Thank you very much sir!

 

[Shike]

With respects to teachings which engage a massive series of conclusions which build off each other…In reality, this is not hard core science which follows a factually reliable process . Many conclusions regarding the nature of God are not only built on some abstract thought, but entirely non-concrete items.

You are right that this is not science, it is natural theology (philosophy). But there are standards for evidence.

Many short thoughts orchestrated by St Thomas offered I find highly questionable. For example Aquinas remarked that God is the cause of the hardness of the heart. St. Augustine says that God does not cause the human being to become worse.

In true honesty, I fear spending the time on such a massive series of semi-abstract conclusions built by someone who constructed the above statement.

Have you ever considered that they both might be right?
askacatholic.com/_WebPostings/Answers/2011_04APR/2011AprWill_GodHardenSomeonesHeart.cfm

Adding to my reluctance is why, such a massive undertaking is necessary in mans attempt to place God in a container of thought. Many realities in science are such that attempts to contain are met with failure. Forcing knowledge and understanding has its limits.

It would be wrong to place God is some circumscribable container of thought. And you are right that there are limits to our knowledge. The point in discovering the limits of our knowledge, however, by using natural theology is to help people not go off the deep end and say something ridiculous or untrue about God (and therefore stray off the path and believe in a fairy tale). In a related point, the God of the Bible isn’t just a mess of undifferentiated goo that one can attribute whatever one wishes to Him. We can use natural reason to discover and prove the existence of God… read the Catechism if you are searching for the authority behind that statement.

To be clear , I am not anti St Thomas Aquinas, simply don’t like getting into something which we “know” will always be referred by myself to others in the same manner…well you’ll have to read the idea. I believe , it is well known that idea’s built on assumptions and non-concrete idea’s loose integrity through the quantity, of tools used

That is not the nature of natural theology (philosophy). If you have a problem with an argument, you need to back it up by pointing to the fallacy or faulty natural principle.

I do appreciate your concern, however, for a high standard of evidence. I would hope for nothing less.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[ddarko]

Thankyou for the comprehensible entry replying to my quote. In this reply will be the explanation which unfolds the answer to your second entry with respects to brainwashing.

With regards to an argument re Fatima Story, I felt given the acute attention to the matter at hand, any argument would fall upon rebut if not self explanatory. Therefore in view of time well spent… I chose not to expand on the thinking.

With respects to teachings which engage a massive series of conclusions which build off each other…In reality, this is not hard core science which follows a factually reliable process . Many conclusions regarding the nature of God are not only built on some abstract thought, but entirely non-concrete items.

Many short thoughts orchestrated by St Thomas offered I find highly questionable. For example Aquinas remarked that God is the cause of the hardness of the heart. St. Augustine says that God does not cause the human being to become worse.

In true honesty, I fear spending the time on such a massive series of semi-abstract conclusions built by someone who constructed the above statement.

Adding to my reluctance is why, such a massive undertaking is necessary in mans attempt to place God in a container of thought. Many realities in science are such that attempts to contain are met with failure. Forcing knowledge and understanding has its limits.

By virtue of the time spent studying an idea which is subject to above , one none the less
has ego to deal with. In other words, we are compelled to “consider” that with which we found worthy of such an undertaking. In simple terms, a suggestion to self, in the credibility of the idea.(Aquinas) Self brainwashing is a reality.

To be clear , I am not anti St Thomas Aquinas, simply don’t like getting into something which we “know” will always be referred by myself to others in the same manner…well you’ll have to read the idea. I believe , it is well known that idea’s built on assumptions and non-concrete idea’s loose integrity through the quantity, of tools used

Edit…Goofed on #34 The best way to try and comprehend is with sight. We look and see our focus. A focus representing an obstacle. All about the focus are other credible focus’s.(Obstacles)…
God…Time
( no biggy)

Before you argue differences between Augustine and Aquinas, you need to first understand what they are saying. Your claim of “contradiction” between Aquinas and Augustine does not make much sense.

Please read the following and say what part of St. Thomas’s address of the objection you do not understand or think is in error.

newadvent.org/summa/2079.htm

Also keep in mind that this is NOT about trying to put thoughts about God in a container.

By revelation there are things you HAVE TO BELIEVE.

1. Divine Providence (All acts take place according to God’s plan)
2. Divine Foreknowledge (God knows everything that will take place)
3. Free will (In the libertarian sense)

For you to argue them is equivalent to arguing a mathematical axiom using mathematics. Pointless!!!

What St. Thomas, St. Augustine and others (Molina, William Most) have done is try to reconcile the above ideas in different ways. You can disagree with all of them but you may not deny any of the revealed points themselves.

God Bless