I am baffled, please explain

[PRmerger]

Pallas Athene,

Do you think it mandatory that God must know everything in advance?

Surely an omnipotent being can afford to let things play out according to true random, spontaneous free will, safe in the knowledge that whatever happens, nothing will ever get out of control.

Sure, God could draw from His (omnipotent) ability to know anything He wanted, whenever He wanted, but why does God need to know in advance what Adam and Eve (and satan) will choose?

This is not a Catholic articulation.

 

[Aloysium]

:twocents:

If God does not know something, it does not, never has and never will (relative to where we are at this moment in time), exist. He knows everything in time as its eternal Creator.

That said, he does not know ontologically before (I can’t say this any better - hopefully the reader gets the gist of what I mean) a person is created, what that person will make of him/herself. That is why He is with us in every moment guiding us. That is why He established His church, so that we may know Him and do His will, which is to join with Him in loving one another.

I become ever more convinced that one cannot understand God outside a relationship with Him. This is all a collection of ideas and beliefs at that point, most of which don’t make much sense because the nonbeliever lacks the reality to which he can peg them.

 

[tonyrey]

So they accept the fact that they exist. Knowing they exist is not a choice they make. It never enters their mind.

OK, was there a point you needed to make? Because I can’t see we’re in disagreement here.

The point is that not all our beliefs are the result of a conscious choice or decision and they don’t always have a reason.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

One can express disagreement in a civilized fashion. For example, using reason and logic and pointing out where the error was in the argument. In these 70 pages worth of posts there was not one, which would have pointed out an error in the OP’s argument. No one could refute the logic of it.

Are you joking? Attempting to be satiric? I will admit, I often don’t “get” satire on the first go-round.

PLENTY of people have refuted your original post (and many others). You have just closed your mind to their refutations and have chosen to remain, as you said, “baffled.” And your choice to reject God and remain baffled is yours to make.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

:twocents:

If God does not know something, it does not, never has and never will (relative to where we are at this moment in time), exist. He knows everything in time as its eternal Creator.

That said, he does not know ontologically before (I can’t say this any better - hopefully the reader gets the gist of what I mean) a person is created, what that person will make of him/herself. That is why He is with us in every moment guiding us. That is why He established His church, so that we may know Him and do His will, which is to join with Him in loving one another.

I become ever more convinced that one cannot understand God outside a relationship with Him. This is all a collection of ideas and beliefs at that point, most of which don’t make much sense because the nonbeliever lacks the reality to which he can peg them.

God lives in timelessness; therefore, there is no “before” with him. He knows what people will end up doing prior to their earthly birth, the choices they will make.

I agree with you that one needs a personal relationship with God, primarily with Christ, but no matter how deep and intimate that relationship, no one can understand God completely because he is the Creator, we are the creations.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is the meaning of the word “omniscience”, or “all knowing”. Knowledge is not something that can be volitionally turned on and off. There is the dogma about God’s simplicity: “God has no parts, his essence entails his knowledge”.

Perhaps “knowledge is not something that can be volitionally turned on and off,” but there is a radical difference between the kind of knowledge that human beings possess and the kind of knowledge that the omniscient Ground of Being possesses.

For human beings what is believed to be “known” may in fact be false. What sense does it make to say a falsehood is “known?” It can’t actually be known BECAUSE it is false, yet it is believed by those of us in a position to “know” falsehoods as though they were true.

God does not “know” untruths because his knowledge of what is is the same as what is. That means untruths do not exist to the extent that they are untrue. God’s simplicity entails that his knowledge is identical to his will which means his Being, knowledge and volition together preclude anything false from being anything whatsoever.

Things exist to the extent that they are true and are true to the extent that they exist. God’s not knowing something makes it, de facto, a negation of being AND a negation of truth, i.e., non-existent.

It is our false knowledge that makes false things appear to signify something existent when, in fact, it isn’t.

 

[Bradski]

The point is that not all our beliefs are the result of a conscious choice or decision and they don’t always have a reason.

Close, but no cigar. None of our beliefs are conscious decisions.

If someone says they believe something, then simply ask them: Why?

One of two things will happen.

1. They will give a reason. That is, they will give some information about their belief which they will tell you they have accepted. Accepting that information has therefore created a belief. otherwise you would have the nonsensical position of someone stating a belief without having considered the information (a little hint there as to why people seem to want to argue against this).

Obviously (and this point is yet to be accepted by Peter), if you reject information, if you, for whatever reason whatsoever, decide that it is not true, then you will not believe. Otherwise you will have the nonsensical position of someone saying that they accept the information as being true but do not believe it. I know, sounds ridiculous, but we’ve already had an example of that.

In passing, the strength of our beliefs is in direct proportion to how much store we place on the veracity of the information we are given. If the information is very convincing to us (whether it is true or not), then our belief will be equally stirog. And vice versa.

1. They will say they have no reason. Yeah, I know. But it happens. In this case, ask them what they know about their belief (they have to have some information - you can’t have a belief about something which you know nothing about). When they give you that information, ask them if they accept it or reject it. They cannot have rejected it (see above), so they must have accepted it, for whatever reason.

They may not be able to articulate their reason (I think their original answer has shown them not to be the sharpest tool in the box), but they will have one. Even if it’s: ‘It just sounds right’. As I said, the reason why we accept or reject information is irrelevant. It’s the fact that we do, for whatever reason, however justified, is the point.

 

[PRmerger]

Close, but no cigar. None of our beliefs are conscious decisions.

If someone says they believe something, then simply ask them: Why?

One of two things will happen.

1. They will give a reason. That is, they will give some information about their belief which they will tell you they have accepted. Accepting that information has therefore created a belief. otherwise you would have the nonsensical position of someone stating a belief without having considered the information (a little hint there as to why people seem to want to argue against this).

Obviously (and this point is yet to be accepted by Peter), if you reject information, if you, for whatever reason whatsoever, decide that it is not true, then you will not believe. Otherwise you will have the nonsensical position of someone saying that they accept the information as being true but do not believe it. I know, sounds ridiculous, but we’ve already had an example of that.

In passing, the strength of our beliefs is in direct proportion to how much store we place on the veracity of the information we are given. If the information is very convincing to us (whether it is true or not), then our belief will be equally stirog. And vice versa.

1. They will say they have no reason. Yeah, I know. But it happens. In this case, ask them what they know about their belief (they have to have some information - you can’t have a belief about something which you know nothing about). When they give you that information, ask them if they accept it or reject it. They cannot have rejected it (see above), so they must have accepted it, for whatever reason.

They may not be able to articulate their reason (I think their original answer has shown them not to be the sharpest tool in the box), but they will have one. Even if it’s: ‘It just sounds right’. As I said, the reason why we accept or reject information is irrelevant. It’s the fact that we do, for whatever reason, however justified, is the point.

This whole discussion is an absurdity. Arguing, as it were, whether the chicken or the egg came first.

People believe things because they have reason to.

On that we are agreed?



'Nuff said.

 

[Bradski]

People believe things because they have reason to.

On that we are agreed?

Of course. Completely agree. And I’m not sure why some are arguing against it.

To repeat: People believe things BECAUSE they have a reason to do so. You can’t believe something WITHOUT having a reason. You NEED a reason.

You have information which you accept, therefore you have a reason to believe it. This is true, therefore I believe it. This is false, therefore I do not.

There is an order to this. You get information, you accept or reject it, you therefore believe it or not. No chicken and egg. That’s the way it works. You cannot take one aspect out or change the order.

You can’t believe something without having some information about that something. You cannot accept or reject something without having some information about it in the first instance. So you need the information first.

Once you have it, you cannot believe or disbelieve it without accepting or rejecting the information. So that has to happen second.

You then believe or not depending on your acceptance or rejection of that information.

beleif is not a choice. Your only choice is to accept or reject information.

 

[Smfm]

I once asked one of my theology professors, “Why the Cross?” Why did Jesus have to suffer so when God could have simply forgiven humankind and given it another chance? After all, God can do anything he wants.

My theology professor said the Cross was primarily to show us God’s great love for us - and I’m speaking of the entire Trinity - Father (who would allow his Son to go through that), Son (who would go through it), and Holy Spirit (who dwells in our hearts when we invite him in). God could have simply said, “Well, I’ll forgive Adam and Eve, they’ve learned their lesson.” But that wouldn’t be showing his great love for us. It wouldn’t resonate with us the way the Cross does. The great Paschal Mystery has given us so much, more than simply redeeming us from the sin of our original parents.

I agree with DelsonJacobs. I don’t think the Catholic Church has ever allowed a literal interpretation of the Genesis story, and the Jewish people I know do not interpret it literally, either.

It was God that died on the cross for us.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course. Completely agree. And I’m not sure why some are arguing against it.

To repeat: People believe things BECAUSE they have a reason to do so. You can’t believe something WITHOUT having a reason. You NEED a reason.

You have information which you accept, therefore you have a reason to believe it. This is true, therefore I believe it. This is false, therefore I do not.

Well, no, this is not quite what you argued.

You argued that people accept things BECAUSE they believe them to be true.

Having a “reason” is not the same as believing something to be true.

People “accept” things for lots of different reasons, one MIGHT be because of the truth value of the thing accepted, but other “reasons” include for convenience, for profit, for pleasure, for vengeance or spite, from hatred, from inordinate love, for jealousy, etc., etc., and much of what is accepted for those reasons may, indeed, be FALSE.

You keep trying to slip by the FALSE claim that the meaning of “accept” is identical to “believe to be true,” which is far from being the case.

Why you won’t accept the distinction is beyond me, but surely you must realize that people do accept much of what they do for many more reasons than discerned truth value.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course. Completely agree. And I’m not sure why some are arguing against it.

To repeat: People believe things BECAUSE they have a reason to do so. You can’t believe something WITHOUT having a reason. You NEED a reason.

Yep.

No one here has posited anything contrary to that, Brad.

Everyone here has been arguing that folks believe based on the use of their reason and intellect.

 

[Bradski]

Well, no, this is not quite what you argued. You argued that people accept things BECAUSE they believe them to be true. Having a “reason” is not the same as believing something to be true.

Oh, good Lord…how exasperating is this…

Accepting something to be true IS the reason for believing it. I specifically said so:

You have information which you accept, therefore you have a reason to believe it.

The reasons why you accept (or reject) something to be true are many and varied. You list a few below. But he reason why you believe something is because you have accepted it is true.

People “accept” things for lots of different reasons, one MIGHT be because of the truth value of the thing accepted, but other “reasons” include for convenience, for profit, for pleasure, for vengeance or spite, from hatred, from inordinate love, for jealousy, etc., etc., and much of what is accepted for those reasons may, indeed, be FALSE.

How many times have I said the same thing…

The reasons why people reject information is IRRELEVANT (remember me saying that?). Whether they are correct or not is IRRELEVANT (you probably remember that as well). So if their reasons for accepting something include convenience, profit, spite etc, that is (here comes that word again) IRRELEVANT.

The fact that they have accepted the information (for whatever reason, as I have repeatedly said), therefore leads to their belief (or not, as the case may be).

To say that someone decides to believe something out of spite or for profit is laughable in the extreme. If someone admits as much to you, then do you think - each to his own. Or do you think, as anyone would - my God, this guy is an idiot.

You keep trying to slip by the FALSE claim that the meaning of “accept” is identical to “believe to be true,” which is far from being the case.

I have spent I don’t know how many posts trying to explain to you that accepting something is true THEREFORE leads to having a belief. The one, as I have pointed out in every post, FOLLOWS the other. I have explained that there are three separate aspects and that NEITHER of them can be excluded. And now you want to say that I am saying that they are exactly the same?

 

[Bradski]

Everyone here has been arguing that folks believe based on the use of their reason and intellect.

So you cannot choose to believe something that runs counter to your reason and intellect. You cannot say: ‘My reason tells me this is wrong, but I will choose to believe it anyway’.

Your reason may actually be wrong. It may be clouded by, as Peter says, spite, profit, love etc but that is irrelevant. If your reason says something is true, then you will therefore believe it.

You have no choice.

 

[PRmerger]

So you cannot choose to believe something that runs counter to your reason and intellect. You cannot say: ‘My reason tells me this is wrong, but I will choose to believe it anyway’.

Your reason may actually be wrong. It may be clouded by, as Peter says, spite, profit, love etc but that is irrelevant. If your reason says something is true, then you will therefore believe it.

You have no choice.

Of course you can.

Have you heard of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? His reason and intellect told him that he couldn’t possibly be dressed in finery.

But he chose to believe anyway.

Even if he was buck nekkid.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Pallas Athene,

Do you think it mandatory that God must know everything in advance?

Surely an omnipotent being can afford to let things play out according to true random, spontaneous free will, safe in the knowledge that whatever happens, nothing will ever get out of control.

Sure, God could draw from His (omnipotent) ability to know anything He wanted, whenever He wanted, but why does God need to know in advance what Adam and Eve (and satan) will choose?

By the way, you are mistaken about Genesis. God does not chase away from His presence or abandon Adam and Eve. He punishes them but He stays with them and remains active in their marriage and growing family.

This is not a Catholic articulation.

Well, the doctrine of omniscience is hardly a slam dunk without tons of grey areas.

I argue that the “ability” to selectively know - at will - comes within the ambit of omnipotence. Surely God can do what any human can and be wilfully ignorant or indifferent to something as He sees fit.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, the doctrine of omniscience is hardly a slam dunk without tons of grey areas.

There’s lots of room for discussion regarding omniscience, sure.

I argue that the “ability” to selectively know - at will - comes within the ambit of omnipotence. Surely God can do what any human can and be wilfully ignorant or indifferent to something as He sees fit.

Absolutely not.

God not knowing would be a deficit in his knowledge. As such, it would be impossible for God to be “willfully ignorant”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, the doctrine of omniscience is hardly a slam dunk without tons of grey areas.

I argue that the “ability” to selectively know - at will - comes within the ambit of omnipotence. Surely God can do what any human can and be wilfully ignorant or indifferent to something as He sees fit.

Well, no. He can’t be “willfully ignorant” to what is, because God is the ground of what is. Ontologically, being takes precedence to any understanding of truth, as far as any knowers besides God are concerned, because truth is a representation of what is – recall Aristotle’s definition of what the truth is. That is, excepting where God is concerned because God’s omniscience is identical to his Being which is identical to his omnipotence. The Divine Simplicity entails the ontological Identity of God’s Knowledge, Power, Goodness and Being.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Oh, good Lord…how exasperating is this…

Accepting something to be true IS the reason for believing it. I specifically said so:

Nope, accepting something to be true is A REASON for believing it, but humans accept a plethora of notions for a number of reasons where the truth of what is accepted is simply ignored or doesn’t enter into the equation at all.

Some will even stare blankly at you when you point out where the truth resides and, then, go their merry way believing whatever they choose BECAUSE they choose it. Recall Pilate’s: “What is truth?”

Some do not even recognize that “truth” is or needs to be a feature of belief.

“I’ll believe what I want, thank you very much!” they’ll insist even when they have been indisputably shown the truth.

Our discussion at this moment is a prime example. We both can’t be correct, now can we?

Obviously, you can’t be correct because your account doesn’t explain the fact that I am not accepting your view on the matter, if it is true.

However, my account explains both the fact that you accept only true propositions, but I accept whatever I choose . Ergo, my view accounts for both our positions, but yours cannot account for mine. You MUST, therefore be wrong on the matter

 

[Bradski]

Of course you can.

Have you heard of the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? His reason and intellect told him that he couldn’t possibly be dressed in finery.

But he chose to believe anyway.

Even if he was buck nekkid.

He was told he was dressed in fine clothes. His intellect should have told him that he wasn’t. Peter gave a few reasons why intellect and reason are overridden. Pride, jealousy, greed etc. In this case it was vanity that overrode his intellect.

He didn’t choose to believe, rather his vanity made him accept what he had been told (as opposed to the reality of the situation). Therefore, he believed.

It’s an excellent example of what I’ve been saying these last dozen or so posts. Nobody chooses to believe that which they have rejected as untrue.