God forknowledge, fate and divine justice

[Zabdi_Premjit]

That I know but if creation has a beginning then content of it, God’s foreknowledge is fixed at the moment of creation. This means that each individual has a specific fate which this as it is illustrated contradict with divine justice.

Again, we perceive a beginning because we are bound by time. God is not bound by time; He exists in the “eternal moment.” Creation, when experienced from within its own boundaries, is experienced is a temporal manner, in accordance to the rules of time. When experienced from outside itself, however, creation is experienced in a non-temporal way, since time does not exist outside of creation. Therefore, all our actions are viewed in a single “eternal moment.” Likewise, God’s knowledge of our actions occurs in that same “eternal moment.” There is no fate. God has not made an decree on what we will do; there is no such decree to which we are subject.

I understand why you are confused and think there is a fate. In your mind, God knows our actions ***before ***we act, and since God cannot be wrong, we could not therefore have really ***chosen ***to act differently, as that would violate the infallible knowledge of God. This reasoning makes sense if God’s knowledge preceded our actions. However, as I have already said, God’s knowledge does not precede our actions. God is not bound by time, so He cannot, eternally-speaking, do/know/experience anything before something else happens, because to do something “before” requires one to exist within a framework of sequential moments that occur in continuity (i.e. time).

In short, God’s justice is not violated. It just seems violated to you because you keep applying time to God, whether you realise it or not. In essence, you are treating God like a creature, and are therefore approaching this issue from a viewpoint that is fundamentally at odds with the mind of the Church.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Foreknowledge means that God knows our actions in his eternal now.

God knows our actions in His eternal now. One must remember too though, that this knowledge is in accord with our actions, which also occur in that same eternal now. In a certain sense, I have already committed all my actions, because in the eternal scope of things, I am currently being born, typing, dying, being resurrected, etc. Since I am already doing these thing, God has knowledge of them, because He sees all things.

 

[davidv]

Foreknowledge means that God knows our actions in his eternal now.

How does this interfere with free will?

 

[Bahman]

Again, we perceive a beginning because we are bound by time. God is not bound by time; He exists in the “eternal moment.” Creation, when experienced from within its own boundaries, is experienced is a temporal manner, in accordance to the rules of time. When experienced from outside itself, however, creation is experienced in a non-temporal way, since time does not exist outside of creation. Therefore, all our actions are viewed in a single “eternal moment.” Likewise, God’s knowledge of our actions occurs in that same “eternal moment.” There is no fate. God has not made an decree on what we will do; there is no such decree to which we are subject.

Again, this I know. I have two questions from you to make my position clear: 1) Does creation has a content at the moment of creation? By content I mean all things which happens in the universe. 2) Could God create another universe with another content?

I understand why you are confused and think there is a fate. In your mind, God knows our actions ***before ***we act, and since God cannot be wrong, we could not therefore have really ***chosen ***to act differently, as that would violate the infallible knowledge of God. This reasoning makes sense if God’s knowledge preceded our actions. However, as I have already said, God’s knowledge does not precede our actions. God is not bound by time, so He cannot, eternally-speaking, do/know/experience anything before something else happens, because to do something “before” requires one to exist within a framework of sequential moments that occur in continuity (i.e. time).

I am aware of this but that is not my problem. Just please answer the questions.

In short, God’s justice is not violated. It just seems violated to you because you keep applying time to God, whether you realise it or not. In essence, you are treating God like a creature, and are therefore approaching this issue from a viewpoint that is fundamentally at odds with the mind of the Church.

I am aware of this so please just answer the questions.

 

[Bahman]

God knows our actions in His eternal now. One must remember too though, that this knowledge is in accord with our actions, which also occur in that same eternal now. In a certain sense, I have already committed all my actions, because in the eternal scope of things, I am currently being born, typing, dying, being resurrected, etc. Since I am already doing these thing, God has knowledge of them, because He sees all things.

Please read post # 24.

 

[Bahman]

How does this interfere with free will?

It doesn’t have any interfere with free will. It has a interfere with divine justice since content of creation is fixed at the moment of creation which is God knowledge and different individuals with the same essence have different destinies.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, this I know. I have two questions from you to make my position clear: 1) Does creation has a content at the moment of creation? By content I mean all things which happens in the universe…

“moment” introduces the time factor yet again! As far as God is concerned, either the universe exists or it doesn’t!

 

[oldcelt]

“moment” introduces the time factor yet again! As far as God is concerned, either the universe exists or it doesn’t!

Can’t be Tony. The universe is observably changing constantly…is God doing that? If so, he is stepping into time in order to influence creation in a manner that humans can witness.

John

 

[tonyrey]

Can’t be Tony. The universe is observably changing constantly…is God doing that? If so, he is stepping into time in order to influence creation in a manner that humans can witness.

John

St Paul gave the answer, John:

“**In **Him we live, move and have our being.” - Acts 17:28

Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love transcend time and space.

 

[oldcelt]

St Paul gave the answer, John:

“**In **Him we live, move and have our being.” - Acts 17:28

Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love transcend time and space.

You do understand that that is not an answer, but a recitation of doctrine accepted by one faith. Paul is a Saint to all Christians…he is also the origin of sola fide and other notions that are heresy to Catholics. He even chastised the man who became the first Pope according to tradition.
There is no evidence that we need anything other than the basics to continue our existence until our body gives out…for whatever reason.

 

[tonyrey]

St Paul gave the answer, John:

I don’t recall reading that truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love transcend time and space. Please refer me to the Biblical text…

It is a philosophical explanation that corresponds to reality. Do you think the truth ever changes? Is justice ever out of date? Is beauty an illusion? Are freedom and love merely human conventions?

There is no evidence that we need anything other than the basics to continue our existence until our body gives out…for whatever reason.

“exist” perhaps. “Man does not live by bread alone”, as I’m sure you have discovered…

 

[tonyrey]

Can’t be Tony. The universe is observably changing constantly…is God doing that? If so, he is stepping into time in order to influence creation in a manner that humans can witness.

John

It would be helpful if you explain your concept of God. An impersonal, mindless force to which we are superior because it doesn’t know, plan or care what it’s doing?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Again, this I know. I have two questions from you to make my position clear: 1) Does creation has a content at the moment of creation? By content I mean all things which happens in the universe. 2) Could God create another universe with another content?

I am aware of this but that is not my problem. Just please answer the questions.

I am aware of this so please just answer the questions.

The questions are odd to me, but anyway…

1. Eternally-speaking, there is only one “eternal moment,” so yes, creation has “content” at “moment of creation.”
2. No, because God creates how He creates. He doesn’t deliberate between choices of which universe to create. There is no vacillation in God. There is, strictly speaking, only one way God would act.

 

[Bahman]

The questions are odd to me, but anyway…

They are not odd.

1. Eternally-speaking, there is only one “eternal moment,” so yes, creation has “content” at “moment of creation.”

Now you are trapped in a paradox: Consider two individuals. They have the same essence but different destinies, one goes to Hell and another goes to Heaven for example. This means that the destinies of these two individuals only depend on their experiences, life conditions, etc which they are not responsible for it. So how you can defend divine justice?

1. No, because God creates how He creates. He doesn’t deliberate between choices of which universe to create. There is no vacillation in God. There is, strictly speaking, only one way God would act.

I got what I want so please read previous comment.

 

[mamlukman]

The questions are odd to me, but anyway…

1. No, because God creates how He creates. He doesn’t deliberate between choices of which universe to create. There is no vacillation in God. There is, strictly speaking, only one way God would act.

I have to jump in here. I can’t think of any logical or religious reason why God couldn’t create 1, 2, or a billion different universes. Because God creates multiple things at once doesn’t necessarily mean He “vacillates” or “deliberates.” And it seems to me that–knowing virtually nothing about God–we are not able to say that there is “only one way God would act.” Judging by the names in this conversation, you both seem to be Indian (of course on the internet, who knows!). In my limited knowledge of Hinduism, it seems to me that one of the more admirable qualities of Hinduism is its acknowledgement that God is ultimately unknowable–we can merely approximate an idea of God. I agree.

On the other thread on this topic (search “molinism”) the debate turned to the question of the anthropic principle–the odds of earth being just right for the development of intelligent life are infinitesimally small, but obviously it happened. One group attributes this infinitesimally small chance becoming reality to a deliberate choice by God; another group (including me) think that the infinitesimally small chance is not necessarily small at all–if you assume the existence of enough universes. (If one person tosses a coin and gets heads 20 times in a row, that’s quite a coincidence; if you have 1,000,000 people tossing coins, getting heads 20 times in a row becomes much more likely.)

 

[mamlukman]

Now you are trapped in a paradox: Consider two individuals. They have the same essence but different destinies, one goes to Hell and another goes to Heaven for example. This means that the destinies of these two individuals only depend on their experiences, life conditions, etc which they are not responsible for it. So how you can defend divine justice?

Because you know something will happen in the future doesn’t mean you cause the future. Even if you’re God. As a Catholic, I believe in free will. God knew from the moment of creation what choices I would freely make–but they are still my choices. In Islam, al-'Ashari, the great Sunni theologian, said much the same thing–God knows the future, but you still have free will. You ‘acquire’ your future by making choices.

As for “their experiences, life conditions, etc.” I agree completely. As a Catholic, I believe that to sin–esp. seriously–you must give full free consent to the sin. But when you take genetic disposition, your environment, your habits, your life conditions…into account, how free is anyone, really? Some people are freer than others. Thus the parable of the servants who are each given different amounts of money by their master for safe-keeping. God expects more from those who are given more, less from those who get less. If you are less free, it’s harder for you to give free consent; if you are more free, it’s easier. If I have a genetic weakness for alcohol, I am less a sinner if I get drunk than someone who has no physical weakness for alcohol, but decides to get drunk from his free will alone.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

They are not odd.

Now you are trapped in a paradox: Consider two individuals. They have the same essence but different destinies, one goes to Hell and another goes to Heaven for example. This means that the destinies of these two individuals only depend on their experiences, life conditions, etc which they are not responsible for it. So how you can defend divine justice?

I got what I want so please read previous comment.

No, Their destinies depend on their actions/choices, given the limitations of their conditions. Obviously, we do not act in a vacuum. Our experience, life conditions,etc. are a part of the context in which we act. They can certainly restrict our ability to understand and follow our inherent need for communion with God. However, we are not deprived of choice. Though our conditions may cause us to only be able to imperfectly seek God, they do not generally deprive us completely of the ability to try to fulfil the innate human drive toward the Good, though we may have a very obscure understanding of this drive and of the Good. God takes that into consideration in His judgements. It may well be that He might deem my atheist cousin worthy of Heaven and me worthy of Hell. After all, maybe my cousin has not willfully rejected God with clear understanding; maybe some impediment exists that prevents him from understanding that God exists and is the Good which human nature yearns for. If such an impediment exists, God surely takes that into consideration and judges him based on whether he sought out the Good, to the extent he was able to grasp what the Good is.

God seems unjust to you because you are assuming He ignores our situations and passes blanket impersonal judgements. God is not some blind, impersonal legal force. Where did you get that idea? If even imperfect humans can figure out that situations matter and that general laws should be relaxed to justly address the particular situation of a person, based on any impediments that person faced, then why do you think God doesn’t know that? God is not an idiot.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I have to jump in here. I can’t think of any logical or religious reason why God couldn’t create 1, 2, or a billion different universes. Because God creates multiple things at once doesn’t necessarily mean He “vacillates” or “deliberates.” And it seems to me that–knowing virtually nothing about God–we are not able to say that there is “only one way God would act.” Judging by the names in this conversation, you both seem to be Indian (of course on the internet, who knows!). In my limited knowledge of Hinduism, it seems to me that one of the more admirable qualities of Hinduism is its acknowledgement that God is ultimately unknowable–we can merely approximate an idea of God. I agree.

On the other thread on this topic (search “molinism”) the debate turned to the question of the anthropic principle–the odds of earth being just right for the development of intelligent life are infinitesimally small, but obviously it happened. One group attributes this infinitesimally small chance becoming reality to a deliberate choice by God; another group (including me) think that the infinitesimally small chance is not necessarily small at all–if you assume the existence of enough universes. (If one person tosses a coin and gets heads 20 times in a row, that’s quite a coincidence; if you have 1,000,000 people tossing coins, getting heads 20 times in a row becomes much more likely.)

God always acts perfectly in accordance to His nature. Since He has perfect knowledge of His nature, it is always apparent to Him which action is in accordance to His nature. So, He has created this universe in a most perfect action. We humans are imperfect and often go against our natures, which opens up a wide variety of choices. However, if we were perfect, barring any interference, we would surely act in only one way. This is not because we lack the the theoretical ability to act various ways, but because we would act only one way, because having perfect knowledge of our nature, it is obvious which action is the perfect action. The need to choose one action from another arises when a person does not have perfect knowledge of their nature. This lack of knowledge introduces uncertainty, and so we must decide from multiple choices, because the perfect action is not apparent. This choosing is indeed an act of deliberation. We must do such deliberation because we possess a deliberative (gnomic) will, which Holy Tradition considers a consequence of the Fall. God has no gnomic will. He doesn’t deliberate, and He doesn’t choose like we do. Choice is something necessitated by imperfection.

Regarding your comment on Hinduism, I don’t see why you bring that up. Even if we were both Indian, being Indian does not equate to being Hindu or even being familiar with Hindu thought. :ehh: Furthermore, there is no need to turn to Hinduism for the idea that God is ultimately unknowable. That is a teaching that is very much a part of Holy Tradition. We can discuss God, but only imperfectly, since we can never fully know God.

 

[oldcelt]

It would be helpful if you explain your concept of God. An impersonal, mindless force to which we are superior because it doesn’t know, plan or care what it’s doing?

My God is an intelligent creator whose total plan I think is unknowable to us. He creates because it is in his nature, but I do not see any evidence of either benevolence or malevolence when it comes to us. I think we evolved from the creator’s early creation.

 

[tonyrey]

It would be helpful if you explain your concept of God. An impersonal, mindless force to which we are superior because it doesn’t know, plan or care what it’s doing?

Then He must be far more intelligent than us. It’s good to know you believe He has a plan because life ceases to be absurd.

He creates because it is in his nature, but I do not see any evidence of either benevolence or malevolence when it comes to us.

Don’t think neutrality is a defect rather than an asset?

I think we evolved from the creator’s early creation.

That suggests He has developed since then. Do you think there are more advanced universes than ours?