I am baffled, please explain

[Lily_Bernans]

In your expert opinion.

God, however did it. Knowledge of something does not necessarily, mean cause.

I could be in a helicopter above a blind intersection and see two cars racing toward that intersection and they are going to crash. Is it my fault, when they do crash, since I knew that it was going to happen? You are confusing knowledge with causation.

Please don’t misunderstand; I am a devout Catholic and a fifth-year theology student. I’m not being “won over” to atheism.

However, I think the point was that you, in the helicopter could do nothing to prevent what you see coming; God can.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

In your expert opinion.

God, however did it. Knowledge of something does not necessarily, mean cause.

I could be in a helicopter above a blind intersection and see two cars racing toward that intersection and they are going to crash. Is it my fault, when they do crash, since I knew that it was going to happen? You are confusing knowledge with causation.

If we are created so as to have no preferences and can ONLY love, that is not free will. Free will implies that we have choices and are permitted to make those choices.

How do you compare a deity who lives in timelessness (which we cannot even comprehend) to a mortal who lives in linear time? It is the old apple vs. the orange debate.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

They would love me no matter what because I created them to love always. Me and one another. However, there would be no disasters on my island. It would be a paradise always. People would not need help or become ill, etc. Even under those circumstances, I would not know if the people GENUINELY loved me or if they loved me simply because they were programmed to do so.

You seem familiar with the Bible, so I assume you are familiar with Romans 9:21-24: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

If God created humans for his own glory, creating a race of humans who love him because he created them to be sinless and ONLY love would not glorify him. It would be logically incoherent. So God created humans in a way to show his love, his mercy, his kindness. If Christ’s salvific work did not exist, our relationship with God would be empty and sterile. Think how you would feel if your spouse only loved you because he or she could not do otherwise, i.e. you somehow “programmed” him or her to love. That is not real love.

Before I will be able to continue, please tell me what do you mean by “love” here? This word is so overused, that I cannot know which one of its specific meanings do you refer to. Is it an emotion? Is it an erotic attraction? Is it a mutually pleasant friendship? Is it a desire / willingness to help others? (Oops that is not applicable, on your island there is no need to be helpful.) Is it like one loves a juicy steak? Or the way one loves a pet? A friend? A child? A spouse? What is it?

In my recent post to Gorgias I pointed out that according to the Christian (Catholic) teaching God deliberately created the Virgin Mary to be sinless and yet she retained her free will. You might be interested in that. Mary was “programmed” to be able to stay sinless, and also retain her freedom. Was her devotion to God a meaningless act? Did she freely act according to her programming?

Also I would like you to tell me what do mean by “free will”? There are two approaches. One says that the “freedom of will” cannot be separated from the “freedom to act on that will”. The other one asserts that the pure “thought or effort” to “will” something is what counts, even if the person is unable to put that “will” into practice. Which one is your understanding?

I do not try to be obtuse, or play hard to catch. Without a clear understanding of these fundamental terms we cannot have a meaningful conversation.

---

Anyhow, I will reflect upon the parable from Romans. If you talk about a literal lump of clay, then whatever the potter wishes to do with it is of no consequence. If however the allegory speaks of a father and a child, then the father has no “rights” only “duty” and “obligation”. If you create thinking and feeling beings, then you must take care of them - at least until they reach the level of the creator. Since the level of the creator God can never be reached, God’s obligation can never end. On the other hand, the child has every right to question the abusive father.

In the Oriental culture there is a wise old custom. If you save someone’s life, then you interfered with her fate, and as such you must assume full responsibility for her continued well-being. The exact opposite of the Western custom, and I prefer the Oriental approach.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Before I will be able to continue, please tell me what do you mean by “love” here? This word is so overused, that I cannot know which one of its specific meanings do you refer to. Is it an emotion? Is it an erotic attraction? Is it a mutually pleasant friendship? Is it a desire / willingness to help others? (Oops that is not applicable, on your island there is no need to be helpful.) Is it like one loves a juicy steak? Or the way one loves a pet? A friend? A child? A spouse? What is it?

In my recent post to Gorgias I pointed out that according to the Christian (Catholic) teaching God deliberately created the Virgin Mary to be sinless and yet she retained her free will. You might be interested in that. Mary was “programmed” to be able to stay sinless, and also retain her freedom. Was her devotion to God a meaningless act? Did she freely act according to her programming?

Also I would like you to tell me what do mean by “free will”? There are two approaches. One says that the “freedom of will” cannot be separated from the “freedom to act on that will”. The other one asserts that the pure “thought or effort” to “will” something is what counts, even if the person is unable to put that “will” into practice. Which one is your understanding?

I do not try to be obtuse, or play hard to catch. Without a clear understanding of these fundamental terms we cannot have a meaningful conversation.

---

Anyhow, I will reflect upon the parable from Romans. If you talk about a literal lump of clay, then whatever the potter wishes to do with it is of no consequence. If however the allegory speaks of a father and a child, then the father has no “rights” only “duty” and “obligation”. If you create thinking and feeling beings, then you must take care of them - at least until they reach the level of the creator. Since the level of the creator God can never be reached, God’s obligation can never end. On the other hand, the child has every right to question the abusive father.

In the Oriental culture there is a wise old custom. If you save someone’s life, then you interfered with her fate, and as such you must assume full responsibility for her continued well-being. The exact opposite of the Western custom, and I prefer the Oriental approach.

Love? Friendship and romantic attachment, which would include the physical, emotional, and spiritual. People would be helpful to one another because everyone would be programmed to love.

The Council of Trent [1] has defined that ‘after a justification a man cannot avoid, during the whole course of his life, every venial sin, without a special privilege such as the Church recognizes was conferred on the Blessed Virgin’. The soul in the state of grace can therefore avoid any venial sin considered separately, but cannot avoid all venial sins taken together by keeping itself always free from them. Mary however avoided all sin, even the least grave. St. Augustine affirms that ‘for the honor of her Son Who came to remit the sins of the world, Mary is never included when there is question of sin’. [2] The Fathers and theologians consider, to judge from their manner of speaking, that she is free even from every voluntary imperfection, for, according to them, she never failed in promptness to obey a Divine inspiration given by way of counsel. Though a minor lack of generosity is not a venial sin, but simply a lesser good, or an imperfection, not even so slight a shortcoming was found in Mary. She never elicited an imperfect (remissus) act of charity, that is to say, one that fell short in intensity of the degree in which she possessed the virtue.

She had free will when she agreed to carry and bear the Son of God. She was asked by the Archangel Gabriel, and she answered, “Not my will, you yours.” (God’s).

I feel if someone does not have the freedom to act on what he chooses to do, he does not have free will. For me, it is more than an abstract quality only.

I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here. You talk of a loving Father, and I’m talking of a God who created man to glorify him. (At least right now. I believe he’s loving, but haven’t gotten to that part yet.)

I have to reflect as well. I think some of the points you make need hashing out. Some are very thorny issues and have been for some time. I am not the greatest person to give an answer. I study theology; my philosophy courses have not been advanced ones.

 

[oldcelt]

In your expert opinion.

God, however did it. Knowledge of something does not necessarily, mean cause.

I could be in a helicopter above a blind intersection and see two cars racing toward that intersection and they are going to crash. Is it my fault, when they do crash, since I knew that it was going to happen? You are confusing knowledge with causation.

Foreknowledge of all future events+the creative act= Causation

You left out the creative power. Even a deity cannot do what is logically impossible. You cannot grant free will to creatures when you already know all the events of their lives from the instant of their creation…that is a logical contradiction.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Foreknowledge of all future events+the creative act= Causation

You left out the creative power. Even a deity cannot do what is logically impossible. You cannot grant free will to creatures when you already know all the events of their lives from the instant of their creation…that is a logical contradiction.

Your formula is obviously true. That some people don’t understand this is what baffles me. It seems so obvious as to be uncontroversial!

However, it doesn’t seem to necessarily follow that we don’t have any free will at all. God can know what we will do and actively sustain our essence as we do things, (and therefore incurs some responsibility) but we can still be somewhat responsible for our acts even in this case.

To use Bradski’s example, the gun store owner is certainly responsible but that doesn’t let the gunman off the hook! They’re both guilty. God is responsible for creating Stalin and should have to answer for it (and I believe he has, and will), but that doesn’t have to mean Stalin “gets off scot-free” or bears no responsibility does it?

Also, don’t forget the power of ignorance. Even if the future is infallibly known to God, we’re ignorant of it and therefore experience “freedom” as a result of this ignorance. We, I think, are morally responsible for our actions because for all we know we are the cause of those actions. I don’t think it is possible to intuit how God’s will precisely effects us in the present or in the future. We only know God’s will by looking backward (in my opinion).

 

[oldcelt]

Your formula is obviously true. That some people don’t understand this is what baffles me. It seems so obvious as to be uncontroversial!

However, it doesn’t seem to necessarily follow that we don’t have any free will at all. God can know what we will do and actively sustain our essence as we do things, (and therefore incurs some responsibility) but we can still be somewhat responsible for our acts even in this case.

To use Bradski’s example, the gun store owner is certainly responsible but that doesn’t let the gunman off the hook! They’re both guilty. God is responsible for creating Stalin and should have to answer for it (and I believe he has, and will), but that doesn’t have to mean Stalin “gets off scot-free” or bears no responsibility does it?

Also, don’t forget the power of ignorance. Even if the future is infallibly known to God, we’re ignorant of it and therefore experience “freedom” as a result of this ignorance. We, I think, are morally responsible for our actions because for all we know we are the cause of those actions. I don’t think it is possible to intuit how God’s will precisely effects us in the present or in the future. We only know God’s will by looking backward (in my opinion).

As a Deist, I believe in complete free will. Our actions each have their own consequences, positive or negative.

 

[PRmerger]

Beginning___________________________________________________End
Time

			    .
			God

God, being the creator of time is “outside of time” and has eternity to behold all of time all the time.

Egg-zactly.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Your formula is obviously true. That some people don’t understand this is what baffles me. It seems so obvious as to be uncontroversial!

However, it doesn’t seem to necessarily follow that we don’t have any free will at all. God can know what we will do and actively sustain our essence as we do things, (and therefore incurs some responsibility) but we can still be somewhat responsible for our acts even in this case.

To use Bradski’s example, the gun store owner is certainly responsible but that doesn’t let the gunman off the hook! They’re both guilty. God is responsible for creating Stalin and should have to answer for it (and I believe he has, and will), but that doesn’t have to mean Stalin “gets off scot-free” or bears no responsibility does it?

Also, don’t forget the power of ignorance. Even if the future is infallibly known to God, we’re ignorant of it and therefore experience “freedom” as a result of this ignorance. We, I think, are morally responsible for our actions because for all we know we are the cause of those actions. I don’t think it is possible to intuit how God’s will precisely effects us in the present or in the future. We only know God’s will by looking backward (in my opinion).

I feel like my response to this got skipped over in the amount of posts this thread has had in the past few days, but I was trying to make a somewhat similar point. We don’t act with the knowledge God has, we act based on our own knowledge, attitude, and perspective. Regardless of whether the situation I find myself in is the ultimately due to God or just the people around me and the quantum fluctuations of life or whatever, I’m still acting from my own present point in time. My decision in any hypothetical situation reflects the results of all of the situations I’ve either found myself in previously, or studied, or read about, or watched, etc etc.

I really struggle with understanding the idea that the gun vendor bears responsibility phrased in such a way that it seems to excuse the buyer. Regardless of whether the gun vendor can and just won’t, or can’t, or just doesn’t want to stop the buyer from killing someone, the person buying the gun is still at fault here. If they didn’t buy a gun, would they have used a knife? Their bare hands? A shoelace? Say the gun vendor decides to refuse to sell the gun. Either way, the buyer’s intent was to actually kill someone. Even if stopped, the immoral intentions are still in place in that person’s mind.

It’s also a bit disingenuous to stop the analogy with the gun vendor is at fault because a person died since they did nothing to stop the murderer. This assumes that death is a permanent end result. Obviously I’m not saying that death and being murdered are not a negative, because they are, but from the perspective of God and the saints, death is barely even the beginning of our lives, much less the end. We’re looking at this from a living human perspective, obviously death is bad to us, being murdered even more so.

But God is aware of what awaits us in Heaven, which (though not doctrine) several locutions have asserted that one instant in Heaven is better than all the sufferings of one’s mortal life combined. We naturally view things in comparisons, but the joy of Heaven is incomparable to anything on Earth. From a soul in Heaven’s perspective, even the most brutal and horrific deaths are virtually nothing when compared to the peace and joy in Heaven. We don’t know this because we have never died, but from a Catholic perspective, the point of this life isn’t to live as long as possible with as little suffering as possible for as long as we can. The purpose of this life is to reach that point which brings us closest to God, and gives us the understanding that God’s mercy far outweighs any sin we could possibly commit.

 

[Bradski]

I feel like my response to this got skipped over in the amount of posts this thread has had in the past few days, but I was trying to make a somewhat similar point. We don’t act with the knowledge God has, we act based on our own knowledge, attitude, and perspective. Regardless of whether the situation I find myself in is the ultimately due to God or just the people around me and the quantum fluctuations of life or whatever, I’m still acting from my own present point in time.

I agree with this. Whatever God ‘knows’ about how we will act, we act with free will (this on the assumption that it exists).

I really struggle with understanding the idea that the gun vendor bears responsibility phrased in such a way that it seems to excuse the buyer. Regardless of whether the gun vendor can and just won’t, or can’t, or just doesn’t want to stop the buyer from killing someone, the person buying the gun is still at fault here. Either way, the buyer’s intent was to actually kill someone. Even if stopped, the immoral intentions are still in place in that person’s mind.

I agree with this as well. The selling of the gun in no way excuses the buyer from committing the deed. This again assumes that free will is acailable and the killer exercises it.

It’s also a bit disingenuous to stop the analogy with the gun vendor is at fault because a person died since they did nothing to stop the murderer. This assumes that death is a permanent end result.

Well, we’re using this an analogy for an evil act in itself. No thought of future benefits for all. No thought of a greater good. We are not in a position to determine that. But the guy selling the gun bears some responsibility. Of this there is absolutely no question whatsoever. Just put yourself in the position of a man who sees his family gunned down and who is told the gun was sold to killer by someone with full knowledge of what he was going to do. Would you absolve him of responsibility?

Obviously I’m not saying that death and being murdered are not a negative, because they are, but from the perspective of God and the saints, death is barely even the beginning of our lives, much less the end. We’re looking at this from a living human perspective, obviously death is bad to us, being murdered even more so.

Well, that’s the only way we can look at it. If there is some greater good of which we are not aware then the old ‘Who Can Know The Mind Of God’ card is sitting there waiting to be played. But no-one wants to get anywhere near it. Everyone wants to deny the patently obvious.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s the only way we can look at it. If there is some greater good of which we are not aware then the old ‘Who Can Know The Mind Of God’ card is sitting there waiting to be played.

Well, yeah. It’s only logical–if you understand Him, He is not God and all that, as St. Augustine said.

It goes without saying–if one understands the definition of God correctly, one is not going to understand God.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I agree with this as well. The selling of the gun in no way excuses the buyer from committing the deed. This again assumes that free will is available and the killer exercises it.

Your analogy is very good, but it did not explore the problem to its full extent. The gun shop owner only bears a limited responsibility for the killings, since he is not responsible for the existence of the killer-to-be, nor is he responsible for the thoughts of the killer-to-be. He is “only” responsible for providing the weapon and not stopping the deed. Which makes him to be a co-conspirator in the eyes of the law. Remember the Oklahoma massacre.

God’s responsibility goes much deeper. He is directly responsible for the existence of the killer-to-be, while having full knowledge what the killer-to-be WILL plan to do. God may not be responsible for the killing intent, but that is all.

It is not simply the foreknowledge which makes God fully responsible, it is both the foreknowledge and the deliberate creation of the killer which make God fully responsible for the whole affair.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It goes without saying–if one understands the definition of God correctly, one is not going to understand God.

Is God no longer inscrutable? Can we now understand the mind of God?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Love? Friendship and romantic attachment, which would include the physical, emotional, and spiritual. People would be helpful to one another because everyone would be programmed to love.

You mean, taking two random people they will have friendship and romantic attachment regardless of their age and gender? Friendship is based upon common interest. Romantic attachment is based upon chemistry. And in your stipulated island you established paradise, which would make “helpfulness” unnecessary. If there are no mishaps, problems, illnesses and disasters, what does “helpfulness” add to the picture?

She had free will when she agreed to carry and bear the Son of God. She was asked by the Archangel Gabriel, and she answered, “Not my will, you yours.” (God’s).

Fine. So she could retain her free will despite having been created to be always loving and obedient. She did not turn into some robot. This is very important!

I feel if someone does not have the freedom to act on what he chooses to do, he does not have free will. For me, it is more than an abstract quality only.

Excellent, and I agree with you. I had a reason to present the question. Many times people asserted that being able to “will” something is sufficient to have free will.

Specifically, I asked why does God seemingly “prefer” the free will of a strong rapist to conquer the free will of the weaker victim. The answer was that the victim’s free will was not impaired, she was perfectly “free” to want not to be raped, she “merely” was unable to put her “will” into practice. The first time I heard that, I was left breathless at the audacity and cruelty of this answer. Later I learned that this particular person was not a far-out aberration, there are many others who share this sick and twisted view.

I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here. You talk of a loving Father, and I’m talking of a God who created man to glorify him. (At least right now. I believe he’s loving, but haven’t gotten to that part yet.)

It is usual to refer to God as a loving Father.

I have to reflect as well. I think some of the points you make need hashing out. Some are very thorny issues and have been for some time. I am not the greatest person to give an answer. I study theology; my philosophy courses have not been advanced ones.

If there is anything you feel needs to be examined in more detail, please let me know.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I was hoping for something more helpful than “go look for yourself,” especially since you were referencing one particular argument of his…

I apologize. It was not just one post, it was a series of posts, starting on page #4, with post #49… going for quite a while. I especially would like to direct your attention to post #68. But this is not really important. I am willing to discuss it, but we have more pressing discrepancies to explore. The gist of it was that “not creating” someone is unfair and unjust.

By the way, I will reply to your continuation in post #198, but I would prefer to explore the ramifications of your post #197, which I presented in post #228. Do take your time, there is no need to hurry. I tried to take all your objections into account and reflect on all of them. See you when I see you.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Well, we’re using this an analogy for an evil act in itself. No thought of future benefits for all. No thought of a greater good. We are not in a position to determine that. But the guy selling the gun bears some responsibility. Of this there is absolutely no question whatsoever. Just put yourself in the position of a man who sees his family gunned down and who is told the gun was sold to killer by someone with full knowledge of what he was going to do. Would you absolve him of responsibility?

No I wouldn’t. I honestly agree that God bears responsibility when and how we die. In fact, while I don’t consider our lives (or deaths for that matter) predetermined, I do believe that we only die when God allows us to. Not sure if that answers your question.

Well, that’s the only way we can look at it. If there is some greater good of which we are not aware then the old ‘Who Can Know The Mind Of God’ card is sitting there waiting to be played. But no-one wants to get anywhere near it. Everyone wants to deny the patently obvious.

I left this post and came back to it later, and now I’ve lost my idea of what you were trying to say here. My apologies… I had a response but I don’t remember what it was anymore.

 

[PRmerger]

It is usual to refer to God as a loving Father.

You are putting the cart before the horse, PA.

Right now, we are still arguing for the existence of the God of the Philosophers.

Not the monotheistic God of Judeo-Christianity.

 

[Bradski]

Well, yeah. It’s only logical–if you understand Him, He is not God and all that, as St. Augustine said.

Either we have no idea about God or we do. And almost every single post on every thread on this forum presupposes that we do know God. There are thousands of questions and everyone puts forwards thousands upon thousands of answers. God is this. God is that. God wants this. This is the heaven where God will welcome us. This is His son. This is why He sent Him here. These are His words. I mean, for heaven’s sake, you have built a religion BASED on the fact that you understand God.

No-one is suggesting that anyone can FULLY comprehend God. If that is the point you are making, then play the card and leave it at that. But…and this is a huge but…it only seems to get whipped out by Christians when someone points out what appears to be an error in Christian thinking. But if it’s acceptable for Christians to use it whenever it suits, then expect atheists to use the same card and the same argument back at you. “God is Good, God is the source of all morality’ – well, sorry, PR, as you yourself have said…

Some of these discussions come across as a political debate where one side will not admit, under any circumstances whatsoever, that their party can do anything wrong and will not admit that the opposing party can do anything right.

 

[PRmerger]

Either we have no idea about God or we do.

Why the false dichotomy?

There’s lots of room for inbetweens here. We can have a little bit o’ idea about God, a medium bit o’ idea about God, lots of idea about God.

What we can’t have, though, is a complete idea about God.

 

[PRmerger]

Either we have no idea about God or we do. And almost every single post on every thread on this forum presupposes that we do know God.

Yep. We do know something about God.

Just not everything.