How are beings sustained?

[STT]

I am really puzzled by this: It is impossible to sustain a being with free will. This means that there exists only one mind. Therefore the rest of beings are illusion.

One can argue in favor of an eternal act (God knows our act eternally and sustain us) but it is easy to challenge that: One can ask God about his future decision and does the opposite of what God reveals.

 

[Elf01]

One can ask God about his future decision and does the opposite of what God reveals.

God has the option of not answering.

 

[STT]

God has the option of not answering.

How can God then prove that He has foreknowledge?

 

[Wesrock]

I am really puzzled by this: It is impossible to sustain a being with free will.

Why?

One can argue in favor of an eternal act (God knows our act eternally and sustain us) but it is easy to challenge that: One can ask God about his future decision and does the opposite of what God reveals.

God can either not answer or the answer must necessarily be given in a way in which the answer comes true without compromising the being’s voluntary acts. To do otherwise would ne like creating a square-circle, a logical impossibility, something for which there is no real capacity to do.

 

[1ke]

It is impossible to sustain a being with free will

Please prove this.

 

[Wesrock]

How can God then prove that He has foreknowledge?

Foreknowledge is a funny term with God, but why must God prove anything? And it can be known through a posterior reasoning.

 

[STT]

Why?

Because the knowledge of a decision is needed to sustain the individual at the moment he acts.

God can either not answer or the answer must necessarily be given in a way in which the answer comes true without compromising the being’s voluntary acts. To do otherwise would need like creating a square-circle, a logical impossibility, something for which there is no real capacity to do.

That means that we are not free to act as we decide.

 

[STT]

Please prove this.

Because the knowledge of a decision is needed to sustain the individual at the moment he acts.

 

[STT]

Foreknowledge is a funny term with God, but why must God prove anything? And it can be known through a posterior reasoning.

Everybody could claim that He is God. That is only God who created the universe and has knowledge of individuals decisions in order to sustain the universe.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Why?

Because the knowledge of a decision is needed to sustain the individual at the moment he acts.

(1) Why would this need to be true?
(2) Why wouldn’t God have this knowledge?

Wesrock:

God can either not answer or the answer must necessarily be given in a way in which the answer comes true without compromising the being’s voluntary acts. To do otherwise would need like creating a square-circle, a logical impossibility, something for which there is no real capacity to do.

That means that we are not free to act as we decide.

What? Where did you even get that in what I wrote?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Foreknowledge is a funny term with God, but why must God prove anything? And it can be known through a posterior reasoning.

Everybody could claim that He is God. That is only God who created the universe and has knowledge of individuals decisions in order to sustain the universe.

You haven’t established that it is necessary for God to share such specific foreknowledge.

 

[1ke]

Says who???

 

[STT]

1. Why would this need to be true?

Because we are not God ( God is His own existence).

(2) Why wouldn’t God have this knowledge?

I already provide one argument against that (asking about my decision and doing otherwise). I have one other arguments against that: The act of sustaining the universe is temporal. This makes God temporal unless one can explain how a timeless act can properly turn into temporal acts.

What? Where did you even get that in what I wrote?

You were talking about creating square-circle.

 

[STT]

You haven’t established that it is necessary for God to share such specific foreknowledge.

It is necessary. We are created beings, are not Gods, because God created us. We are therefore sustained (because we are not Gods). God needs to provide specific foreknowledge in order to show that He is God (to prove that He sustains things). Otherwise everybody could claim that he is God.

 

[STT]

Huh?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

1. Why would this need to be true?

Because we are not God ( God is His own existence).

Yeah… that’s not an explanation about why it would need to be true.

Wesrock:

(2) Why wouldn’t God have this knowledge?

I already provide one argument against that (asking about my decision and doing otherwise). I have one other arguments against that: The act of sustaining the universe is temporal. This makes God temporal unless one can explain how a timeless act can properly turn into temporal acts.

And I responded to your other topic and explained that your objection was faulty and why. Furthermore, you seem to be assumng some sort of time lapse between a human acting, God knowing, and God sustaining. That is faulty.

Wesrock:

What? Where did you even get that in what I wrote?

You were talking about creating square-circle.

Information cannot be given that would create a logical contradiction. That was my point. The case of God revealing foreknowledge that would be contradicted is an impossibility, so either (1) foreknowledge is not revealed or (2) foreknowledge is given in such a way that the voluntary nature of the acts responding to it would not contradict it. That limits the types of foreknowledge that could be revealed.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

You haven’t established that it is necessary for God to share such specific foreknowledge.

It is necessary. We are created beings, are not Gods, because God created us. We are therefore sustained (because we are not Gods). God needs to provide specific foreknowledge in order to show that He is God (to prove that He sustains things). Otherwise everybody could claim that he is God.

Other types of miracles serve as sufficient proof of God’s divinity and proof of prophets.

 

[STT]

Yeah… that’s not an explanation about why it would need to be true.

It is. We are not God therefore we are created and sustained.

And I responded to your other topic and explained that your objection was faulty and why. Furthermore, you seem to be assumng some sort of time lapse between a human acting, God knowing, and God sustaining. That is faulty.

No, I am not talking about time lapse. I am talking about the fact that the universe is temporal and is sustained temporarily. God is however timeless. Therefore one need to explain how a timeless act could properly turns into temporal acts.

Information cannot be given that would create a logical contradiction. That was my point. The case of God revealing foreknowledge that would be contradicted is an impossibility , so either (1) foreknowledge is not revealed or (2) foreknowledge is given in such a way that the voluntary nature of the acts responding to it would not contradict it. That limits the types of foreknowledge that could be revealed.

Information can cause problem if I decide to to do opposite of what God reveals my decision. That is square-circle.

 

[STT]

Other types of miracles serve as sufficient proof of God’s divinity and proof of prophets.

God is the creator, creates things out of nothing. One need to prove that any miracle is like that. Could God do that?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Yeah… that’s not an explanation about why it would need to be true.

It is. We are not God therefore we are created and sustained.

Which was not what I asked you to prove, so please go back to the previous post and read again.

Wesrock:

And I responded to your other topic and explained that your objection was faulty and why. Furthermore, you seem to be assumng some sort of time lapse between a human acting, God knowing, and God sustaining. That is faulty.

No, I am not talking about time lapse. I am talking about the fact that the universe is temporal and is sustained temporarily. God is however timeless. Therefore one need to explain how a timeless act could properly turns into temporal acts.

There’s no reason why it couldn’t, but I already explained that in your other topic.

Wesrock:

Information cannot be given that would create a logical contradiction. That was my point. The case of God revealing foreknowledge that would be contradicted is an impossibility , so either (1) foreknowledge is not revealed or (2) foreknowledge is given in such a way that the voluntary nature of the acts responding to it would not contradict it. That limits the types of foreknowledge that could be revealed.

Information can cause problem if I decide to to do opposite of what God reveals my decision. That is square-circle.

Alright, until you actually read my post and stop spouting non-sequiturs/repeating the same thing without actually addressing responses, I’m done with this topic. This isn’t even a response or objection to what I’ve twice explained in this topic alone.