Omniscience?

[ateista]

Since God is atemporal and omniscient etc. you should be able to rewrite this without any reference to temporality.

Impossible. The removal of “temporality” leads to another nonsensical concept: “an action which is not temporal”. Any action presupposes a “before the action” and an “after the action”. The removal of these categories renders the concept of “action” incomprehensible and meaningless.

 

[ateista]

The reality is that talking about an omniscient God necessitates that Being existing in a way transcendent of time.

No. It only necessiatates that God be independent of our time. But dwelling in some other kind of time is implied by the concept that God “acts”. Nevertheless being not constrained by our time still does not allow God to “know” something that has not happened yet.

Knowledge of an event for a being transcendent of time (i.e., God) is not dependent upon whether the event has apparently “happened” from the perspective of a being that is not transcendent of time (e.g., man).

If it already “happened” unbeknownst to us then we have no freedom to act otherwise, and thus our freedom is negated.

When we make choices, we actualize potentiality. In the context of this discussion, THIS is our share in God’s creative process. God actualizes and maintains us, who would otherwise simply be potentiality; similarly, we actualize events in our world based on our choices but we, as temporal beings, have no facility for “knowing” (with certainty) the nature of the potential results, only the actual ones. God is beyond “potential” by logical definition, and so whether or not a thing is actualized in reality, God knows it simply by it’s potentiality.

And that is the confusion of potentiality and actuality. To say that something is still potential to us, but already actual to God is a logical impossibility.

 

[HelenaMT]

It is not God’s knowledge that will invalidate our freedom, rather the fact that knowledge becomes possible only when our freedom disappears.

This is a great way to put it.

This is why omniscience as others are putting it completely negates the concept of free will. If free will is only an illusion to us, how is that any different than some of the materialist views that deny free will ?

You continue to insist that knowledge is dependent upon a temporally linear process of obtaining information. If you want to talk about probability as a dimension, then how are you missing the fact that our perception of time is obviously limited, and that using our perception of time is a severely false limitation when defining an omniscient Being’s ability to “know” something? Just because we have not experienced an event yet does not mean that God does not know it and all of the possible outcomes, circumstances, etc.

Why would He have to know all possible outcomes if He already knew the one He was going to settle on? The whole concept of knowing all possible futures is based on a choice being possible, isn’t it? If it’s only God’s choice then this seems to mean that “knowing all possible futures” was just God speculating to Himself until He decided, at creation, on this one. Is that how you are looking at it?

I’m trying to figure out why thinking that we truly have free will and that God truly allows a choice is thought to diminish God in any way. After all, if He knows all possible outcomes, He can pick one when He wants, or let us determine it when He so chooses. He can still give future insights to prophets based on what he knows He’s going to do. It certainly doesn’t diminish His power to act.

If He created our reality why do we *have *to think He would need to know the end at the same time as the start?

I’m just trying to figure out why it is necessary for the faith to understand it this way.

 

[1holycatholic]

Impossible. The removal of “temporality” leads to another nonsensical concept: “an action which is not temporal”. Any action presupposes a “before the action” and an “after the action”. The removal of these categories renders the concept of “action” incomprehensible and meaningless.

Infinite past time is impossible. It’s creation cannot be temporal.

 

[Camron]

As soon as the omniscient being can know the actual outcome of a future event, then the probability wave already collapsed, the event became determined, and as such the freedom to have a different outcome disappeared. Therefore if God can know the actual outcome of our future decisions, then our freedom to choose is a sham.

I would agree with you if I didn’t believe that God provided all possible means necessary for all to be saved. You don’t believe that God provided all possible means necessary for all to be saved. And you cannot accept that it is fair for some people to go to hell forever either.

I think that’s what this thread is all about.

 

[ateista]

I would agree with you if I didn’t believe that God provided all possible means necessary for all to be saved. You don’t believe that God provided all possible means necessary for all to be saved.

On the contrary, in the thread about the “problem of moral evil and free will” I proved mathematically that God could have actualized a world in which everyone has libertarian free will and everyone will be saved. There is no “faith” involved, because it is a mathematical proof, and only depends on the concept of libertarian free will. The method I used was a mathematical induction. Feel free to look it up there.

Now, this world does not “look like” it, but maybe it is. If this is that world, there is no problem, everyone will be saved. If, however, this is not that world, then God did not choose to actualize it. The question is “why”?

And you cannot accept that it is fair for some people to go to hell forever either.

Of course not.

I think that’s what this thread is all about.

Not really. I am merely investigating the concept of omniscience here.

 

[Camron]

On the contrary, in the thread about the “problem of moral evil and free will” I proved mathematically that God could have actualized a world in which everyone has libertarian free will and everyone will be saved.

I don’t know enough about the mathematics involved in what you’re claimng here. Unfortunately it doesn;t prove anything to me.Then again, I’m not really one, as far as I can tell, for libertarian free will.

There is no “faith” involved, because it is a mathematical proof, and only depends on the concept of libertarian free will.

If you are talking about God then you are talking about both faith and reason.

The method I used was a mathematical induction. Feel free to look it up there.

It doesn;t actually mean anything to me though. Plus, since revelation is involved, I’m almost positive that you are ignoring some things in order for the mathematical formula to work.

I could be wrong. But I don’t think that one can actually mathematically prove anything definitive about how God “actually” operates.

Now, this world does not “look like” it, but maybe it is. If this is that world, there is no problem, everyone will be saved.

Do you mean, ”Does not look like all people can be saved?”

The problem is that, using revelation, it is clear that not all will be saved even though God does desire all to be saved. This is the problem that needs to be fairly considered when asking these philosophical questions.

If, however, this is not that world, then God did not choose to actualize it. The question is “why”?

Because it is a fair option for God to know in advance that people will either be going to heaven or hell. That’s why.

Of course not.

So you are saying that you believing that hell is an unfair proposition has absolutely nothing to do with your inquiry into God’s Omniscience?

Not really. I am merely investigating the concept of omniscience here.

Then why are you focusing a significant portion of your arguments for God’s Omniscience toward the topic of the “salvation” of all people?

 

[C_Bautista]

No. It only necessiatates that God be independent of our time. But dwelling in some other kind of time is implied by the concept that God “acts”. Nevertheless being not constrained by our time still does not allow God to “know” something that has not happened yet.

I think I overlooked your failure to acknowledge God’s simultaneously transcendent and immanent nature. As a non-contingent and uncreated Being, God must logically be utterly transcendent of all created reality. However, as creation itself is a reflection of his self-knowledge, ALL THINGS are entirely dependent directly on Him for their very existence and sustenance. God is, logically, entirely separate from and unrestricted by time, space, and whatever other dimension or limitation. However, He retains every ability to act within these constructs.

Therefore there is no contradiction at all between God being totally outside of time (ALL “kinds” of time, not just “ours”) and God still being able to act within time. The same applies to His ability to “know.” It is unrestricted by time.

If it already “happened” unbeknownst to us then we have no freedom to act otherwise, and thus our freedom is negated.

And that is the confusion of potentiality and actuality. To say that something is still potential to us, but already actual to God is a logical impossibility.

We perceive events in a temporally linear fashion. This is not, ultimately, how they “are” in the “zoomed out” reality of things. That reality is this: created existence is an “eternal now” to God, who is transcendent of dimensional perception. All things have already “happened” and yet “are happening.”

No, that does NOT negate our freedom. Our choices very much determine what happens/happened/will happen. The limitation here is this: our inability to speak or think in a 100% atemporal way. This is not one of God’s, but man’s. God knows with absolute clarity all potential things, regardless if our choices actualize them. His “knowing” does not require that we actualize them; he knows all things intimately sheerly by their potential, even if they do not realistically reside in our sandbox of “existence.” I do not mean to say that everything “potential” is “actual” to God. This is nonsense. I DO mean to say that things that are not “yet” actual to us are “already” actual to God; and also that things that are merely “potential” to both man and God are still known fully by God, regardless of their actuality.

On a side note: the ability of man to deny the salvation of an omnipotent God, even given COMPLETELY perfect circumstances (i.e., the best potential universe for every single man to make the choice to love God truly), is very real. The nature of free will is that its possessor necessarily also attains the ability to shape “actual reality” as a co-creator with God. This is an emphasis of God’s omnipotence, not a diminishing of it; it is the creation of a being that can also “actually create.”

 

[SeekingCatholic]

If you are talking about God then you are talking about both faith and reason.

If “faith” demands rejection of a concept which can be proven true to metaphysical certainty through mathematics and logic, then “faith” is false. Or at least wholly unreasonable, which makes it impossible to have any kind of debate over it. You need logic to debate, which means you can’t debate the illogical.

It doesn;t actually mean anything to me though. Plus, since revelation is involved, I’m almost positive that you are ignoring some things in order for the mathematical formula to work.

It’s not possible to “ignore” anything in mathematical induction. The “formula” is simple: prove something true for N = 1, and then prove it true for N+1 if it is true for N.

I could be wrong. But I don’t think that one can actually mathematically prove anything definitive about how God “actually” operates.

Which is not the point. The point is to prove something definite about how God “could” operate.

Do you mean, ”Does not look like all people can be saved?”

The problem is that, using revelation, it is clear that not all will be saved even though God does desire all to be saved. This is the problem that needs to be fairly considered when asking these philosophical questions.

And the problem is that, using philosophy, an omnipotent and omniscient God has the knowledge and power to save all; therefore, if He also desires that all be saved this entails by logical necessity that all are saved. Catholic philosophers and theologians have been trying to squirm out of this one for centuries. To no avail; they always end up having to take refuge in the cop-out of “mystery” to cover up the essential unreasonableness of it. This is why classical theism is on the wane. We have:

Universalism (accepting the logical conclusion)

or else denying one of the premises:

God lacks the necessary knowledge (open theism);
He lacks the necessary power (the free will defense);
Equivocation on the meaning of “desire”: the Thomists argue for instance that God “antecedently” wills that all are saved but not “consequently”. But the reasons why He would not “consequently” will their salvation (e.g. their sins) are completely under His control!

Because it is a fair option for God to know in advance that people will either be going to heaven or hell. That’s why.

That is not “why”. It does not at all answer the question why He did not actualize a world in which all went to heaven.

 

[ateista]

I don’t know enough about the mathematics involved in what you’re claimng here. Unfortunately it doesn;t prove anything to me.Then again, I’m not really one, as far as I can tell, for libertarian free will.

The truth is that there is no other type of free will. The so-called “compatibilist free will” is just a euphemism for determinism for those who are “shy” to call a spade a spade.

If you are talking about God then you are talking about both faith and reason.

In a sense, yes. However, all I assumed about God that he is able to actualize any logically possible world.

It doesn;t actually mean anything to me though. Plus, since revelation is involved, I’m almost positive that you are ignoring some things in order for the mathematical formula to work.

No, not ignoring anything.

I do go by the teaching of classical theology that God wishes everyone to choose salvation. God does not want anyone to perish.

I used the idea of omnipotence as assumed in classical theology and the concept of free will. The point is this - in a nutshell: we know that God can create at least one human being, who will freely make the right decisions to be saved. From that fact (or assumption?) we can use the method of induction and learn that God could have created a world where everyone always chooses correctly - and freely.

Since allegedly that is the best outcome for God and us, it follows logically that this world should have been actualized.

I could be wrong. But I don’t think that one can actually mathematically prove anything definitive about how God “actually” operates.

Right. But I am only concerned how God should have operated if he really wants everyone to be saved, while not stepping on the freedom to chose otherwise.

So you are saying that you believing that hell is an unfair proposition has absolutely nothing to do with your inquiry into God’s Omniscience?

Not a thing. Moreover, I am not even interested in “God’s omniscience”. I am simply interested in “omnisicience” as philosophical term.

You see, humans are able to utter all sorts of propositions, not all of which are meaningful. I am investigating, if the concept of “omniscience” is a meaningful concept, or not. So far it is not.

 

[TLDenmark]

Dear Ateista

From my human viewpoint, there is a clear distinction between past, present and future. This is true for all human beings, we simply have no other way to experience life. Because of this I see the past as something that once existed, the present as something that are existing in the here and now, and the future are then that uncertain something that will one day come to pass. In a sense that imply an ability to “know” about the past (ex. Yesterday I was out running in the woods), the present (ex. I am presently not running in the woods) and possibly a multitude of potential futures (ex. This evening I plan to go out running in the woods). None of this imply a knowledge of the future per say, as from my perspective the future is not yet real (actualised) or determined. So from that perspective you are absolutely right, that is you are right from a limited human point of view.

However the problem, as I see it, is that you are unable to get past your human limitations when dealing with Gods attributes. God, in classical Christian theology, doesn’t experience reality in the same way as we do; He is not bound by time or space. This in not comparable to a movie, since a movie is still bound by having a beginning, a middle and an end. While watching a movie, you can still only be one place at one time. Yes you can rewind or fast forward, but that will only place you at another fixed point in a continuing story. As such the freedom of time in the movie analogue, is more akin to time travel than omniscience.

God is different, for Him there is no past, present or future as we understand them. He is a truly limitless, and as such He experiences everything in its totality. You can perhaps say that God experience the entire continuum of time as actuality. He is not a time traveller who travels from one point in time to the next; rather He is everywhere and sees everything at once. I imagine it is more akin to a direct and instant movie download to your brain, where you immediately get to experience the beginning, the middle and the end in one single moment. Does this remove free will? No it does not.

Let me show why by giving an example, where an imaginary Mr Smith is slandering his neighbours’ reputation. According to what I have described above, God must be eternally knowledgeable about Mr Smith’s actions. That means that Mr. Smiths actions would be as unhidden at the day of creation, as is the case on the day where he actually commits the act. Despite of the fact that billion of years have passed, God will simultaneously have experience both point in time as if they were in the now. In a sense you could say that God have a foreknowledge of the future, as to Him it is already happening. This does however not mitigate free will and responsibility on the part of Mr Smith, ultimately he is still making his own choices in his own here and now. Gods foreknowledge does not in any way alter the fact that Mr Smith acts in accordance with his own will, in that nobody have forces him to act against what he wants.

As for God creating a world without evil or suffering, and as a consequence a world where everybody would be saved, you are right in saying that Christian teaching implies an ability to make such a world. Such a world would however have been a world without humanity as we know it, so no I do not agree that such a world would have been the “best” outcome for me, you or the rest of humanity. None of us would have existed in such a world (being sinners), and this debate of ours would have been impossible (such a world would have no room for beings with doubt or wrong beliefs). Perhaps that is part of the answer to the question about evil; God also created the world as a gift to the “imperfect”.

God bless you
TL

 

[jimmy85]

It is asserted that God “knows” everything: past, present and future, and this is called omniscience. But the question arises: is this a meaningful proposion?

Just to make clear something. Eisntein taught us that time is not an abstract concepts, but a physical concept.

He showed that time and space are one physical thing.
This implies that if you were able to move throughtout “space” at the speed of light you wouldnt be expereincing “time”.
However mass is not able to move at the speed of light. but the massless photons that are what makes light are able to avoid experiencing time, because they are able to move at the speed of light.

God is not made of mass, space nor time which are physical concepts. Therefore God is outside time and space and he is able to tracend it in some way.

So for God logicaly there is no future, present nor past events, he tracends time and space which are physical concepts, and they only apply to physical things.

About the omniscience, I think consciousness could account for it. I think we can not separate God from consciousnes and from everything that exist and that is known.

 

[JohnJFarren]

JMJ / MMM 080813
Hello ateista and all others –
There is in both philosophy and theology a valuable difference between the meanings of “before” and “prior.” Aquinas makes often the distinction. When an effect takes place in time before the positing of the cause, it avoids confusion and makes it easier to precision the meaning by using the term “prior” rather than “before.”

The word “prior” does not necessarily refer to time but more accurately to position in a sequence. Christ’s redeeming us and meriting for us a share in Divine Life took place, in time, after Mary’s Immaculate Conception. Mary’s Immaculate Conception took place prior to Christ’s meriting it for her. The word “prior” in this sentence is more accurate than “before.” An example in the natural order might be … The hospital buildings were built prior to the necessary funds in hand and relying on my grandfather’s word for the funds. There are various other examples. Especially in theology is the more accurate use of the word to be preferred.

And assuredly the statement, God eternally Willed all of creation … and subsequently (no time involved) had total perfect knowledge of all its possibilities and actualities. Creation in God’s Eternity is totally complete and perfected in its very positing by God. That statement is overflowing with natural, rational, knowledge about God the First Cause.
John (JohnJFarren) Trinity5635@aol.com

 

[Camron]

Which is not the point. The point is to prove something definite about how God “could” operate.

Actually, that is the point…you’re both claiming to have proven something about God Himself, His very personality, using mathematical induction.

I don’t even agree with libertarian free-will. But I’m almost certain you can’t prove how He “should” operate with mathematical induction either. Even though it’s been explained now several time, I’m still not sure as to how mathematical induction proves libertarian free-will false for that matter.

And the problem is that, using philosophy, an omnipotent and omniscient God has the knowledge and power to save all;

I agree here…

therefore, if He also desires that all be saved this entails by logical necessity that all are saved.

…but this doesn’t necessarily follow.

I don’t buy the argument that God gave people free-wills to “test” them. I’ve already pointed out numerous cases with infant baptism alone which proves that our free-will is simply not that important when it comes to salvation. I’m quite sure that God is quite happy to save these infants via the sacrament of Baptism. I also think it’s absurd to claim that God created people to be tested like lab rats in some God cosmic experiment.

God created people to know and love Him. It’s that simple.

Now the question is, “Why doesn’t everyone know and love God?”

Catholic philosophers and theologians have been trying to squirm out of this one for centuries. To no avail; they always end up having to take refuge in the cop-out of “mystery” to cover up the essential unreasonableness of it.

Actually, it’s not just later Catholic theologians and there’s no squirming involved either. Paul also spoke about the Mystery of Iniquity too, long ago in 2nd Thessalonians.

And this has been a deep puzzle which has frustrated monotheists (and other theists, including polytheists) for centuries before Christianity arose. It’s still happening in our modern day too.

Consequently, it’s not a cop out to say that there is a mystery involved just like it’s not a cop out to say there is a mystery to the wave-particle duality of light.

Exactly how this works, no one can say “exactly” for sure. But we have good reasons to believe it’s not a cop out to look further for the answers either.

Besides that, we do have some good answers already, some of which were already given. We know that God is good so one can’t automatically say that it’s unreasonable either. The point is many people trust God despite the supposed “essential unreasonableness” of His operation.

Why don’t you trust Him?

God lacks the necessary knowledge (open theism);

I don’t agree with open theism. I’ve already scratched that off my list a long time ago. It’s nonsense to say an omniscient being doesn’t actually know the future. 'Nuff said.

He lacks the necessary power (the free will defense);

I’m not big on the free-will defense either. As already noted, this presents God as an experimenter too.

Equivocation on the meaning of “desire”: the Thomists argue for instance that God “antecedently” wills that all are saved but not “consequently”. But the reasons why He would not “consequently” will their salvation (e.g. their sins) are completely under His control!

This is the one that I would agree with most: That God gave the proper preparations in advance that all should be saved but that He did not save all people precisely because He allowed them to reject the proper preparations that He prepared in advance for them. And it’s very clear that He knew they would reject Him in advance too, but still made them anyway.

Now, just out of curiosity, let me ask you a couple of questions: **If God is all holy, and all good, then how can He totally control sin? By what means does He control sin? **

Note: Others can feel free to answer this too if they’d like too.

That is not “why”. It does not at all answer the question why He did not actualize a world in which all went to heaven.

Why should God actualize a world in which all went to heaven? Just curious.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It is asserted that God “knows” everything: past, present and future, and this is called omniscience. But the question arises: is this a meaningful proposion?

What does it mean: “to know something”? It is “to have information about something”. It simply makes no sense to say that God would know something that does not exist and never existed and will not exist. How can one obtain information about a non-existent object? There are no attributes of non-existent entities. Therefore to say that God would “know” a nonexistent book, which was not written by a non-existent author is pure nonsense.

It would make much more sense to say that omniscience means to know everything that can be known. It certainly would not subtract from God’s omniscience to accept that God cannot know the contents of a book, which was never written by a non-existent author, who was never born.

In a sense we follow the stipulation that “omnipotence” does not really mean “to be able to do everything”. Rather we say that omnipotence means that God is able to do anything that can be done. It does not diminish omnipotence that God is unable to create square circles or married bachelors, since these entities cannot exist.

Any thoughts or objections?

AFAIK, it means that all being is totally open to God, in every respect. It’s not knowledge of every single one of a pile of items - it’s more like an Infinite, Eternal & Indivisible Act of intellectual vision in which all creation is seen. This Act, is God Himself - He is His Knowledge.​

It’s not self-contradictory. Even your non-existent author has to exist as an idea & an hypothesis; even though he will never be created. He is known according to his mode of existence, of which God is Author. Anything that exists in any manner at all, is known to God. (That’s my understanding of that point anyway.)

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Actually, that is the point…you’re both claiming to have proven something about God Himself, His very personality, using mathematical induction.

No, only to show what it is possible for God to do.

…but this doesn’t necessarily follow.

Yes, it does follow. If He willed for them to be saved, they would be saved. If He did not will it, He did not desire it. It’s not possible for an omnipotent God to have a desire frustrated by a circumstance outside His control.

Now the question is, “Why doesn’t everyone know and love God?”

Yes. For the Thomist the real answer is, despite the sophistic evasions that will undoubtedly be used to cover it up, because God doesn’t love them, since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things. For the Molinist the real answer is, again despite the sophistic evasions, that they were constrained by circumstance.

Consequently, it’s not a cop out to say that there is a mystery involved just like it’s not a cop out to say there is a mystery to the wave-particle duality of light.

It is a cop out when a contradiction has been shown.

Besides that, we do have some good answers already, some of which were already given.

No, we have no good answers. If we did this wouldn’t be a problem.

We know that God is good so one can’t automatically say that it’s unreasonable either.

A circular argument.

The point is many people trust God despite the supposed “essential unreasonableness” of His operation.

Why don’t you trust Him?

Because there is no basis for it. If it is up to Him whether I am saved, then without certainty that He will save me there can be no trust (and Catholicism vehemently denies once-saved-always saved; and while, not official doctrine, historically it was believed most went to hell). If it is up to me whether I am saved, then it is me that I should trust or not, not God.

This is the one that I would agree with most: That God gave the proper preparations in advance that all should be saved but that He did not save all people precisely because He allowed them to reject the proper preparations that He prepared in advance for them. And it’s very clear that He knew they would reject Him in advance too, but still made them anyway.

Which only restates the problem. Why did He allow them to reject those preparations? Please don’t say “because he respects our free-will”, because you’ve already rejected the free-will defense.

Now, just out of curiosity, let me ask you a couple of questions: **If God is all holy, and all good, then how can He totally control sin? By what means does He control sin? **

God has the power to prevent every sin.

Why should God actualize a world in which all went to heaven? Just curious.

Because He is supposed to desire that all go to heaven.

 

[davidv]

[snip}Yes, it does follow. If He willed for them to be saved, they would be saved.

Not if the creature wills to the contrary.

If He did not will it, He did not desire it. It’s not possible for an omnipotent God to have a desire frustrated by a circumstance outside His control.

Imbueing His creature the freedom to choose was under His control. This ability was a part of His desire for us.
snip}
[/quote]

 

[SeekingCatholic]

Not if the creature wills to the contrary.

But if He willed for the creature to be saved, the creature would not have willed to the contrary. His will is antecedent to the creature’s will.

Imbueing His creature the freedom to choose was under His control. This ability was a part of His desire for us.
[snip}

You then have to deny God has control over the will of creatures and that He is First Cause of the good actions of creatures. Or, posit that the hypothetical actions of free creatures are metaphysically necessary truths.
[/quote]

 

[davidv]

But if He willed for the creature to be saved, the creature would not have willed to the contrary. His will is antecedent to the creature’s will.

You then have to deny God has control over the will of creatures and that He is First Cause of the good actions of creatures. Or, posit that the hypothetical actions of free creatures are metaphysically necessary truths.

Then I must say that we have both become sloppy in our use of some terms. Everything I have come to understand of my faith indicates the the God “desires” not “wills” my salvation. For the purpose of the discussion “desire” and “will” cannot be synonyms. When I see “wills” in this context I hears “determines”, like I am simply an avitar in His cosmic simulation. The thing He wills in this circumstance is my freedom to choose and His willingness to honor that choice.

I do in fact deny the God has control over the will of His creatures because I believe that I have been gifted with free will. Why does this require that He is not the First Cause?

I have no idea what you mean when you say:

Or, posit that the hypothetical actions of free creatures are metaphysically necessary truths.

 

[Camron]

No, only to show what it is possible for God to do.

You are splitting hairs here, insulting God in the process by the knowledge you claim to have. You can’t actually do that SeekingCatholic, because you don’t have all the details, thoughts and information required to make that kind of calculation. It’s not as simple as you’d like others to think it is. In fact, you need to be omniscient to make this claim.

Yes, it does follow. If He willed for them to be saved, they would be saved. If He did not will it, He did not desire it.

I might have to check this, but God’s will and God’s desire are not synonymous as far as I understood.

God “desires” all people to be saved, such as in 1 Timothy 2:3-5, where the Bible says that God wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

God, however, “wills” all people to be judged fairly, such as in the entire chapter of Romans 3 for example.

A small portion can be found here…

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?

Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar.

As it is written:

So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)

Certainly not!

If that were so, how could God judge the world?

Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”?

Their condemnation is deserved.

It’s not possible for an omnipotent God to have a desire frustrated by a circumstance outside His control.

I thought this thread was about Omniscience? Are we now talking about Omnipotence?

In the meantime, I can assure you that it’s not possible for an omniscient God to not know the future. That much is guaranteed.

Yes. For the Thomist the real answer is, despite the sophistic evasions that will undoubtedly be used to cover it up, because God doesn’t love them, since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things.

I admit that I could be wrong, but I do not think this is the Thomist position. I think he said this was a possible view among others that were debated, but that he didn’t view it this way (I will check this, or if somene else knows the quote, please post).

Either way, it seems that you’ve switched this around. For the Catholic, if the person does not attain salvation, it’s because they do not love God. God loves everyone, even us who sin. I’m not sure where you’ve gotten this one.

Read this…

Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God.

Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God.

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world.

If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

We love because he first loved us.

If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.

And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.

By the way, before you make the claim that God “only loved people who loved him”, I will also note this much is very clear in John 3:16 too…

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

You know that phrase, “Hate the sin. Love the sinner.”? See how God loved the world noted above? Even while we were sinners, Jesus died for the ungodly? Indeed, God is love…so can we at least agree that God loves everyone, and not just those who love Him?

If so, let’s continue (actually, even if you don’t agree, I will press on just to point out some things which I think you are in error on).