GOD does not have moral free will like human beings

[blase6]

It contains all it should that I can think of. What does it lack specifically? Can you give an example?

Pax Christi

Linus2nd

Umm, a definition of freedom. I don’t think it was meant to be a philosophically-focused text, but it does not have sufficient arguments to prove that we can know God certainly.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This isn’t a story. This is real life. God does not have to allow any evil to exist. And it is said that he does not want it to exist. But he lets it exist among the angels and in the physical world. And then he allows it to exist forever in hell. Even if God doesn’t want evil to exist, he isn’t stopping it from happening.

The story is an analogy.

If you don’t like the story analogy, use a roast in the oven. The roast is not ready till it’s ready.

We are in time currently moving from potential to fulfillment. The eternal is not “forever,” it is the fullness of time.

As to ‘allowing it to exist forever’ – that isn’t the case.

Creation is not done. God will stop evil when he is ready to. I doubt it will be the kind of “stopping” you suppose.

You are trying to impose limited understanding on God as if he is necessarily bound to the way you see it.

I suspect you will be greatly astonished.

At least be open to THAT possibility.

 

[blase6]

The story is an analogy.

If you don’t like the story analogy, use a roast in the oven. The roast is not ready till it’s ready.

We are in time currently moving from potential to fulfillment. The eternal is not “forever,” it is the fullness of time.

As to ‘allowing it to exist forever’ – that isn’t the case.

Creation is not done. God will stop evil when he is ready to. I doubt it will be the kind of “stopping” you suppose.

You are trying to impose limited understanding on God as if he is necessarily bound to the way you see it.

I suspect you will be greatly astonished.

At least be open to THAT possibility.

Why do you think that change implies imperfection? It is the nature of physical creatures to change. Without change we would all be stuck in place without movement or life. I disagree with the idea that heavenly life is “outside of time”. While it may be that way if we are separated from our body, we are physical creatures that move ourselves, move other objects, change position and shape and chemical composition, etc. It is strange that you would expect to be deprived of that at “the end of time”.

I don’t hope to leave a temporal existence. I hope to someday experience God fully within everlasting time.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Umm, a definition of freedom. I don’t think it was meant to be a philosophically-focused text, but it does not have sufficient arguments to prove that we can know God certainly.

You are addressing two topics in one sentence. I think it tells us all we need to know about human freedom and God’s own freedom. As to whether it " proves " the existence of God that is a philosophical question and the Catechism leaves that to philosophers and each individual person. All it says is that we can know the existence of a personal God with certainty from the things he has made. That is the fact we have to hold onto. However it does teach that some cannot, for various reasons, follow the arguments available. Therefore the Church teaches Dogmatically that God exists and goes on to list a dozen or so of God’s attributes we can also know with certainty, on the basis of faith in Divine Revelation.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

You are addressing two topics in one sentence. I think it tells us all we need to know about human freedom and God’s own freedom. As to whether it " proves " the existence of God that is a philosophical question and the Catechism leaves that to philosophers and each individual person. All it says is that we can know the existence of a personal God with certainty from the things he has made. That is the fact we have to hold onto. However it does teach that some cannot, for various reasons, follow the arguments available. Therefore the Church teaches Dogmatically that God exists and goes on to list a dozen or so of God’s attributes we can also know with certainty, on the basis of faith in Divine Revelation.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd

Well, I think the catechism’s idea of “certainty” is different from mine. Therefore, according to my conception of “certainty”, the catechism is wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, I think the catechism’s idea of “certainty” is different from mine. Therefore, according to my conception of “certainty”, the catechism is wrong.

So, the Catechism is wrong and you are right?

And we would know that how, exactly?

No disrespect intended, but it should give you pause, at least, to wonder if you have a better grasp of Church teaching than 2000 years of Tradition and millions of Catholics who have preceded you.

Perhaps you are missing something in the rendering?

 

[Bahman]

Why do you think that change implies imperfection? It is the nature of physical creatures to change. Without change we would all be stuck in place without movement or life. I disagree with the idea that heavenly life is “outside of time”. While it may be that way if we are separated from our body, we are physical creatures that move ourselves, move other objects, change position and shape and chemical composition, etc. It is strange that you would expect to be deprived of that at “the end of time”.

I don’t hope to leave a temporal existence. I hope to someday experience God fully within everlasting time.

 

[blase6]

So, the Catechism is wrong and you are right?

And we would know that how, exactly?

No disrespect intended, but it should give you pause, at least, to wonder if you have a better grasp of Church teaching than 2000 years of Tradition and millions of Catholics who have preceded you.

Perhaps you are missing something in the rendering?

Specifically, I have a problem with the statement of the catechism that man can know God “certainly”.

I have already proved that knowledge pertaining to the external world cannot be certain, since perception of an external world is an internal process, and that it reveals truth about an external world is an assumption that cannot be proved.

So, if God exists apart from me, and I cannot know certain truth apart from me, then I cannot know God exists certainly. I can know that existence is real certainly, because that is the basis of any experience, and I can conclude that if the essence of God is existence, then I can know God certainly in that regard. But any other attributes of God I cannot know certainly. I can hold faith in what a religion teaches about the nature of God, but that will not change my uncertainty.

The catechism is not a strict and analytically philosophical text.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Specifically, I have a problem with the statement of the catechism that man can know God “certainly”.

I have already proved that knowledge pertaining to the external world cannot be certain, since perception of an external world is an internal process, and that it reveals truth about an external world is an assumption that cannot be proved.

So, if God exists apart from me, and I cannot know certain truth apart from me, then I cannot know God exists certainly. I can know that existence is real certainly, because that is the basis of any experience, and I can conclude that if the essence of God is existence, then I can know God certainly in that regard. But any other attributes of God I cannot know certainly. I can hold faith in what a religion teaches about the nature of God, but that will not change my uncertainty.

The catechism is not a strict and analytically philosophical text.

You may not have the capacity to know God, but certainly God has the capacity to make himself known to you beyond all possible uncertainty.

You forget that revelation plays a very important role in Catholicism. It isn’t all based upon philosophy. We can use philosophy to deduce particular conclusions from what is revealed.
We can also use philosophy to explicate what contradicts what is known to be revealed.

It is the consistency and certainty of 3500 years of revealed and unpacked theology that your “uncertainty” is up against.

 

[blase6]

You may not have the capacity to know God, but certainly God has the capacity to make himself known to you beyond all possible uncertainty.

You forget that revelation plays a very important role in Catholicism. It isn’t all based upon philosophy. We can use philosophy to deduce particular conclusions from what is revealed.
We can also use philosophy to explicate what contradicts what is known to be revealed.

It is the consistency and certainty of 3500 years of revealed and unpacked theology that your “uncertainty” is up against.

The “certainty” that God provides through external revelation and human reasoning, and pure epistemological certainty are incommensurate.