If God would know everything before he created it

[Serious]

…then there would be no reason to create those ones, who would “reject” him.

God would look at someone to be created and would say: “Joe Shmoe” would lead his life more or less in accordance with MY commandments… he would stumble a few times (since he is far from perfect), but every time he would go an confess his “missing of the mark”. As such at the end of his life I would lift him into heaven (not that he would deserve it, mind you. No one deserves heaven, no sirree! Everyone, even the most pious ones are abominable sinners… but I would exercise MY mercy and lift up Joe Schmoe for eternal bliss).

And then God would look at someone else to be created and say: “Jane Doe” would lead her life in a way, which is deviating from MY commandments, she would reject ME. She would fail to confess and would fail to beg for MY forgiveness. At the end of her life her “due reward” would be eternal torment.

And then God would pause for a moment and would say: So I will create “Joe Schmoe” directly into heaven, and simply NOT create “Jane Doe”. Why should I create poor Jane? Just so that her screams would bother me ? Naah.

Of course all that assumes that God does know everything, and that God is decent fellow… too bad that the God you believe in is not like that.

 

[LJH_80]

…then there would be no reason to create those ones, who would “reject” him.

God would look at someone to be created and would say: “Joe Shmoe” would lead his life more or less in accordance with MY commandments… he would stumble a few times (since he is far from perfect), but every time he would go an confess his “missing of the mark”. As such at the end of his life I would lift him into heaven (not that he would deserve it, mind you. No one deserves heaven, no sirree! Everyone, even the most pious ones are abominable sinners… but I would exercise MY mercy and lift up Joe Schmoe for eternal bliss).

And then God would look at someone else to be created and say: “Jane Doe” would lead her life in a way, which is deviating from MY commandments, she would reject ME. She would fail to confess and would fail to beg for MY forgiveness. At the end of her life her “due reward” would be eternal torment.

And then God would pause for a moment and would say: So I will create “Joe Schmoe” directly into heaven, and simply NOT create “Jane Doe”. Why should I create poor Jane? Just so that her screams would bother me ? Naah.

Of course all that assumes that God does know everything, and that God is decent fellow… too bad that the God you believe in is not like that.

Now you’re just trolling.
One thing I would suggest is to end your arguments one sentence earlier. If your point is strong enough an intelligent person will still get the point you’re making, but by not having the insult at the end, you maintain moral high ground.

With that said, I will address your argument, but I wanted to offer that bit of etiquette from one person who likes to argue to another.

 

[LJH_80]

The “help me with hell” thread asked about whether human souls in Heaven would feel sadness for those in hell, and the response was that God would alter us so that we no longer felt sadness about it.
Ergo, if in Heaven there is no sadness for those in hell, and God is in Heaven, those souls that go to Hell do not concern Him.
He is happy for every soul that comes to Him in Heaven, but the souls He loses are necessary sacrifices (kind of like WWI trench warfare; you throw hundreds of people against the machine guns and sure most of them die horribly, but if a few get through that still counts as a victory).

I say that callously, but the fact remains God created humanity when He didn’t need to, and He made a path by which we could return to Him in Heaven.
The absolute purpose of this is above our pay grade, in that, even if He tried to tell us, I doubt our brains have words to understand the concepts… that’s a subject for faith.
The fact that we’re here means He had a reason for creating us. The fact that He is offering us eternal salvation means that he wants us to take that path.

In anything you put your belief in, there are two baskets for you. Things that make sense, and things you just have to take on faith. I include science in that.
The thing that every human being has to decide is
1.) What is the ideal ratio between the baskets?
2.) Of all the things I know, which belief structure puts them into the baskets in the ratio I want.

I’ll grant that this is a big one for the “faith” basket, but some people are fine with that.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

First of all, your bolding and Italicizing of the words “I” and “MY” seems to imply to me that you believe God’s rules to be His, and His alone, that they somehow don’t apply to us. Is this an accurate assessment on my part? It seemed odd to me that you would bold and italicize them.

Secondly, why should God necessarily not create a person? If He only creates good people and not bad people, then what of free will? He’d essentially create only robots that must love Him, without the possibility of rejecting Him. The very nature of love is that it must be freely given (one can hardly say that a couple forced to marry each other, love each other). Love presupposes free will. And if we have free will, then we can freely choose to reject God and His Love, and thus be sent to our just punishment.

Thirdly, your ending is rather condescending. As LJH said, you could have ended it a line earlier and kept the moral high ground.

 

[WesleyF]

I don’t claim in the least to know the mind of God on this subject, but I present what I think.

God is love.

God created man to love him. God also expected man to love him in return. Love requires free will. Therefore, man had to be created with free will. Free will implies the ability to accept as well as reject God, or else it is not free will. However, that does not mean that acceptance or rejection doesn’t have consequences.

God has free will. Man’s will to disobey doesn’t take precedence over God’s will to create. If man’s will to disobey restricts God’s will to create, then God is not God. God wants to love, regardless of whether man wants to respond to his love. If man rejects God’s love, it is man’s fault, not God’s. No matter how much you love someone, if the other person doesn’t want to receive that love, then it’s not your fault, but the other person’s fault.

So God is not in the least uncaring or unfeeling about those who reject him. He loves them, but they never wanted to receive that love and respond to it.

So God’s love is not dependent on man’s response to his love. If God were to create only those who loved him in return, then God’s love would be dependent on man’s response to his love. But then God would not be God.

 

[Serious]

The “help me with hell” thread asked about whether human souls in Heaven would feel sadness for those in hell, and the response was that God would alter us so that we no longer felt sadness about it.

Obviously that response was only an unfounded opinion. (Amazing how many posters express their opinion about the nature of heave and hell as if they had some first person experience of those places.) That response simply says that God will “brainwash” those who are in heaven, wipe out their personality, and make those loving and compassionate people into into callous, “who the hell cares” type of persons. They will be happy about their own fate, and - literally - “to hell with the others”.

However, this has nothing to do with the point I was making. If God knows how anyone “would” behave, if he created them, then there is no reason to create them. The good ones could be created directly into heaven. As for the “bad” ones, he could create them into hell - directly - or simply not create them at all. Of these two options obviously only the second one is compatible with “love” or simple decency. Naturally, there is a third option: God could just brainwash everyone at the time of their death, and get everyone into heaven.

It is stated all the time, that this short existence simply “does not matter” in the greater scheme of things (especially when the problem of suffering is considered). Whether we “love” God here, or “would love” God here, if we were created is infinitesimal compared to the “eternal love” we shall feel in heaven.

 

[Serious]

Secondly, why should God necessarily not create a person? If He only creates good people and not bad people, then what of free will?

Is your “free will to do good” logically contingent upon the existence of others, who will do “evil”? In what manner is that will “free”, if it needs others? Why don’t you think first before you write such absurdity?

And you missed my point completely. There is no reason to create anyone here, if God knows how we would behave if we were created. Example: if there are two contenders for a 100 meter dash, one is an olympic champion, and the other a cripple without legs, then why put them up to actually do the race? Just give the medal to the champion, and be done with it. To have a race would be a charade.

 

[davidv]

…then there would be no reason to create those ones, who would “reject” him.
{snip}
Of course all that assumes that God does know everything, and that God is decent fellow… too bad that the God you believe in is not like that.

It is quite good that God isn’t like you think He is.

A loving father loves his childern whether the obey or not. Despite the fact that every child will disobey at some point, every father begets children anyway.

Your argument is invalid. It is a non sequituer. None of what you presented justifies your openning line.

 

[shoe]

If God did not “create those ones who would ‘reject’ him,” then Heaven would be empty of all human beings, since it was the ones who rejected Jesus that made it possible for God to forgive people their sins. Without the “rejects,” people would be without a savior and still lost in their sins. And also if God didn’t create the “rejects,” how would they ever be able to hear the word of God and repent? And just because some people reject God and are spiritually unfulfilled doesn’t necessarily make all “rejects” bad people. A few of them even have gone on to serve their fellow human beings quite admirably. Even so, the Bible says that God is “wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

 

[Serious]

If God did not “create those ones who would ‘reject’ him,” then Heaven would be empty of all human beings, since it was the ones who rejected Jesus that made it possible for God to forgive people their sins.

You mean that before Jesus there was literally no one, who lived a life that was pleasing to God? Not even Abraham, or Job, or Eliah, or the prophets? All the ones to lived before Jesus were “hell-bound”? Just because they were not in the position of accepting Jesus?

Without the “rejects,” people would be without a savior and still lost in their sins. And also if God didn’t create the “rejects,” how would they ever be able to hear the word of God and repent?

Did you actually read the OP? I made sure to point out that people are not perfect, sometimes they “miss the mark” (a.k.a sinners) but some of them will repent, and thus the make up for their “misbehavior”. Those are not the “rejects”.

And just because some people reject God and are spiritually unfulfilled doesn’t necessarily make all “rejects” bad people. A few of them even have gone on to serve their fellow human beings quite admirably.

Oh, brother. If people can be saved by works alone, then you just made the whole “faith-thing” and “worship-stuff” and belonging to the church, and going to mass, and making confessions perfectly superfluous. Not that I would disagree… but it seems that you are not toeing the party-line there.

Even so, the Bible says that God is “wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9).

None of those you mentioned above “repented”. Now they are either saved or not. If they are saved, then repentence is not necessary. If they are not saved (because they did not repent) then those people (of whom you said: “A few of them even have gone on to serve their fellow human beings quite admirably”) will suffer eternally… and that does not make God a being I would be inclined to “worship”.

 

[LJH_80]

You mean that before Jesus there was literally no one, who lived a life that was pleasing to God? Not even Abraham, or Job, or Eliah, or the prophets? All the ones to lived before Jesus were “hell-bound”? Just because they were not in the position of accepting Jesus?

Just to clarify a point of Catholic belief.
With the exception of Jesus (and possibly Mary), NOBODY lived a life pleasing to God. Not one person before or since. It is that Jesus allows us to get into Heaven anyway.

Think of Heaven as a really posh night club that God created. At the front, there is a door man with a list of people allowed to get in. The list reads: “Jesus.” and that is the end of the list. So you get to the door, and you’re not cool enough to get in. But just as you’re being turned away, Jesus pokes his head out and says, “It’s okay, he’s with me.”

 

[Serious]

Just to clarify a point of Catholic belief.

I appreciate that.

With the exception of Jesus (and possibly Mary), NOBODY lived a life pleasing to God.

Aha. So God created himself in human form, and he liked what he got. Darn. Who would have thunk it?

Not one person before or since. It is that Jesus allows us to get into Heaven anyway.

Think of Heaven as a really posh night club that God created. At the front, there is a door man with a list of people allowed to get in. The list reads: “Jesus.” and that is the end of the list.

Aha, again. So God allows himself to enter into that “nightclub”, but only himself. Sure must be lonely.

So you get to the door, and you’re not cool enough to get in. But just as you’re being turned away, Jesus pokes his head out and says, “It’s okay, he’s with me.”

So God would not allow us into heaven,since none of us “deserves” it. But then God is schizophrenic, and turns into “Jesus” and allows us to get in. And this is the catholic belief? :banghead:

 

[LJH_80]

You’re smarter than that. You’re taking an obviously metaphorical simplification literally just to be negative about it.

You can do better than this.

A Catholic teacher once said “Preach always, use words only if you have to,”
What that means is, that you should be convincing people by your example of your way’s value. You just keep on being right, and if they’re wrong, they’ll see it (or they won’t, which isn’t your problem).
But trying to put other people down makes you look petty, and nobody wants to be petty. So when they look at your snide remarks, they don’t say “Man, this guy has his stuff together, maybe I should listen to him.”
Instead they see someone so unhappy with his life that he had to come uninvited to a Catholic forum and make other people feel bad to make himself feel better. All this does is make them think that whatever you believe in (science, Islam, the FSM, or the Jedi Council) must be really a really ****** thing to believe in, if this is what you have to do to feel good.

Your point is one that has been debated many, many times over many centuries.
Socrates said that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without believing it.
If you really want clarification on the issue, then assume it’s true (for the sake of argument), and try to support it as best you can to see how it can be true. Read up on the subject and ask people here for clarification, which I’m sure they’ll be more than happy to give.
If, once you’ve taken the case for God’s design scheme as far as it can go, you are still unsatisfied, then you know it isn’t for you.

 

[Serious]

You’re smarter than that. You’re taking an obviously metaphorical simplification literally just to be negative about it.

I did not ask for metaphors. If you wish to use metaphors, that is your prerogative. If the metaphor is incorrect, don’t blame me.

Instead they see someone so unhappy with his life that he had to come uninvited to a Catholic forum and make other people feel bad to make himself feel better.

I am not responsible for other people’s thoughts. Rest assured, you probably have never met a more balanced and constantly happy person yet. I am not here to try to make myself to feel better. Actually I feel somewhat frustrated to see the unhappiness, guilt and frustration of many believers - and I feel very sorry for them.

You certainly did not sound metaphorical when you said: “With the exception of Jesus (and possibly Mary), NOBODY lived a life pleasing to God”. So is this a statement of fact, or is it a metaphor? I made a reply to “shoe”, and you took it upon yourelf to “butt in” and make a remark. That is more than welcome, everyone is appreciated to make a statement. But do not be upset if your statement is taken seriously and it is answered.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Is your “free will to do good” logically contingent upon the existence of others, who will do “evil”? In what manner is that will “free”, if it needs others? Why don’t you think first before you write such absurdity?

And you missed my point completely. There is no reason to create anyone here, if God knows how we would behave if we were created. Example: if there are two contenders for a 100 meter dash, one is an olympic champion, and the other a cripple without legs, then why put them up to actually do the race? Just give the medal to the champion, and be done with it. To have a race would be a charade.

Free will is not contingent on any other person, and I never said this. If I seemed to imply it, I apologize, as that was not my intention.

Free will is not contingent on whether there exists people who are good or people who are bad. What I am saying is that if God only creates people who follow His laws, then there is no possibility of rejecting Him, because you would only exist if you followed his will. Therefore, free will wouldn’t exist.

I fail to see your point, then. Are you saying that, by the virtue of God knowing what happens, it is absurd for him to create anyone? That, because He already knows what will happen, there is no need to create anyone, simply to send them straight to hell or heaven?

If that is your point, then you are easily disproved by the very fact that we are here, right now, existing. You cannot deny this. At the very least, you exist.

If we exist, then your point falls apart:

1. 
   *]God knows who is going to heaven and hell ahead of time.
   *]Because he knows, there is no need to create anyone, no need for anyone to exist temporally.
   *]However, we do exist.
   *]Therefore, there is a need for us to exist which is not contingent solely upon God’s knowledge of our final fate.
   
   Please let me know if I am getting your point correctly.

 

[Serious]

Free will is not contingent on any other person, and I never said this. If I seemed to imply it, I apologize, as that was not my intention.

That is what you “implied”, and in your next sentence you affirmed it.

Free will is not contingent on whether there exists people who are good or people who are bad. What I am saying is that if God only creates people who follow His laws, then there is no possibility of rejecting Him, because you would only exist if you followed his will. Therefore, free will wouldn’t exist.

You just stated exactly what you said before. Why is the “free will” illusiory (or non-existent) if only the good guys get created? They still choose God out of their own free will. Of course there is a possibility, which will never be realized. Every one of those people could reject God, but choose not to. That is free will.

I fail to see your point, then. Are you saying that, by the virtue of God knowing what happens, it is absurd for him to create anyone? That, because He already knows what will happen, there is no need to create anyone, simply to send them straight to hell or heaven?

That is exactly what I am saying. I gave you an example of a 100 meter dash between an olympic champion and a legless cripple. Why put them up to race, if you know the outcome beforehand? Just give the winning medal to the champion.

If that is your point, then you are easily disproved by the very fact that we are here, right now, existing. You cannot deny this. At the very least, you exist.

If we exist, then your point falls apart:

1. 
   *]God knows who is going to heaven and hell ahead of time.
   *]Because he knows, there is no need to create anyone, no need for anyone to exist temporally.
   *]However, we do exist.
   *]Therefore, there is a need for us to exist which is not contingent solely upon God’s knowledge of our final fate.
   
   Please let me know if I am getting your point correctly.

1. 
   What it means that God is illogical. Time and again it was asserted that the only reason for us to exist is to “test” us, and see who will “make the mark”, and who will “miss the mark”. And to conduct a test, where the person already knows how everyone will respond - is totally illogical.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

You just stated exactly what you said before. Why is the “free will” illusiory (or non-existent) if only the good guys get created? They still choose God out of their own free will. Of course there is a possibility, which will never be realized. Every one of those people could reject God, but choose not to. That is free will.

Ok, I see what you are saying, and I will amend my statements: An essential aspect of Man, by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God, is to have free will, to be able to reject God. Sorry about that.

I believe you are describing a Humanity that is not Fallen, i.e. a Humanity that has never rejected God’s will and Commandments. Such a Humanity did exist at one point, but as we have seen, Humanity did not continue on that path, and has since Fallen.

That is exactly what I am saying. I gave you an example of a 100 meter dash between an olympic champion and a legless cripple. Why put them up to race, if you know the outcome beforehand? Just give the winning medal to the champion.

If God worked by the notion of “just give the winning medal to the champion”, i.e. “just create people directly in heaven and hell”, then we wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t exist. But alas, we are here, we do indeed wholeheartedly exist. It follows then, that God does not follow the notion of “just give the winning medal to the champion”.

What it means that God is illogical. Time and again it was asserted that the only reason for us to exist is to “test” us, and see who will “make the mark”, and who will “miss the mark”. And to conduct a test, where the person already knows how everyone will respond - is totally illogical.

Illogical in what sense? In that the person doing the testing gets no meaningful data from it, because they already know the outcome? That they get nothing in return?

 

[shoe]

Oh, brother. If people can be saved by works alone, then you just made the whole “faith-thing” and “worship-stuff” and belonging to the church, and going to mass, and making confessions perfectly superfluous. Not that I would disagree… but it seems that you are not toeing the party-line there.

God has made all people in His image, including those who reject Him. And since all people are made in God’s image, and also since God has written His law upon their hearts, people, including those who reject God, have the inherent potential (to a degree) to contribute good works for the benefit of their fellow human beings: for instance, good works in such things as medicine, chemistry, engineering, etc., if they should so choose. And since God is the true definition of love, and since everyone has the capability within them to fall in love with the Savior, God doesn’t “reject” anyone - though He may be rejected. God is “wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). So, in reality, God has no reason not “to create those ones, who would ‘reject’ Him.’”

 

[Serious]

Ok, I see what you are saying, and I will amend my statements: An essential aspect of Man, by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God, is to have free will, to be able to reject God. Sorry about that.

I believe you are describing a Humanity that is not Fallen, i.e. a Humanity that has never rejected God’s will and Commandments. Such a Humanity did exist at one point, but as we have seen, Humanity did not continue on that path, and has since Fallen.

Fine. Let’s call it “not fallen”. God could have achieved this state of affairs quite easily by only creating those humans who do not “miss the mark”. The whole free will issue is fine and dandy. If God knew that Adam and Eve will “miss the mark”, then he could have chosen “Joe and Mary”. If you would say that there is NO possible “He-guy and She-gal” who would not sin, then obviously there is no “free will”, because everyone MUST commit a evil act. However if, there is free will, then there is at least one “He-boy and She-girl” who would not sin.

If God worked by the notion of “just give the winning medal to the champion”, i.e. “just create people directly in heaven and hell”, then we wouldn’t be here, we wouldn’t exist.

It depends into which camp we shall eventually belong. Maybe we would not be here, but then we would not miss it. But who would miss the rapists, the murderers, the torturers? It is very ironic that I have seen many conversations in every one it was the members of the believer’s camp who argued for the existence of “rapists, murderers and torturers”. Very sick ans twisted, in my opinion.

Illogical in what sense? In that the person doing the testing gets no meaningful data from it, because they already know the outcome? That they get nothing in return?

In the sense that the one who is giving the test does not get anything out of it - since he already knows the result. The ones who perform the test do not profit from it either. If they pass it, they get to heaven (as the tester already knows) and if they miss it, there is no second chance… so, again, there is no point of conducting this charade of “testing”.

 

[Serious]

God has made all people in His image, including those who reject Him. And since all people are made in God’s image, and also since God has written His law upon their hearts, people, including those who reject God, have the inherent potential (to a degree) to contribute good works for the benefit of their fellow human beings: for instance, good works in such things as medicine, chemistry, engineering, etc., if they should so choose.

That is totally irrelvant. Are those “works” enough to get admittance to heaven?

And since God is the true definition of love, and since everyone has the capability within them to fall in love with the Savior, God doesn’t “reject” anyone - though He may be rejected. God is “wanting nobody to be lost and everybody to be brought to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). So, in reality, God has no reason not “to create those ones, who would ‘reject’ Him.’”

What is the point? He knows if someone will eventually repent, and who will not. Not creating someone who will be tortured eternally would be a true sign of love.