If God would know everything before he created it

[Odell]

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”.

Whoever God delivers from condemnation, He delivers in His mercy, and whoever God leaves in condemnation, He leaves in His justice.

Also God made the universe best as a whole. He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another. Thomas Aquinas

In order for God to achieve as much good as possible; He must do so by a diversity of created goodness, for if God created all things with the same grade of goodness, He would not be communicating His goodness to the greatest extent. For example, the existence of one type of flower is good, but the existence of many types is a greater good. Further, the diversity of colors in roses, for example (red, pink, white, yellow), is a greater good than if roses were only red. Also if God did not permit things to fail in their goodness-—to manifest His goodness to the greatest extent possible. If God did not permit those to fall much good would not exist.

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

What merit is there in recieving a metal when there is no race?

You know what happened to Adam and Eve when they were just given the metal? They had no appreciation of the metal.

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.

And here lies the problem in your position. We are not created as some grand test. As I stated above we are created to manifest Gods love and goodness to the greates possible extent. Through the diversity of goodness, the perfection of the universe is achieved.

 

[Odell]

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.

Creating all red roses would be a true sign of love?

For God to to manifest His goodness to the greatest extent He wills to manifest both His mercy and His justice (and not His mercy alone)

If God were merciful only, He would not communicate the good of His justice, for both mercy and justice are good.

This is why Aqunas can say that creating and alowing creatures to fall is that it “must be sought for the goodness of God.”

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

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.

Forgive me, but I believe am having a little trouble understanding your arguments.

I still think you are missing the point: If God only made those people who followed his will, then they are not human, because they do not possess free will, because they can only follow God’s will. If you don’t (to God’s infinite knowledge) follow God’s law, you are not created. Hence, those that are created can ONLY follow God’s law. Then, they do not have free will, and hence, are not human.

So yes, while free will does not depend on whether there are good or bad people, it MUST depend on there being a possibility of choosing wrong. If there is no possibility of you choosing wrong, then your choice is not free. And if your will is barred from the possibility of choosing incorrectly, then neither is your will free.

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.

No it doesn’t. If God worked on the notion of “Just give the winning man the medal”, then we would be sent straight to heaven and hell. It doesn’t matter “which camp we shall eventually belong.” But we aren’t in heaven and hell. Hence, God doesn’t work based that notion.

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”.

So what you are saying is that the “tests” to God are, essentially, meaningless?

If this is the case, then your objection is easily falsified. Simply put, God does not do what is meaningless, even if it is in His power to do it. Could God create a square circle or a rock so big that even he cannot lift it? Yes. Would it mean anything? No, it is simply a meaningless contradiction of words. And as C.S. Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can’” Hence, God doesn’t do it.

1. 
   *]God doesn’t do what is meaningless
   *]God creates us to “test” us
   *]These “tests” are meaningless
   *]If they are meaningless, then God either doesn’t create us (and we don’t exist), or he does it for some other reason than to “test” us.
   *]But we do exist.
   *]Hence, God creates us for some other reason
   
   A Christian would say that God created us out of His Love.
   
   Sir, I fail to see what your central objection is against God. Perhaps I am simply missing your point, or perhaps you aren’t presenting it concisely enough. Perhaps you can spell it out for me.

 

[Serious]

Whoever God delivers from condemnation, He delivers in His mercy, and whoever God leaves in condemnation, He leaves in His justice.

I heard that before. Mercy and justice are contradictory. God - in your view - is just another married bachelor. It is possible that God is sometimes merciful and sometimes just. I called that arbitrary. It is impossible that God is BOTH merciful AND just at the same time.

Also God made the universe best as a whole. He did not make each single creature best, but one better than another. Thomas Aquinas

Who cares what Aquinas says?

In order for God to achieve as much good as possible; He must do so by a diversity of created goodness, for if God created all things with the same grade of goodness, He would not be communicating His goodness to the greatest extent. For example, the existence of one type of flower is good, but the existence of many types is a greater good. Further, the diversity of colors in roses, for example (red, pink, white, yellow), is a greater good than if roses were only red. Also if God did not permit things to fail in their goodness-—to manifest His goodness to the greatest extent possible. If God did not permit those to fall much good would not exist.

This makes no sense at all.

What merit is there in recieving a metal when there is no race?

What merit is in a race when the outcome is already known?

And here lies the problem in your position.

It is not MY position. It is your fellow-believers position.

We are not created as some grand test. As I stated above we are created to manifest Gods love and goodness to the greates possible extent. Through the diversity of goodness, the perfection of the universe is achieved.

That “perfection” is only your definition of “perfection”. There is no perfection in useless suffering.

 

[Serious]

I still think you are missing the point: If God only made those people who followed his will, then they are not human, because they do not possess free will, because they can only follow God’s will.

No, they CHOOSE to follow God’s will, they are NOT FORCED to follow God’s will. This is the distinction you seem to miss.

No it doesn’t. If God worked on the notion of “Just give the winning man the medal”, then we would be sent straight to heaven and hell. It doesn’t matter “which camp we shall eventually belong.” But we aren’t in heaven and hell. Hence, God doesn’t work based that notion.

I know, and that is what I call irrational and illogical.

So what you are saying is that the “tests” to God are, essentially, meaningless?

If this is the case, then your objection is easily falsified. Simply put, God does not do what is meaningless, even if it is in His power to do it. Could God create a square circle or a rock so big that even he cannot lift it? Yes. Would it mean anything? No, it is simply a meaningless contradiction of words. And as C.S. Lewis said in The Problem of Pain, “meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words ‘God can’” Hence, God doesn’t do it.

1. 
   *]God doesn’t do what is meaningless
   *]God creates us to “test” us
   *]These “tests” are meaningless
   *]If they are meaningless, then God either doesn’t create us (and we don’t exist), or he does it for some other reason than to “test” us.
   *]But we do exist.
   *]Hence, God creates us for some other reason
   
   A Christian would say that God created us out of His Love.

1. 
   If creating someone, of whom you know that they eventually will face eternal torture - is called LOVE - then I want no part of that LOVE.
   

   Sir, I fail to see what your central objection is against God. Perhaps I am simply missing your point, or perhaps you aren’t presenting it concisely enough. Perhaps you can spell it out for me.

   I have no problem with God, after all I do not even in God. I am pointing out the irrationality of the position of the believers; the irrationality of what you SAY about God. Another irrationality is: “the believers all want to be with God as soon as possible. Therefore the only logical solution is never to delay this possibility, never to seek artifical medical help, allow “nature” take its course, and die as soon as possible”. None of you follow that logical path. You fight tooth and nail to extend this existence, even though you postpone your meeting with God. What is that if not irrationality?
   
   Many of you assert that pain and suffering has a redemptive value, it brings us closer to God, by experiencing part of Jesus’ passion. That is what you say. And what do you do? The exact opposite, You try to allevieate the pain. You do not extend your pain just to be a little closer to God. So you are hypocritical, again.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

I have no problem with God, after all I do not even in God. I am pointing out the irrationality of the position of the believers; the irrationality of what you SAY about God. Another irrationality is: “the believers all want to be with God as soon as possible. Therefore the only logical solution is never to delay this possibility, never to seek artifical medical help, allow “nature” take its course, and die as soon as possible”. None of you follow that logical path. You fight tooth and nail to extend this existence, even though you postpone your meeting with God. What is that if not irrationality?

Many of you assert that pain and suffering has a redemptive value, it brings us closer to God, by experiencing part of Jesus’ passion. That is what you say. And what do you do? The exact opposite, You try to allevieate the pain. You do not extend your pain just to be a little closer to God. So you are hypocritical, again.

Sir, if you had no problem with God, why do you insist on trying to show him to either not exist, or to be illogical and irrational?

I do not believe I have ever heard a believer say we wanted to be with God as soon as possible. We want to be with God, for sure, but that doesn’t mean we kill ourselves just to be with God. Even those who assert that there is no afterlife, and hence nothing to grasp at, do not kill themselves immediately. And that is because they see value in existing, that there is something to do in this world, before we get to the next one. In our belief, Jesus said this himself when he gave us the mission to go out to all the world and preach the Gospel. He didn’t say “Ok, I’m going now, come to me as quickly as possible”

Furthermore, you accuse us of being hypocritical. Ok, fine. Assume we are all hypocritical. Assume that we all know our teachings and then go completely against them.

Does this somehow invalidate these teachings? No, because the teachings are not contingent on us. They are objective, existing outside of any human emotion or mind. If they are objective, then nothing we can do can change them.

Does this mean we shouldn’t work to be less hypocritical? Absolutely not! We ought to work every day to be more like Christ in our words and deeds.

I notice your rhetoric seems to imply that you believe our teachings to be our own, that is, subjective. You are certainly entitled to believe that, but know that we do not teach subjective truth, only objective truth. Only one of us is right.

 

[Serious]

Sir, if you had no problem with God, why do you insist on trying to show him to either not exist, or to be illogical and irrational?

To help you.

I do not believe I have ever heard a believer say we wanted to be with God as soon as possible.

If you are looking forward to the greatest happiness conceivable, why would you wish to postpone it?

We want to be with God, for sure, but that doesn’t mean we kill ourselves just to be with God.

I did not say or imply “kill”. I said let nature take its course.

Even those who assert that there is no afterlife, and hence nothing to grasp at, do not kill themselves immediately.

Of course not, since we value this existence, which is all we have. For you this is just a vale of tears, to be done with as soon as possible.

Furthermore, you accuse us of being hypocritical. Ok, fine. Assume we are all hypocritical. Assume that we all know our teachings and then go completely against them.

Does this somehow invalidate these teachings?

If you (who believe them) do not follow those teachings, then what is their relevance for others?

But, let’s go back to the original topic, do you see that there is no “free will” problem in the OP proposition?

 

[Odell]

I heard that before. Mercy and justice are contradictory. God - in your view - is just another married bachelor. It is possible that God is sometimes merciful and sometimes just. I called that arbitrary. It is impossible that God is BOTH merciful AND just at the same time.

Who cares what Aquinas says?

I do. He has more books than you.

This makes no sense at all.

Makes sense to me!

What merit is in a race when the outcome is already known?

That’s why I said we are not created for some grand test.

It is not MY position. It is your fellow-believers position.

Not a race as you intend on making it.

That “perfection” is only your definition of “perfection”. There is no perfection in useless suffering.

Why should I accept your definition of “perfection” why do you get to determine what “useless suffering is”?

 

[Serious]

That’s why I said we are not created for some grand test.

Ah, so we ae not created for our final destination (either heaven or hell)? In that case there really is no reason to create all the “hell-bound”.

 

[LJH_80]

Ah, so we ae not created for our final destination (either heaven or hell)? In that case there really is no reason to create all the “hell-bound”.

A spark plug in a car is created to work in a car (it’s final destination). But before it can get to the car, it must pass a test to see if it can perform correctly once in the car. That does not mean that a spark plug is created to go through that test, it’s still created to be in the car.

 

[Serious]

A spark plug in a car is created to work in a car (it’s final destination). But before it can get to the car, it must pass a test to see if it can perform correctly once in the car. That does not mean that a spark plug is created to go through that test, it’s still created to be in the car.

Very true. If, however the person who performs the test already knows the outcome, then it is not necessary to perform it. Tests are only needed in the case of lack of knowledge. That is exactly what I was talking about.

 

[Odell]

A spark plug in a car is created to work in a car (it’s final destination). But before it can get to the car, it must pass a test to see if it can perform correctly once in the car. That does not mean that a spark plug is created to go through that test, it’s still created to be in the car.

Very true. If, however the person who performs the test already knows the outcome, then it is not necessary to perform it. Tests are only needed in the case of lack of knowledge. That is exactly what I was talking about.

This is why we have to be careful when we use the term test.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

To help you.

I did not recall asking for it. I appreciate that you wish to note inconsistencies in our beliefs, or the way we act on those beliefs.

If you are looking forward to the greatest happiness conceivable, why would you wish to postpone it?

For the same reason one who sees nothing past this life postpones it. Because they see value in this life. Christians, because this is the only life we have, believe this life is of infinite importance, especially because it impacts the afterlife.

Of course not, since we value this existence, which is all we have. For you this is just a vale of tears, to be done with as soon as possible.

If that was what Christians really believed, that this life should be done with as soon as possible, we would have all “let nature take its course” and would have all died out by now.

If you (who believe them) do not follow those teachings, then what is their relevance for others?

But, let’s go back to the original topic, do you see that there is no “free will” problem in the OP proposition?

Whether I follow these teachings or not does not invalidate them as true.

I have clearly offered my answer to the OP proposition.

However, I believe we have a fundamental difference of what “truth” means. I hold to the existence of objective truth. I get the feeling you hold to the non-existence of objective truth. If that is the case, then there is absolutely no reason (and no way) for us to discuss anything or agree on anything (except to disagree).

 

[Serious]

If that was what Christians really believed, that this life should be done with as soon as possible, we would have all “let nature take its course” and would have all died out by now.

Well, that is precisely the point. You say you believe that the afterlife is of utmost importance, but you do not act like it. There is a fine proverb for this attitude: “he preaches water, but actually drinks wine”.

However, I believe we have a fundamental difference of what “truth” means.

“Truth” is simply a concept, which is used in to evaluate a proposition. If a proposition corresponds correctly to the external reality, then that proposition is “true”. Likewise if a proposition is the logical corollary of some axioms, then that proposition is “true” in that axiomatic system. The phrase “Quid est veritas?” - “Est vir qui adest” is a cute pun, but has no meaning.

 

[davidv]

Well, that is precisely the point. You say you believe that the afterlife is of utmost importance, but you do not act like it.

How does an "utmost importance of hell diminish the importance of living life lovingly? It also appears that you have created a strawman of the position. For if one is to hold that achieving heaven in the afterlife is the utmost, it follows that treating the current life with care is a prerequisite. This care is exibited through love of God and love of neighbor.

There is a fine proverb for this attitude: “he preaches water, but actually drinks wine”.

“Truth” is simply a concept, which is used in to evaluate a proposition. If a proposition corresponds correctly to the external reality, then that proposition is “true”. Likewise if a proposition is the logical corollary of some axioms, then that proposition is “true” in that axiomatic system. The phrase “Quid est veritas?” - “Est vir qui adest” is a cute pun, but has no meaning.

What if your definition of truth above isn’t the correct one for the context?
One very simplified definition that is needed here is “that which is”. As such it isn’t just a concept, although it can be treated as on. In the case of God, truth is a person, Jesus.

 

[Serious]

How does an "utmost importance of hell diminish the importance of living life lovingly? It also appears that you have created a strawman of the position. For if one is to hold that achieving heaven in the afterlife is the utmost, it follows that treating the current life with care is a prerequisite. This care is exibited through love of God and love of neighbor.

Maybe you did not read the thead itself.

What if your definition of truth above isn’t the correct one for the context?
One very simplified definition that is needed here is “that which is”. As such it isn’t just a concept, although it can be treated as on. In the case of God, truth is a person, Jesus.

You are most welcome to define words as you like them. Others will not know what you are talking about, but what the “hell”? Like when you call the love expressed between a married couple in a manner which is not open to conception an “intrinsically evil” act, and then you are surprised when others simply look at you as if you were a lunatic? That is not how people understand “evil”, but you are welcome to redefine it. Of course the joke is on you.

 

[CatholicTrekkie]

Well, that is precisely the point. You say you believe that the afterlife is of utmost importance, but you do not act like it. There is a fine proverb for this attitude: “he preaches water, but actually drinks wine”.

Please sir, since you seem to have complete understanding of our teachings, how should we act? How ought we act? Should we all just not feed ourselves, “let nature take its course”, and send ourselves to heaven faster?

You say heaven is of utmost importance. And because of this, you say, we should work to get there as quickly as possible, and forget about this life.

Your proposition would make sense if what we did in this life didn’t affect the afterlife. Ahhh, “But God would know everything before he created it…” and therefore, it’s illogical for him to create us.

You conveniently ignore the fact that we are here. That we exist. And this, you say, makes God irrational, simply because he SHOULD just send us to Heaven or Hell. This, is a materialistic and utilitarian philosophy: God shouldn’t waste time with our lives, just create us straight into heaven and hell. It is also, frankly, arrogant of you, to judge God, to judge that he SHOULD work in the utilitarian manner that you suggest. This doesn’t bother you of course, because you don’t believe in him. But then why should you judge something that you believe doesn’t exist? Or perhaps you are just judging our teaching? So? What does that accomplish, other than making you look judgmental?

Sir, I have tried to be charitable and reasonable with you, but this discussion is straining my patience. As such, I will remove myself from it before my blood pressure goes too high. If others wish to discuss this with you, they may.

 

[davidv]

Maybe you did not read the thead itself.

Maybe you don’t like the truth.

You are most welcome to define words as you like them. Others will not know what you are talking about, but what the “hell”? Like when you call the love expressed between a married couple in a manner which is not open to conception an “intrinsically evil” act, and then you are surprised when others simply look at you as if you were a lunatic? That is not how people understand “evil”, but you are welcome to redefine it. Of course the joke is on you.

The definition I offered is not mine. If you use a definition differing from the one used in a position when arguing against it, you have committed a logical fallacy and your argument is rationally dismissed as invalid and likely untrue.

Whether you agree with what the Church defines as sin has nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

So if you have a rational argument, lets see it.