I am baffled, please explain

[Lion_IRC]

…Also you can read the bible, where it says (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations”.

Of course if you wish to deny the dogmas and the bible, that is perfectly fine by me.

That’s the verse I was going to offer to PRmerger for consideration.

If God sets His mind to it, of course He can describe in perfect detail something as yet uncreated.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

A bizarre question and conclusion considering that my post deals with the implications of a hypothetical paradise on earth.

Actually you DISCARDED the value of all hypotheticals. Go back and check your own post.

It amounts to precisely that because if our ancestors didn’t sin they would have been different persons and we wouldn’t exist.

So what? Others would exist instead of us.

If we exist by chance our lives are valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

Please speak about yourself only.

Which confirms the fact I have just pointed out.

It was a JOKE on the males, who are reluctant to ask for directions. A JOKE! But the reality is the same. The frenetic run of the sperms results in one of them reaching the ovum, and all the others are “losers”. A beautiful, biological example of getting a random DNA, a random genetic makeup, a random starting point, a random “WE”.

In a universe ruled by chance good and evil are merely human conventions. Remember that you believe we have no right to exist and so murder is not a crime, just a legal fiction to deter people from killing one another.

Indeed. And a pretty good convention it is.

Regardless of good or evil you believe the suffering in the world outweighs the value of life. Otherwise you wouldn’t choose a hypothetical world where no one sinned and none of the human race would exist. There are no half-measures. Either you accept this world with all its disadvantages or you reject it in favour of your ideal world without the blood-stained history of mankind.

Oh, yes, there are half-measures. Certain things in this life are good, others are bad. Pointing out the bad and showing how they could be eliminated does not amount to “death wish”. And, please do not attempt to declare what I “believe”. You are not in the position to do that, and what you surmise is totally wrong.

A side note. I observed that you love the smiley. I wonder, do you know what that hand signal meant in the arena?

 

[Aloysium]

. . .If God sets His mind to it, of course He can describe in perfect detail something as yet uncreated.

Since people don’t read, or ignore, or don’t understand, or simply disagree but don’t respond to my posts, here it is again:

. . . God knows who we can be; he also knows who we become. These are not always identical.

He has knowledge of what could be in addition to everything else within the totality of all creation in all time. There is nothing uncreated for God. He is the Creator, within everything and beyond everything.

 

[Lion_IRC]

We have free will.
We can choose to love:

• to will the good for the other
• to not will evil on the other
  and act accordingly.
  We can love or hate.

Creating us in His image, God created beings who are gods.
We have the choice of being gods with or without God, with or without love.
To follow a path of hate or indifference, requires a disconnect from God.
God is Life, Beauty, Joy, Goodness and Truth.
Without God one will fall into emptiness, misery, evil and lies.

God gives us a choice, and we choose freely: to love or not.
Regardless of our choices, there remains is a way out.
We are saved and redeemed through Jesus Christ, the sacrificial Lamb.

God knows who we can be;
he also knows who we become.
These are not always identical.

I read this post - it’s beautifully written. Loved it!
Sorry I didn’t say so at the time.

 

[tonyrey]

A bizarre question and conclusion considering that my post deals with the implications of a hypothetical paradise on earth.

Not all! “logical possibilities are worthless in the face of reality” = “logical possibilities with regard to the topic (such as a sin-free world) are worthless in the face of reality”. Does everything have to be spelled out as "with regard to the topic"?

It amounts to precisely that because if our ancestors didn’t sin they would have been different persons and we wouldn’t exist.

So what? Others would exist instead of us.

The death wish returns!

If we exist by chance our lives are valueless, purposeless and meaningless.

Please speak about yourself only.

Chance events and results are valueless, purposeless and meaningless **as far as everyone is concerned **unless it can be explained how they have produced rational beings.

Which confirms the fact I have just pointed out.

It was a JOKE on the males, who are reluctant to ask for directions. A JOKE! But the reality is the same. The frenetic run of the sperms results in one of them reaching the ovum, and all the others are “losers”. A beautiful, biological example of getting a random DNA, a random genetic makeup, a random starting point, a random “WE”.

Which again confirms the fact I have just pointed out.

In a universe ruled by chance good and evil are merely human conventions. Remember that you believe we have no right to exist and so murder is not a crime, just a legal fiction to deter people from killing one another.

Indeed. And a pretty good convention it is.

You are begging the question very neatly. According to you “a pretty good convention = a pretty conventional convention”!

Regardless of good or evil you believe the suffering in the world outweighs the value of life. Otherwise you wouldn’t choose a hypothetical world where no one sinned and none of the human race would exist. There are no half-measures. Either you accept this world with all its disadvantages or you reject it in favour of your ideal world without the blood-stained history of mankind.

Oh, yes, there are half-measures. Certain things in this life are good, others are bad.

= “Certain things in this life are conventional, others are conventional”!

Pointing out the bad and showing how they could be eliminated does not amount to “death wish”.

= "Pointing out the conventional and showing how they could be eliminated does not amount to “death wish”…

And, please do not attempt to declare what I “believe”. You are not in the position to do that, and what you surmise is totally wrong.

1. Do you believe the suffering in the world outweighs the value of life?
2. Do you prefer a hypothetical world where no one has sinned?
3. Would those persons be **the same persons **as the persons who have lived on this earth?

A side note. I observed that you love the smiley. I wonder, do you know what that hand signal meant in the arena?

Well done!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Not all! “logical possibilities are worthless in the face of reality” = “logical possibilities with regard to the topic (such as a sin-free world) are worthless in the face of reality”. Does everything have to be spelled out as "with regard to the topic"?

To be clear is certainly a good idea. Besides, why would it be “worthless”? Just because it does not happen?

The death wish returns!

My friend, I do NOT wish it, I am simply pointing out the reality. If a different sperm would have reached your mother’s ovum, the resulting person would not be “you”, it would be someone different… maybe not even a male, but a female. Who knows? Who cares?

Chance events and results are valueless, purposeless and meaningless **as far as everyone is concerned **unless it can be explained how they have produced rational beings.

A totally different subject.

1. Do you believe the suffering in the world outweighs the value of life?

For some it may, for others it may not.

1. Do you prefer a hypothetical world where no one has sinned?

Of course.

1. Would those persons be **the same persons **as the persons who have lived on this earth?

Of course NOT. Who cares?

Well done!

Not even remotely. Hardly anyone know this any more, but the finger raised used to mean: “raise your sword and kill the other”, while the thumb pointing down meant “lower your sword, and spare his life”. Pretty useless knowledge, but it is still fun to know.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

1. Do you prefer a hypothetical world where no one has sinned?

My answer to this one needs to be clarified, and amended. Since “sin” is a religious concept and seriously “underdefined”, my unambiguous “of course” was hasty. I do not accept the concept of “sin”.

However, I would prefer a world without violence, filled with goodwill and freedom, a world where people do not wish to hurt others, a world where people would be free to do anything and everything as long as it did not hurt others. What the heck… you can call it “utopia” and scorn at the idea.

 

[PRmerger]

I would be interested to hear what PRmerger thinks of this.
Surely it would be classified as a “deficit” if God had no knowledge or control over that kind of future event.

Over what kind of future event?

 

[Lion_IRC]

A future creation event.

 

[PRmerger]

A future creation event.

There is no future for God.

There is only the Eternal Now.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree with both of you, but the church does not.

Oh. Dear. Lord.

We’re back to your misunderstanding about foreknowledge and counterfactuals? Really? REALLY?!?!?

1. God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
2. God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
3. God’s knowledge is subsistent
4. God’s knowledge is comprehensive

Yep. He knows everything that was, everything that is, and everything that ‘will be’.

1. God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)

Right. And counterfactuals are not ‘merely possible’, no matter how much you wave your hands and try to convince us that the Church is saying otherwise.

1. God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! All. Real. Things.

1. By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
2. God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)

Again: winner, winner, chicken dinner! Since He is outside of time, God sees actual acts, even those that are conditioned on other actual acts!

Also you can read the bible, where it says (Jeremiah 1:5): “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations”.

Here’s where I wanna ask you to take a deep breath before you answer… ready? God knows everything that happens, even stuff that (for us) looks like ‘before’ or ‘after’. To God, nothing is ‘before’ or ‘after’ – it’s all now. So… before you were (actually, not counterfactually) formed – that is, timelessly (from God’s perspective) but ‘before’ the time (from a human perspective) – God knew that there would be a time during which you would be formed. He knew you before any other human being knew you. No counterfactual – just reality, in the eternal now in which God exists.

Of course if you wish to deny the dogmas and the bible, that is perfectly fine by me.

:hypno:

Well, I’ll give you one thing: at least you’re consistent. Logical… not so much. Consistent? In spades…

 

[Gorgias]

A “gift” that no one asked for.

Psst… if you ask for it, it’s not a gift. Not everything simply ‘given’ is a ‘gift’ (especially things given in response to a request/demand). In our present-day consumer society, replete with ‘wish lists’, we tend to forget that.

 

[tonyrey]

Not all! “logical possibilities are worthless in the face of reality” = “logical possibilities with regard to the topic (such as a sin-free world) are worthless in the face of reality”. Does everything have to be spelled out as “with regard to the topic”?

To nitpick is certainly a good distraction. Conventions aren’t convincing where criminals are concerned…

Besides, why would it be “worthless”? Just because it does not happen?

The truth is not only stranger but also stronger than fiction.

The death wish returns!

My friend, I do NOT wish it, I am simply pointing out the reality. If a different sperm would have reached your mother’s ovum, the resulting person would not be “you”, it would be someone different… maybe not even a male, but a female. Who knows? Who cares?

If you do not care whether anyone exists the death wish is still lurking…

Chance events and results are valueless, purposeless and meaningless as far as everyone is concerned unless it can be explained how they have produced rational beings.

A totally different subject.

An evasion of a fact which destroys the credibility of everyone’s claim to be rational. Mindless molecules are an inadequate source of insight.

1. Do you believe the suffering in the world outweighs the value of life?

For some it may, for others it may not.

Do you believe the sum total of suffering in the world outweighs the value of life on this planet?

1. Do you prefer a hypothetical world where no one has sinned?

Of course.

Your death wish for the entire human race seems paramount…

1. Would those persons be the same persons as the persons who have lived on this earth?

Of course NOT. Who cares?

Your death wish for everyone who has lived on this planet seems ineradicable…

Well done!

Not even remotely. Hardly anyone know this any more, but the finger raised used to mean: “raise your sword and kill the other”, while the thumb pointing down meant “lower your sword, and spare his life”. Pretty useless knowledge, but it is still fun to know.

Like a hypothetical Utopia! Wishful thinking is entertaining but unavailing if it offers no practical solutions to the problems of suffering and injustice in this world.

 

[tonyrey]

. Do you prefer a hypothetical world where no one has sinned?

This response is much more reasonable and promising. !!

You do not really reject the world but the world as it is. On that we are all agreed - in theory if not in practice. It is within our power to reduce the man-made misery in the world even if we can’t eliminate it completely just as we have found solutions to much of the natural evil in the world. Our views are not so different after all…

 

[tonyrey]

I would be interested to hear what PRmerger thinks of this.
Surely it would be classified as a “deficit” if God had no knowledge or control over that kind of future event.

It is not a “deficit” when there is nothing to be known! Our bodies are created in time and space but our minds and souls are created in eternity. Either **we **exist or we don’t exist! A non-existent person “never” exists because the time factor is irrelevant. From God’s point of view it is a case of all or nothing but that doesn’t rule out spiritual activity. Love is not static but dynamic. God doesn’t change but He causes change: “In Him we live, move and have our being”.

And there, I believe, we reach the limits of our understanding of the divine nature. It seems reasonable that our development continues in heaven but - to state the obvious - uncreated persons do not have that opportunity. As Lear said, nothing shall come from nothing. Everything that has existed, exists and will exist (from our point of view) is in God’s mind. In that sense everything is eternal and so is nothing. There are no intermediate stages: there is no deficit!

 

[PumpkinCookie]

It is impossible to know anything about nothing! A non-existent creature is unknowable.

Have you ever read any Peter Van Inwagen? He is a philosopher who has a robust theory of the knowledge of “non-existent” creatures and is also a Catholic. There is an extensive literature in the philosophy of language discussing this knowledge. If God is omniscient, I think he must have this kind of knowledge, since we ourselves have it, and God is far above us.

 

[DCNBILL]

I would be interested to hear what PRmerger thinks of this.
Surely it would be classified as a “deficit” if God had no knowledge or control over that kind of future event.

Existing outside of time, God has no future event, all of creation from its beginning to its end is before Him, eternally. He has all of eternity to dwell on all of creation.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Further, why are we so eager to reject Molinism? It seems to be the only way to reconcile free will and God’s omniscience, in my opinion. To those who assert that Molinism is false, please justify the following belief:

“God is ignorant of counterfactuals.”

By intuition, it would seem that God would know what A would do in situation B whether or not A or B are real in the sense that they have ever or will ever exist. Why is this not the case?

Also, doesn’t the dogma of the immaculate conception imply Molinism? God knew that Mary would say yes, and that is how he was able to preemptively grant her a “singular grace” derived from the merit of her son’s sacrificial act before the fact. He had to have known that she would say yes or else he wouldn’t have been able to know whether or not to give her the necessary grace to have been conceived without any stain of original sin. If you say this knowledge isn’t counterfactual since both events actually happened, then how can it be said that Mary’s “yes” proceeds from her free will rather than God’s overwhelming grace obliterating her free will? For Mary to have had free will, she must have had the ability to say “no” instead of “yes.” That seems the most basic essence of “free will.” Consider then, could Mary have said “no?” Impossible! Because, then the grace that had been applied to her (at the moment of her conception) on account of the sacrificial death of her son would have made no sense, since her son would have never been born since she said “no.” God would not have been able to apply that grace to her at the moment of her conception because Jesus would never have existed, or at least would not have been her son. If God does not have middle knowledge, how would he have known what Mary would do without forcing her to say “yes” if an essential fact of her existence (sinless-ness) is predicated upon her free choice and she is not a necessary being?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

We’re back to your misunderstanding about foreknowledge and counterfactuals? Really?

The point is that God is supposed to know whatever:

1. happened in the past,
2. happens in the present,
3. will happen in the future, AND
4. whatever could have happened in the past (but never did),
5. could happen in the present (but never does), or
6. could happen in the future (but never will).

If you don’t wish to call this “counterfactual”, present a better word for it.

The basic point is still this: God’s omniscience allows him to “preview” the actions of Joe (if Joe is actually created) and make a choice whether he will create Joe, or not. And if he creates Joe, then God is indirectly responsible for all actions of Joe. Mind you, Joe still acts voluntarily, his free will is not impaired, and he is personally and directly responsible for his actions. But God carries the direct responsibility for creating Joe. Just like the owner and trainer of vicious attacking dog is directly responsible for training that dog AND letting it roam free, but only indirectly responsible for the actual harm that dog would produce.

Psst… if you ask for it, it’s not a gift. Not everything simply ‘given’ is a ‘gift’ (especially things given in response to a request/demand). In our present-day consumer society, replete with ‘wish lists’, we tend to forget that.

If you ask for it, and receive it, it is STLL a gift (or a present), but it is not a SURPRISE any more. And if the presenter of a gift (which is not asked for) is a reasonable and decent fellow, then he will NOT get offended if that “gift” is rejected, and does NOT force the recipient to accept and keep that gift. He can just offer a different “gift”, or not offer a gift any more.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If God is omniscient, I think he must have this kind of knowledge, since we ourselves have it, and God is far above us.

I suspect slugs say something very similar about us and slime.

Their line of reasoning would hold, according to you.

God must have at least ten toes and two hands since we ourselves have them and God is far above us – okay he has an infinite number of toes and hands, then.