I am baffled, please explain

[Aloysium]

And who bears some responsibility for that pain and suffering…?

The symbol of Christian transcendence is the Cross.

Planets do not suffer; supernovas explode in their glory, without the shedding of any tears.
We suffer.
It is an intrinsic part of our being:

• we don’t get what we want
• we get what we don’t want; it clings to our depths
• we get what what we want and it changes to its opposite, disappears
• we die and everything we had, everything we were in this world is gone.
  Unlike other “cures” to the mystery which is suffering,
  we see the pain of this world overcome in confronting it,
  taking it on, within the eternal Sacred Heart that is Jesus Christ.

Responsibility is something we are held to.
Your question brings me back to myself, and what I can do with what I have been given.
This entire trip is directed to entering into communion with the living Truth.

 

[Gorgias]

The question is still this: “Is this cooperation” something that God cannot duplicate?

No. It is something that God and a particular human being can duplicate – which is one reason why your thought experiment fails: it is not purely a matter of God’s omnipotence.

I simply refer to the fact that the church has no “official” philosophy, it is a mixture of several philosophies, Molinism included.

Molinism is not part of the Church’s body of doctrine. As such, you cannot claim premises based on Molinism as if they were endorsed by the Church.

God’s omniscience is supposed to … even include the never-never land of might have been, but which has never happened, and will never be. Personally, I find this ludicrous, but I use the church’s mixture of philosophies.

Again – this is not held by the Church, so it’s unreasonable to say “since the Church asserts this, I can, too”.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Since the church embraces Molinism

You’ll need to cite this as a Church teaching, if you hope to get any traction.

There is only one world which has been actualized, THIS world. In THIS world every dilemma is/has been/will be resolved in a certain manner. This fact does not eliminate the free will. So actualizing one particular world does not eliminate free will, even if God selectively chooses the world, where every dilemma is resolved in a positive manner. As such, there is no paradox.

There is, if in the world you posit, God deterministically eliminates sin.

It is common knowledge, though I do not have access to any particular documents to support it.

“Common knowledge” does not a proof make. In fact, the meme you’re referencing is erroneous. Here’s your homework: go look up the document yourself and find the quote in question. (It’s easy to find – Project Gutenberg has it.) You’ll see that baptism is not referenced anywhere in the context of the quote. In other words: someone is selling you a bill of goods, and you’ve fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

So what? The murderer will have to face the consequences, but the murdered will receive the passkey to heaven.

Only if baptized, which is not the case here.

Moreover, your claim was that the conquistadores ‘walked the walk.’ That claim is clearly false.

There is a biblical quote: “There is no greater love than sacrificing your life for someone else”.

Killing someone else is not “sacrificing your life for another.”

“There is no greater love than sacrificing your ETERNAL happiness for someone else”.

Ahh, but that’s not what Jesus said – He was talking about giving up our mortal life for another. Nice try…

 

[Gorgias]

To assert that God “knows” the exact number of words in a book, which was never written, because its author was never born due to the fact that his prospective parents never met - is the epitome of irrationality.

And yet, you use it as the basis of your argument.

But that is what the church asserts by not distancing itself from the concept of Molinism.

The Church also does not distance itself from the Baltimore Ravens. That doesn’t mean that they endorse the Ravens. You’re grasping at straws, PA.

My friend, you cannot even demonstrate that God exists… you are not in the position to demand a “proof” for some esoteric attribute of this unproven God.

Your argument, your burden of proof. That’s just the way it works. If you choose not to defend your argument, that’s enough reason to reject it. Thanks for playing; come again some time.

I do not assert the existence of “free will”.

Your argument explicitly includes it as a presumption. If you want to hold to your argument, you cannot simultaneously reject its existence. Unless, of course, you want to give us another indication that your argument is logically deficient.

But here comes another very interesting problem. Let’s consider a stage magician, who offers you a perfectly ordinary deck of cards, and asks you to “pick a card, any card”. You will use your free will to make a random selection. But you WILL pick the card what the magician wanted you to pick.

Yes… because the magician creates the illusion that there’s an arbitrary choice of one out of 52 cards. It’s just an illusion, though: either he stacks the deck or tracks my choice. Either way, I haven’t chosen ‘deterministically’, I’ve just been part of a ruse that attempts to fool me into thinking that he’s taken a fair and free choice and honestly identified what I chose. You’re in trouble, if you have to resort to an example of trickery to prove your case. :sad_yes:

So God could allow you to have all your “wills” to perform some evil acts, and prevent you from carrying them out. So we would have all the “free wills” and none of the “evil acts” in the world. What a wonderful outcome - exactly as I was arguing for. Any objections?

Yes: if God allows choice, but denies all contrary action, then it soon becomes evident to rational actors that only His choices matter. Naturally, then, humans would learn that there is no point in choosing, since by definition only God’s will is actualized. Therefore, we stop choosing; we just do what we know God wants. In other words, by taking away all contrary action, God would thwart free will: that is to say, under this construct, you again have determinism. This, then, is again not the case you were attempting to demonstrate (free will and no sin).

 

[Peter_Plato]

And yet, you use it as the basis of your argument.

The Church also does not distance itself from the Baltimore Ravens. That doesn’t mean that they endorse the Ravens. You’re grasping at straws, PA.

Your argument, your burden of proof. That’s just the way it works. If you choose not to defend your argument, that’s enough reason to reject it. Thanks for playing; come again some time.

Your argument explicitly includes it as a presumption. If you want to hold to your argument, you cannot simultaneously reject its existence. Unless, of course, you want to give us another indication that your argument is logically deficient.

Yes… because the magician creates the illusion that there’s an arbitrary choice of one out of 52 cards. It’s just an illusion, though: either he stacks the deck or tracks my choice. Either way, I haven’t chosen ‘deterministically’, I’ve just been part of a ruse that attempts to fool me into thinking that he’s taken a fair and free choice and honestly identified what I chose. You’re in trouble, if you have to resort to an example of trickery to prove your case. :sad_yes:

Yes: if God allows choice, but denies all contrary action, then it soon becomes evident to rational actors that only His choices matter. Naturally, then, humans would learn that there is no point in choosing, since by definition only God’s will is actualized. Therefore, we stop choosing; we just do what we know God wants. In other words, by taking away all contrary action, God would thwart free will: that is to say, under this construct, you again have determinism. This, then, is again not the case you were attempting to demonstrate (free will and no sin).

Nicely done!

Reading your posts is like listening to a talented musician, watching a great artist or a superb athlete do their thing. Much appreciated.

 

[Gorgias]

Nicely done!

Thanks!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Molinism is not part of the Church’s body of doctrine. As such, you cannot claim premises based on Molinism as if they were endorsed by the Church.

There is NO official philosophy in the “body of doctrine”. Thomism is not part of it. The philosophy of Aristotle or Plato or Duns Scotus or Anselm… etc. are not part of it. And yet, people keep referring to Thomistic or Molinistic principles. You simply object because you cannot refute what I said.

But there is the concept of “omniscience” as knowing everything, past, present and future, whether it is actually happens, or only hypothetical. Will you deny that, too? On what grounds? That it is not actually spelled out in the catechism? Not everything that the church teaches is spelled out explicitly. As a matter of fact, “omnipotence” IS spelled out, and it explicitly says: “with God ALL things are possible”. No exception for logically incoherent actions. It is understood implicitly, just like omniscience.

It is very convenient to say: “but that is not part of the official doctrine”, when there is NO official doctrine. You just play the usual hide-and-seek game. But omniscience IS part, so my thought experiment works as stipulated.

There is, if in the world you posit, God deterministically eliminates sin.

Just like he eliminated all sorts of “sins” which would have happened in another possible world, which was never actualized. By actualizing one particular world, God eliminated all the other (infinitely many) possible worlds, along with their “possible sins” .

You can’t have it both ways. In this world, Oswald decided kill Kennedy, in another world he did not. Did God “force” Oswald by actualizing this world, in which he “freely” decided to assassinate Kennedy?

And yet, you use it as the basis of your argument.

What is your problem? I simply show that the catholic definitions lead to the possibility of a “sin-free” world, with the ability to make “free choices”. I do not need to agree with those definitions.

Yes… because the magician creates the illusion that there’s an arbitrary choice of one out of 52 cards. It’s just an illusion, though: either he stacks the deck or tracks my choice. Either way, I haven’t chosen ‘deterministically’, I’ve just been part of a ruse that attempts to fool me into thinking that he’s taken a fair and free choice and honestly identified what I chose. You’re in trouble, if you have to resort to an example of trickery to prove your case. :sad_yes:

Very bad argument. The “free will” of the person who selected that card, was not interfered with. The only way to interfere with free will is to perform a brain-washing. The magician cannot do that. And yet, the outcome was predetermined by the magician. Whether it is a the magician, or God who predetermines the outcome is of no relevance. Free will is compatible with having predetermined outcomes. Especially according to your assertion - namely that it is not necessary to be able to ACT on one’s “will”, it is sufficient to have the “free will”, even if it cannot be actualized. (Your prior argument sure comes back and bites you on your behind. )

Yes: if God allows choice, but denies all contrary action, then it soon becomes evident to rational actors that only His choices matter.

Except that we are not aware of the “alternate” choices. We live in this particular world, not in another one. By the way, there are still zillions of choices available, only the “sinful” ones are eliminated.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I will quote Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.:

“God is the source of all being. Therefore, God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not. A thing is good of its kind (and that qualification is important) if it succeeds in being that kind of thing to the fullest. It is bad if it fails. Now, there can be no question of failure on the part of the Creator; God is to the fullest. And insofar as goodness is one with perfect being, God is the perfect good.”

Now, that is not me, that is Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J., but I agree with them. They said it far better than I ever could, so I quoted them. One could say a tree is perfect because it grows into what God made it to be. An animal usually grows into what God intended it to be. It’s man and his free will who runs into problems. The farther removed from God we are, the more evil we are, or to put it a better way, the less holy we are. The saints became saints because they were close to God; they strove at all times to be what God intended them to be. Hitler and Stalin, for example, did not. I do not know if they went to hell (maybe they repented), but I do know that in their lifetime, they were not holy and did not embody the perfection of God. Adam and Eve were created to be perfect children of God, perfect in every way. They chose to distance themselves from God; God did not will it. Adam and Eve had the free will to say “no,” but they did not do so.

I think Kreeft and Tacelli show that God is good.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It’s irrelevant. If I said I knew what it was, then I might be in error. But I have no idea what the Best Path means. I have no idea what the Best Path entails. I have no idea where the Best Path leads. All I know is that, by its very definition, the Path is the Best one. That is, obviously, there are possible paths that are not the best one. That is, obviously, and as Lily explicitly says: He chooses the best path for us.

If God has (or is or will or whatever bloody tense you want to use) chosen a particular path as being the best, then, obviously, He knows the outcome. If you want to cry ‘Free will!’ then go for it. It makes no difference. God knows the outcome whether you have free will or not. And whatever that path is, it will entail scenarios that will occur as a result of that path being chosen (for you, by God).

But nobody wants to admit that whatever scenarios those are, God bears responsibility for them. Yet they occur on a path that He has chosen.

I am not ignoring your post to me, Brad, on the previous page. I wrote a long response this morning, but forgot to copy it, and the system logged me out. I did not have time to rewrite it. I apologize. Yes, I was wrong on some points.

 

[Bradski]

I am not ignoring your post to me, Brad, on the previous page. I wrote a long response this morning, but forgot to copy it, and the system logged me out. I did not have time to rewrite it. I apologize. Yes, I was wrong on some points.

No problems, Lily. Kinda frustrating when that happens. And it’s always on the longer posts, as well.

 

[PRmerger]

And who bears some responsibility for that pain and suffering…?

In the atheistic paradigm? I dunno.

Who does bear the responsibility for that pain and suffering in the atheistic world, Brad?

 

[Bradski]

In the atheistic paradigm? I dunno. Who does bear the responsibility for that pain and suffering in the atheistic world, Brad?

I’m not asking about the atheistic paradigm (whatever that is). I’m not asking atheists, either. I’m asking Catholics. If I asked an atheist, he’d probably think that we’re the cause of a lot of it.

But has God decided on a path for you? Or is He waiting to see how it all turns out?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not asking about the atheistic paradigm (whatever that is). I’m not asking atheists, either. I’m asking Catholics. If I asked an atheist, he’d probably think that we’re the cause of a lot of it.

Right.

And I’m asking atheists, specifically you.

What’s your answer to your child who says, “Why, Dad Brad? Why did cousin Jimmy choose to leave his wife and kids? Why did he decide to let that needle of heroin touch his vein? Isn’t he a biochemist? I thought he knew exactly what heroin did to folks!”

What’s your answer?

Hint: whatever the answer is, it’s miserably weak and unsatisfactory. I guarantee you that much.

But has God decided on a path for you?

Absolutely God has a plan for me.

I can cooperate with his plan, or I can do my own thing.

I’ve learned that it’s a lot easier when I cooperate.

But I’m certainly free to do it my way.

Hell is paved with folks who did it their way.

Or is He waiting to see how it all turns out?

There is no waiting for God. He is in the Eternal Now.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Hint: whatever the answer is, it’s miserably weak and unsatisfactory. I guarantee you that much.

Reality does not care if you find it unsatisfactory. Guano happens, whether you like it or not. That some people cannot or will not wish to face it without their “security blanket”… it is their problem.

Absolutely God has a plan for me.

Too bad that he never reveals that “grandiose” plan, so we can actually choose to cooperate or not. Presumably his “plan” includes the painful death of some children, who suffer from incurable diseases. Or who will starve because God did not send a little rain to their area. Or who drown in a tsunami. Or burn to death in a random wildfire. Or are crushed to death in an Earthquake. What a “plan” it must be, which necessitates such pain and misery.

Hell is paved with folks who did it their way.

Last time I heard you cannot even be sure that hell is not empty. Now you have some extra information… where did that come from?

Though your mixing up the words is rather amusing. The original is: “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. It says nothing about the number of people who are actually in hell.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I’m not asking about the atheistic paradigm (whatever that is). I’m not asking atheists, either. I’m asking Catholics. If I asked an atheist, he’d probably think that we’re the cause of a lot of it.

But has God decided on a path for you? Or is He waiting to see how it all turns out?

I’m a Catholic. Have never been an atheist or an agnostic or even a Protestant. I grew up in a Carmelite cloister in France (not St. Therese’s cloister).

God knows how my life will turn out and what choices I will make, but that does not interfere with my free will. If I go downstairs and ask my brother for $5,000, I know he will not give it to me even though he has it and can spare it. My knowledge does not interfere with his free will.

 

[Bradski]

And I’m asking atheists, specifically you. Hint: whatever the answer is, it’s miserably weak and unsatisfactory. I guarantee you that much.

I just gave you the answer. I said that most of the problems are caused by us. Now, unless I’m mistaken, that’s the same answer you’d give.

Absolutely God has a plan for me. I can cooperate with his plan, or I can do my own thing

I didn’t ask about a plan. I asked about a path. Lily thought that God had decided on a path for her (although, to be fair, she may have some clarification to make on that). But in any case, it is not at all conceivable that He is likely to say: ‘Well, I wonder how that turns out’. Because you can exercise your free will until the cows come home, but any decision that you make will not come as a surprise to God. Unless you’d like to suggest that when you come to any fork in the road, God has no idea which one you are going to take. That is, not to beat around the bush, absolutely and categorically impossible unless you deny His omniscience.

So it is blazingly obvious that God knows, despite the exercise of your free will, what you are going to do. Because you were always going to do it, you are always going to do it and you will always do it. As far as God is concerned, it has already been done, it is being done and it will be done.

So if he knows what you are going to do, then He obviously knows what everyone else is going to do. He has brought us all into existence with that knowledge already in place. He is responsible for everything.

Yet if I ask if He bears any responsibility for any given event, there is a deathly silence.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Yet if I ask if He bears any responsibility for any given event, there is a deathly silence.

No, he doesn’t. Adam and Eve, the original authors of sin, knew the consequences when they sinned. Had God not told them the consequences, I would say God does bear responsibility. However, since he warned them, * they bear the full responsibility*. They weren’t little kids; they were adults.

If someone tells me, an adult, not to stick a fork into a plugged in toaster or I run the risk of being killed, and I do it anyway, I am to blame, not the person who told me not to do it. God’s omniscience does not make him responsible.

I think we should just be glad God took pity on us and made it possible for us to be redeemed anyway, despite the deliberate disobedience of our original parents.

 

[Bradski]

God knows how my life will turn out and what choices I will make, but that does not interfere with my free will.

I haven’t said that it does. But, as you say, God knows the choices you will make. He has brought each individual into existence knowing what decisions that person will make. Knowing the results of those free will decisions.

If I ask anyone on this forum: ‘Who is responsible for us being here? Who is responsible for existence itself?’ then there is only one answer I am likely to get. If I were to be trite and ask who is responsible for the love and beauty in the world, for family and friends, for whiskers on kittens and warm woollen mittens, then I’d still get the same answer: God is responsible for all that!

But if I ask if He should bear some responsibility for Bryant, then it’s deathly silence. Everyone turns away.

 

[Bradski]

If someone tells me, an adult, not to stick a fork into a plugged in toaster or I run the risk of being killed, and I do it anyway, I am to blame, not the person who told me not to do it. God’s omniscience does not make him responsible.

I asked this before, but no-one answered:

If you were Bryant’s potential mother and you KNEW without any doubt what he would end up doing, of his own free will (you have omniscience in this matter), would you still have that son? Would you still bring him into the world knowing how much misery he would cause?

If you did, do you think that you might bear some responsibility for what happens, knowing what was going to happen?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I haven’t said that it does. But, as you say, God knows the choices you will make. He has brought each individual into existence knowing what decisions that person will make. Knowing the results of those free will decisions.

If I ask anyone on this forum: ‘Who is responsible for us being here? Who is responsible for existence itself?’ then there is only one answer I am likely to get. If I were to be trite and ask who is responsible for the love and beauty in the world, for family and friends, for whiskers on kittens and warm woollen mittens, then I’d still get the same answer: God is responsible for all that!

But if I ask if He should bear some responsibility for Bryant, then it’s deathly silence. Everyone turns away.

No, he bears no responsibility for Bryant. Bryant bears responsibility for Bryant, and Adam and Eve, the original authors of sin.

 

[Bradski]

No, he bears no responsibility for Bryant. Bryant bears responsibility for Bryant, and Adam and Eve, the original authors of sin.

What about you as the mother? Still no responsibility?