How do you resolve this problem?

[Pallas_Athene]

If one rejects answers given by others, why ask the question?

I do not reject the answers a-priori. If and when a rational answer is presented, I am happy to embrace it.

Are you getting that from this: “The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)”…? If so, you’re over-reaching; this line does not assert anything about the entirety of God’s knowledge, as you seem to be implying here.

You haven’t successfully made the case that #2 must be discarded. If God knows everything that happens in the universe – and His knowledge is timeless, since He is eternal and outside of the temporal framework – then how does that part of His knowledge that proceeds from His act of creation present a logical problem? After all, it’s not like He has to ‘wait’ in order for our actions to ‘happen’, before He knows what the actions will be. But, I’m guessing that temporal sequencing isn’t your problem here, right? It’s strictly a matter of causation. The only thing I can imagine is that you’re presuming that the only source of God’s knowledge is Divine Cognition.

My understanding (which could be wrong) is that God’s “knowledge of vision” is precisely the knowledge that comes from observing the actions of free creatures, albeit from a timeless perspective. That’s why it’s called that. So the premise that God cannot have (some) knowledge that’s dependent on the actions of creatures is false.

If you think about it, that only makes sense. If God had never created the universe, He would not have that knowledge, since it’s specifically the knowledge of what actually does happen. So that knowledge cannot be of the same inherent, independent kind as His knowledge of Himself or of all possible things. It is, if nothing else, dependent on His own free decision to create.

Sorry, you both overlooked the dogma, which says: “God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things”. But this should be obvious, IF you accept that God is “simple”, his knowledge cannot be separated from his “essence”. If God’s knowledge would be dependent upon any “extra-divine” thing, then he would be contingent upon extra-divine things, and thus he would not be sovereign.

So, yes, the #2 possibility IS successfully discarded based upon the dogmas. Is there any other explanation?

(By the way, you guys too much. I am concerned about your shoulder joint. )

 

[Gorgias]

I do not reject the answers a-priori. If and when a rational answer is presented, I am happy to embrace it.

And there’s the rub: ‘rationality’ depends on your say-so; anything you refuse to entertain, you denigrate as ‘irrational’. :sad_yes:

Sorry, you both overlooked the dogma, which says: “God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things”. But this should be obvious, IF you accept that God is “simple”, his knowledge cannot be separated from his “essence”. If God’s knowledge would be dependent upon any “extra-divine” thing, then he would be contingent upon extra-divine things, and thus he would not be sovereign.

That’s the whole point. All of creation is completely dependent on God and contingent upon Him; He keeps us in existence through His Divine will. Therefore, anything in creation – since it proceeds from God’s Will and is sustained by it – is not posterior to God, such that He (or His knowledge) might be ‘contingent’ upon it.

So, yes, the #2 possibility IS successfully discarded based upon the dogmas. Is there any other explanation?

Yep. Your ‘rationality’ meter is broken.

 

[alchemon]

I do not reject the answers a-priori. If and when a rational answer is presented, I am happy to embrace it.

Sorry, you both overlooked the dogma, which says: “God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things”. But this should be obvious, IF you accept that God is “simple”, his knowledge cannot be separated from his “essence”. If God’s knowledge would be dependent upon any “extra-divine” thing, then he would be contingent upon extra-divine things, and thus he would not be sovereign.

So, yes, the #2 possibility IS successfully discarded based upon the dogmas. Is there any other explanation?

(By the way, you guys too much. I am concerned about your shoulder joint. )

God is both perfect knowledge and eternal and are both one in the same as part of his essence. As part of His eternal nature, He is free from all prior cause - this is referred to as free will. When God created our eternal soul, he imparted to us the ability to be free from prior cause - free will. Man then chose, by his own free will, to turn away from God. God in his perfect goodness, then gave to man the perfect ability to regain his full communion with God. This plan was reflective of His perfect knowledge.

 

[thenobes]

That’s the whole point. All of creation is completely dependent on God and contingent upon Him; He keeps us in existence through His Divine will. Therefore, anything in creation – since it proceeds from God’s Will and is sustained by it – is not posterior to God, such that He (or His knowledge) might be ‘contingent’ upon it.

Uh, but isn’t our free will “extra-divine”? Or is our free will in some way part of God?

Suppose that while we are still a thought of God, and not actualized, our free will choices could be discovered by God. And it would be part of his immediate knowledge.

But then why did God allow those who did evil free will choices to be actualized? If God is Good, then a superior Good reason exists for allowing those people making evil choices to actualize

peace
steve

 

[Gorgias]

Uh, but isn’t our free will “extra-divine”? Or is our free will in some way part of God?

Our free will proceeds from God. It is not dictated by God; rather, since He is timeless, it is not subsequent to God.

Suppose that while we are still a thought of God, and not actualized, our free will choices could be discovered by God. And it would be part of his immediate knowledge.

But that’s not what we say about God (as PA has demonstrated to us). Our free will is part of God’s vision. That does not, however, mean that it makes God’s knowledge contingent in any way, as we are contingent upon God himself!

But then why did God allow those who did evil free will choices to be actualized? If God is Good, then a superior Good reason exists for allowing those people making evil choices to actualize

Precisely. The Good of allowing free choice is superior to any deterministic ‘forcing’ of decisions… since that would make all action simple obedience rather than allowing for love…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

That’s the whole point. All of creation is completely dependent on God and contingent upon Him; He keeps us in existence through His Divine will. Therefore, anything in creation – since it proceeds from God’s Will and is sustained by it – is not posterior to God, such that He (or His knowledge) might be ‘contingent’ upon it.

So you say that God’s will is primary, and it is reflected in his knowledge. This would make his knowledge free of extra-divine things (obviously). Of course this makes the whole world a “puppet on a string”, God wills something and puts it into practice. God “wills” a tornado, reaches out from his “timeless, frozen” existence and makes the air molecules swirl and go on their destructive path.

And as “thenobles” correctly points out our alleged “free will” becomes just another player in the cosmic play where God is the creator and the director.

On the other hand, if we have true, libertarian free will, then we become the “puppet-masters”, and God is “forced” to actualize our decisions. After all, the assassin aims the gun, pulls the trigger, and God is “forced” to maintain the bullet on its course to blow out the brain of the victim (whether happily and willingly or reluctantly and unwillingly could be debated).

So, who is the “puppet master”? God is when dealing with the inanimate part of the world. But the living creatures who make decisions (yes, animals make choices, too), become the “puppet masters” of God, whose decisions are carried out by God. Not much of a “sovereign” I would say.

That does not, however, mean that it makes God’s knowledge contingent in any way, as we are contingent upon God himself!

Nice try, but no cigar. Are our decisions contingent upon God? If “yes”, then we have no free will. If “no”, then God’s actions to actualize our decisions is contingent upon our decisions. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[alchemon]

So you say that God’s will is primary, and it is reflected in his knowledge. This would make his knowledge free of extra-divine things (obviously). Of course this makes the whole world a “puppet on a string”, God wills something and puts it into practice. God “wills” a tornado, reaches out from his “timeless, frozen” existence and makes the air molecules swirl and go on their destructive path.

And as “thenobles” correctly points out our alleged “free will” becomes just another player in the cosmic play where God is the creator and the director.

On the other hand, if we have true, libertarian free will, then we become the “puppet-masters”, and God is “forced” to actualize our decisions. After all, the assassin aims the gun, pulls the trigger, and God is “forced” to maintain the bullet on its course to blow out the brain of the victim (whether happily and willingly or reluctantly and unwillingly could be debated).

So, who is the “puppet master”? God is when dealing with the inanimate part of the world. But the living creatures who make decisions (yes, animals make choices, too), become the “puppet masters” of God, whose decisions are carried out by God. Not much of a “sovereign” I would say.

Nice try, but no cigar. Are our decisions contingent upon God? If “yes”, then we have no free will. If “no”, then God’s actions to actualize our decisions is contingent upon our decisions. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

God’s Will is not always done - this is referred to as sin. As a gift, God imparted to us a small piece of his essence - namely, being free from prior cause, free will. With this free will, we are then allowed to decide whether we want to love God or not.

God is not “forced” to actualize any action. Yet, He has chosen in perfect knowledge that we should be able to act freely as we desire. We have the existence of this choice because God chose to give it to us. Is He capable of removing this free will? Yes, but He does not often do so. Thus, we as humans, actualize our own actions within the confines of His creation. He is sovereign by virtue of creating our eternal soul and giving it the freedom of choosing or not choosing communion with him.

A potential byproduct of this is the ability to choose your own will over God. In this way we sin. By definition then, God cannot sin, because His Will is what the metric by which sin is defined.

 

[Gorgias]

So you say that God’s will is primary, and it is reflected in his knowledge. This would make his knowledge free of extra-divine things (obviously).

No; this would make His knowledge independent of extra-divine things. Please stop playing the old ‘bait and switch’…

Of course this makes the whole world a “puppet on a string”, God wills something and puts it into practice. God “wills” a tornado, reaches out from his “timeless, frozen” existence and makes the air molecules swirl and go on their destructive path.

No; that’s not the implication. You’ve added to the text you quoted us: it’s not that God ‘makes’ things happen – it’s simply that He knows them. Really, now… do you expect us to not notice that you’re moving the goal posts, here?

Nice try, but no cigar. Are our decisions contingent upon God? If “yes”, then we have no free will. If “no”, then God’s actions to actualize our decisions is contingent upon our decisions.

We, as creatures, are contingent upon God. Our decisions are our own. God does not act in order to actualize our decisions – we do. God knows what we will do, though… since, although we are bound in time, He is not; He knows us outside of time.

You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Your problem is that you are unwilling to admit that the cake exists in time, but that God does not. It’s ok; we already recognize the game you’re playing. Go have some cake, and eat it too, if that makes you happy; it’ll be more satisfying for you than attempting to trick us into accepting your irrational assertions… :sad_yes:

 

[Pallas_Athene]

God is not “forced” to actualize any action.

You mean he willfully participates in keeping the bullet on its trajectory from the assassin’s gun to the victim’s head? Don’t forget that God is not just the “first cause”, he is the “sustaining cause”, and he keeps this world in existence. If he would not “pay attention” for a split of a second, all this world would “flicker out” of existence.

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Either God “willfully” keeps the bullet in existence, and then he is a willing accessory to the murder of the victim, or he is “forced” to keep the bullet in existence - against his “will”. Which one will it be?

Yet, He has chosen in perfect knowledge that we should be able to act freely as we desire.

Not just “us”, even the lowly animals. Imagine that a monkey steals the detonator to blow up a whole city (or a continent, or the whole Earth). The monkey has no idea what will happen when he pushes that nice red button. Would God “interfere” and prevent the monkey from blowing up that “city” (continent or Earth)? Based upon God’s “track record” of complete indifference, he would not. And in such a case you cannot even try to make the excuse that God wants to be obeyed out of “love” and not from being “forced” to obey. The monkey does not have “free will” (in the human sense), but it sure has the necessary “freedom” to push that red button.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Either God “willfully” keeps the bullet in existence, and then he is a willing accessory to the murder of the victim, or he is “forced” to keep the bullet in existence - against his “will”. Which one will it be?

Mu – neither yes nor no. You’re really grasping at straws, PA, if you’re asking whether God annihilates inanimate objects in creation.

Rather, God allows rational moral agents free will, and therefore, allows the consequences of their actions as a natural effect of the gift of free will. There is, therefore, neither the situation that He is a ‘willing accessory’ or a ‘forcing against [another’s] will’ to the scenario. (Nice try, though. )

Based upon God’s “track record” of complete indifference, he would not.

Umm… you’ve read the Bible… haven’t you?

‘Complete indifference’??? Uhh… riiiiiight.

 

[ericc]

You mean he willfully participates in keeping the bullet on its trajectory from the assassin’s gun to the victim’s head? Don’t forget that God is not just the “first cause”, he is the “sustaining cause”, and he keeps this world in existence. If he would not “pay attention” for a split of a second, all this world would “flicker out” of existence.

Again, you cannot have it both ways. Either God “willfully” keeps the bullet in existence, and then he is a willing accessory to the murder of the victim, or he is “forced” to keep the bullet in existence - against his “will”. Which one will it be?

Not just “us”, even the lowly animals. Imagine that a monkey steals the detonator to blow up a whole city (or a continent, or the whole Earth). The monkey has no idea what will happen when he pushes that nice red button. Would God “interfere” and prevent the monkey from blowing up that “city” (continent or Earth)? Based upon God’s “track record” of complete indifference, he would not. And in such a case you cannot even try to make the excuse that God wants to be obeyed out of “love” and not from being “forced” to obey. The monkey does not have “free will” (in the human sense), but it sure has the necessary “freedom” to push that red button.

It goes to God knowing everything but does not “cause” bad things to happen other than permitting evil to happen through freewill of persons or allowing natural evil for the greater good. A God that interferes frequently is not good for the sane operation of this universe.

In case you ask whether God should prevent evil, then that is a contradiction to freewill or sane operation of the universe. BTW, God is not obligated to any of his creation for long, useful, happy, healthy lives. He does not owe us anything.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No; that’s not the implication. You’ve added to the text you quoted us: it’s not that God ‘makes’ things happen – it’s simply that He knows them. Really, now… do you expect us to not notice that you’re moving the goal posts, here?

It was you who introduced the “sustaining cause” argument, now you wish to repudiate it? Either there are “laws of nature”, which are sufficient to “sustain” the world (like the conservation laws) and then there is no “need” for God to sustain the particles of the bullet on its trajectory, or no; the laws of nature are just our illusions when we observe God’s actions of placing the bullet through the head of the victim. You are the one who tried to move the goalposts…

We, as creatures, are contingent upon God. Our decisions are our own. God does not act in order to actualize our decisions – we do. God knows what we will do, though… since, although we are bound in time, He is not; He knows us outside of time.

This is the original question: “HOW”? Do our actions cause God’s knowledge, or does God’s knowledge cause our actions? Or something else is the “causative factor”… Indeed it has only been 2 pages worth of posts, but so far none of you even attempted to answer this question. (So much for a “rational” discourse.)

Your problem is that you are unwilling to admit that the cake exists in time, but that God does not.

It is totally irrelevant. We are not talking about “temporal sequence”, rather “causal sequence”.

Mu – neither yes nor no. You’re really grasping at straws, PA, if you’re asking whether God annihilates inanimate objects in creation.

I am not “asking”, I drew the conclusion from the argument of “sustaining cause”.

Rather, God allows rational moral agents free will, and therefore, allows the consequences of their actions as a natural effect of the gift of free will. There is, therefore, neither the situation that He is a ‘willing accessory’ or a ‘forcing against [another’s] will’ to the scenario. (Nice try, though. )

If you quote, you should at least quote accurately. Not “against [another’s] will”, rather “against [his / God’s OWN] will”. The scenario is simple:

1. assassin - of his own free will - fires a bullet.
2. God sustains the bullet on its course (which is an action within the spatio-temporal frame!)
3. the bullet blows the victim’s head apart
   Question: “was God a willing participant in the assassin’s action”, or “was God forced to participate against his own will”? Because God actively participated in the event since he “had to” maintain the bullet on its course.

And then there is the next problem of the monkey, which stole a detonator to blow up a whole city. Is the “free will” of the monkey also sacrosanct and should not be interfered with?

Umm… you’ve read the Bible… haven’t you?

‘Complete indifference’??? Uhh… riiiiiight.

Yes, I did, but that is just a human concoction without any significance. I am looking at the actual world, and there is no sign of either benevolence or malevolence. The Sun shines on the good and the bad alike… and the usual cop-out is that meting out justice here and now would rob us of our “free will”, to believe if God exists or not. Which is probably one of the worst argument of all.