Omniscience?

[Camron]

For the Molinist the real answer is, again despite the sophistic evasions, that they were constrained by circumstance.

I’m not really interested in the Molinist position at this time. We’ll come back to that a bit later.

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

Again, I don’t agree with the Libertarian view anyway.

On the one hand, I’m just trying to explain to you that I have no idea what you’re talking about when you keep talking about mathematical induction. You’re literally talking gibberish to me. I suspect this may be true for others who read your posts too, except atiesta I suppose.

On the other hand, we do not believe that you have factored all things into consideration when you rendered your conclusion, not even enough to invalidate the Libertarian position.

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

Actually, we do have many good reasons, which is why we believe in the first place.

You, on the other hand, don’t believe us. In other words, you are the one who is saying that we do not have a good reason—basically saying that we should not believe such an absurd thing and, apparently, trying to use philosophy to convince people that belief in God is futile (at least in the Classical Catholic sense).

In short, we’re content and you’re not.

So this is really your problem and not ours. Consequently, if you don’t accept what we have to say, then you can certainly choose to do so. But that will be on your conscience and not ours from here.

Capiche?

A circular argument.

Actually, I think this might be a diagram of a valid circular argument for you (I Googled it under images)…

http://www.madisonglobal.org/images/analysis_chart.gif

Even if its not valid, it certainly looks pretty intelligent.

By the way, shame on you for calling “knowing God’s love” a circular argument. :tsktsk:

If someone makes a claim about your own parents are you going to throw away all trust you have in your parents based on one claim against them?

No, you will most likely disbelieve that accusation made against your parents (and quite readily defend their honor no questions asked) until some substantial proof is demonstrated against them.

The same holds for God for many people: We know that God (Our Father in Heaven) is good so we can’t automatically say that He’s totally unreasonable. We need to search further for the answers when such a claim is made, to ensure that we have all the facts straight. And you have certainly not demonstrated any ”proof” of anything from what I can tell.

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…

Here’s what we’re working with…

a) God desires all people to be saved.
b) According to God’s will, some people will be saved by God and some people will send themselves to hell.

Do you agree with this-- that these are the parameters?

If so, then what if your free-will wills freely against God’s will? Do you even believe we have a free-will for that matter?

P.S., I’ve already stated that free-will arguments are overrated and I’ve explained why I think this. Please don’t bother with that card. In the context that you’re presenting it, it’s not even on the table. :nope:

…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).

Well….we have to trust God, correct? Shouldn’t we automatically trust God? Why don’t we?

I think this is the way that Adam and Eve were formed—automatically trusting God. Baptized infants are perhaps somehow able to do this too (and Jesus did say that the Kingdom of Heaven was such as this). Plus, at least in Heaven, we will, once again, automatically trust God.

So I think you’re onto something here. Would you at last agree that I’ve displayed evidence that salvation was the “default” position?

If it is up to me whether I am saved, then it is me that I should trust or not, not God.

I don’t think so. If we are saved then we give God the glory. God enabled you to do this (like the baptized infants and the people in heaven noted above).

If we are not saved then that is our own fault. We don’t blame God for our own mistakes. We did them and we simply accept that we did them and try to make amends for them. I don’t think this is that confusing to be honest. If we sinned then we must repent of our sin.

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.

Actually, I’ve said the free-will defense is seriously overrated. I didn’t totally reject the free-will defense though. You seem to be attempting to tell me what I can include without actually carefully reading what I am actually claiming (ie., making assumptions).

Free-will does have a place in this debate, in my opinion, so long as it is seen in the proper context.

I’ve stated repeatedly that viewing free-will as a “gift from God” is, in my opinion, incorrect. Others can disagree with me. But I think God has no problem saving people who have not specially asked Him to save them (cf., infant baptism, and this is a significant portion of those who are now in heaven by the way). In this regard, it seems to require the abandonment of our earthly will so that the will of God may work within in us. Indeed, God’s grace is indeed God’s life within us.

So perhaps a better question might be: Why doesn’t God’s Spirit live within us anymore? Why don’t we do what God wills?

God has the power to prevent every sin.

Except for the “unforgivable sin”, I agree with you here. But you still haven’t answered my question.

Let’s forget the “unforgivable sin” just for now for the sake of your argument though.

How exactly can God do this, prevent every sin? By what means can God’s power prevent every sin?

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

We’ve established that He does desire this. Now why should He automatically make all people go to heaven if some people deserve hell?

 

[SeekingCatholic]

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.

This entire line of argument is epistemological “nihilism” (because we don’t know everything we can’t really know anything), which is what desperate Creationist debaters sometimes resort to. You only resort to this (and the ad hominem about “insulting God”) because you can’t actually answer the argument, and you aren’t willing to spend the few ergs of energy necessary to educate yourself on what a proof by mathematical induction is. Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean we can’t know it, even though we’re not omniscient.

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

What is God’s desire? Try and define it in a way which makes any philosophical sense.

In human terms, a desire is something we want but can’t will due to circumstances outside our control. But the circumstances can’t be outside the control of God; He is omnipotent.

How can God desire what He does not will? All good is supposed to be the result of His positive will. If He does not will it, it does not happen. For Him to desire what He does not will is for Him to desire the impossible. If He desires it, why does He not will it?

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.

And that’s what God wants, why doesn’t it happen?

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).

Sed contra…

I answer that, God loves all existing things. For all existing things, in so far as they exist, are good, since the existence of a thing is itself a good; and likewise, whatever perfection it possesses. Now it has been shown above (Question 19, Article 4) that God’s will is the cause of all things. It must needs be, therefore, that a thing has existence, or any kind of good, only inasmuch as it is willed by God. To every existing thing, then, God wills some good. Hence, since to love anything is nothing else than to will good to that thing, it is manifest that God loves everything that exists. Yet not as we love. Because since our will is not the cause of the goodness of things, but is moved by it as by its object, our love, whereby we will good to anything, is not the cause of its goodness; but conversely its goodness, whether real or imaginary, calls forth our love, by which we will that it should preserve the good it has, and receive besides the good it has not, and to this end we direct our actions: whereas the love of God infuses and creates goodness…

I answer that, Since to love a thing is to will it good, in a twofold way anything may be loved more, or less. In one way on the part of the act of the will itself, which is more or less intense. In this way God does not love some things more than others, because He loves all things by an act of the will that is one, simple, and always the same. In another way on the part of the good itself that a person wills for the beloved. In this way we are said to love that one more than another, for whom we will a greater good, though our will is not more intense. In this way we must needs say that God loves some things more than others. For since God’s love is the cause of goodness in things, as has been said (2), no one thing would be better than another, if God did not will greater good for one than for another.

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.

Well, right from St. Thomas.

Read this…

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…

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).

We can agree that God loves everyone, insofar as God wills some good for them, but not in the specific manner necessary for salvation. You’re going have to get up-to-speed on what Thomism actually teaches on these things.

Again from the man himself…

Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good–namely, eternal life–He is said to hate or reprobated them…

Reply to Objection 3. The reason for the predestination of some, and reprobation of others, must be sought for in the goodness of God. Thus He is said to have made all things through His goodness, so that the divine goodness might be represented in things. Now it is necessary that God’s goodness, which in itself is one and undivided, should be manifested in many ways in His creation; because creatures in themselves cannot attain to the simplicity of God. Thus it is that for the completion of the universe there are required different grades of being; some of which hold a high and some a low place in the universe. That this multiformity of grades may be preserved in things, God allows some evils, lest many good things should never happen, as was said above (Question 22, Article 2). Let us then consider the whole of the human race, as we consider the whole universe. God wills to manifest His goodness in men; in respect to those whom He predestines, by means of His mercy, as sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of His justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.

So God rejects others (and this is, note well, prior to their sins), so that He will be able to punish and “manifest His goodness”.

This God, I say, is evil.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

On the one hand, I’m just trying to explain to you that I have no idea what you’re talking about when you keep talking about mathematical induction.

Then you have no business telling us we’re wrong.

On the other hand, we do not believe that you have factored all things into consideration when you rendered your conclusion, not even enough to invalidate the Libertarian position.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

Actually, we do have many good reasons, which is why we believe in the first place.

Then you should be happy to provide them and support them with reason and logic.

If someone makes a claim about your own parents are you going to throw away all trust you have in your parents based on one claim against them?

No, you will most likely disbelieve that accusation made against your parents (and quite readily defend their honor no questions asked) until some substantial proof is demonstrated against them.

But proof has now been provided.

The same holds for God for many people: We know that God (Our Father in Heaven) is good so we can’t automatically say that He’s totally unreasonable. We need to search further for the answers when such a claim is made, to ensure that we have all the facts straight. And you have certainly not demonstrated any ”proof” of anything from what I can tell.

Care to defend the “goodness” of God based on the excerpts from St. Thomas I just provided?

Here’s what we’re working with…

a) God desires all people to be saved.
b) According to God’s will, some people will be saved by God and some people will send themselves to hell.

Do you agree with this-- that these are the parameters?

It’s God’s will that some people send themselves to hell. Is that what you really mean?

Well….we have to trust God, correct? Shouldn’t we automatically trust God? Why don’t we?

What is the trust founded on?

Plus, at least in Heaven, we will, once again, automatically trust God.

Then we have foundation to trust Him.

So I think you’re onto something here. Would you at last agree that I’ve displayed evidence that salvation was the “default” position?

Sure.

I don’t think so. If we are saved then we give God the glory. God enabled you to do this (like the baptized infants and the people in heaven noted above).

God gave us the potency but we actualized it then. Do we give the one supplying the building materials the sole credit for building a house, to the exclusion of the builder?

If we are not saved then that is our own fault.

But then if we are saved it is our own glory and achievement, insofar as we actualized it.

We don’t blame God for our own mistakes.

Then we don’t credit God for our own successes.

So perhaps a better question might be: Why doesn’t God’s Spirit live within us anymore? Why don’t we do what God wills?

But if God willed it, we would do it.

How exactly can God do this, prevent every sin? By what means can God’s power prevent every sin?

By either moving the will to infallibly choose the good (efficacious grace), or ensuring that the circumstances in which sin will occur (which, as you admit, God knows beforehand) don’t come to pass.

We’ve established that He does desire this. Now why should He automatically make all people go to heaven if some people deserve hell?

Because He desires it. And, if He really loves them as a real loving Father really would, He could not bear to see them in hell and would, as I have proven to be possible (whether you admit the proof or not), ensure they do not go there.

 

[Camron]

This entire line of argument is epistemological “nihilism” (because we don’t know everything we can’t really know anything), which is what desperate Creationist debaters sometimes resort to.

You just love to call people creationists. That seems to be one of your favorite ad hominems actually.

By the way, I’m not saying that we don’t know everything so we can’t really know anything. I’m saying that it is reasonable to believe that, since God is good, then the methods of His offering of grace will be fair to all, especially if “God is love”. I thought I had made this clear. Apparently not.

You only resort to this (and the ad hominem about “insulting God”) because you can’t actually answer the argument, and you aren’t willing to spend the few ergs of energy necessary to educate yourself on what a proof by mathematical induction is.

But you are insulting God by making the claim that He is evil, which is what you’ve been alluding to since you first started posting here. In fact, it appears to meyou have no real interest in knowing God at all because you’ve had this opinion from the start.

Just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean we can’t know it, even though we’re not omniscient.

I’m sure that you understand mathematical induction. I’m not so sure if you’re applying it properly in this formula though.

Beside that, you both started off in the The Problem of Evil and Free Will Defense (which carried over to this thread) with the insult of saying that people in the United States probably wouldn’t be able to understand it.

ateista:

PS: If you don’t understand the method of mathematical induction, go back and sue your high school. They deserve to be taken for every penny they have.

You replied with this…

SeekingCatholic:

Most of the posters here are American. I’ll wager that at least 95% of American students don’t get taught about mathematical induction in high school. Unfortunately, the secondary education system is already bankrupt, so “taking them for every penny they have” sums to zero. Maybe we should sue colleges instead?

You want to talk about ad hominems?

Do you think anyone’s going to actually ask you what that means after statements like that are made?

SeekingCatholic, do you think the above post isn’t loaded with ad hominems?

For the record, I’m Canadian and I don’t understand what you’re claiming either. Now could you could make the effort to actually explain to me what you mean without making a claim like “…you aren’t willing to spend the few ergs of energy necessary to educate yourself on what a proof by mathematical induction is.”

I am willing to learn if you would explain this to me. The sign of a great teacher is the ability to actually teach people. You, however, apparently aren’t actually interested in teaching either. You seem to be more interested in regurgitating more atheistic rubbish into the mouths of hatchlings.

Anyway, the tone of your posts are fairly arrogant. You never seem to admit to ever making any mistakes in any debate here that you participated in (not that I’ve read). You’re not really interested in learning Catholic theology, except to try to convince others that Catholic Theology is somehow wrong or stupid or the result of an evil god or in need of revision.

What is God’s desire? Try and define it in a way which makes any philosophical sense.

God’s desire is for you to find salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church. Does that define it in a way which makes any philosophical sense to you?

In human terms, a desire is something we want but can’t will due to circumstances outside our control. But the circumstances can’t be outside the control of God; He is omnipotent.

Yes, and you’re still looking at this from a human perspective.

Do you not understand that God is acting through us via the Holy Spirit? Are you really not aware that we can resist the motion of the Holy Spirit too?

I’m guessing that you’ve certainly read enough Catholic theology to know this part about salvation.

This is not outside God’s control because:

a) He is still in control of our final destination regardless of whether we sin or not.

b) He still determines the outcome of our lives too, via the actions that He fore-knew we would do.

c) And, when we do His will, He is doing it through us when we are docile to the Holy Spirit.

In other words, under ideal situations, God is living in us by the Holy Spirit, bringing about His will through us. So when we resist His will, we are not acting according to His will-- we are acting according to our own will. God is not doing it. We are. But God is still in control of our final destination and salvation-- Heaven and Hell.

Now where God’s omnipotence stands out is in forgiving sins. When we experience this happening, we are experiencing the highest extent (from our human perspective) of God’s Omnipotent power. This is where God’s love really stands out to us.

How can God desire what He does not will? All good is supposed to be the result of His positive will. If He does not will it, it does not happen. For Him to desire what He does not will is for Him to desire the impossible. If He desires it, why does He not will it?

One thing that I can say, in my opinion, is that it’s not because of our free-will. This isn’t a test.

The other thing that I will say is that, in my opinion, some things we really do have no control over.

So it can’t all be about free-will that much. Not as much as some people stress in my opinion.

It appears to me that God is living throughout us in those who are docile to the Holy Spirit. But, when we sin, this slays God, with His death throughout all time-space manifesting on the Cross.

In this sense, when God hopes, it’s because man has sinned against Him. In other words, God, in order for people to truly be alive, God must be alive in them. But if he does not live in them, then they are as good as dead on a spiritual level, even if the body is still moving and rational (as God intended).

So, in this sense, God is not dependent on man to live. It’s the other way around. Man is dependent on God to live, with the Holy Spirit breathing through them. And when God hopes, it is, in my opinion, during the periods where people sin-- this is how God “feels” a sense of hope-- something which he already fore-knew long ago (since He experiences all time at the same time).

This is, in a sense, the practical application of why God not only knows what “will happen”, but He also knows what “could happen” too. In other words, God is experiencing the “parallel”, the “what could be”, when people sin, feeling hope for humanity during this time out of His Divine Love.

Again, in my opinion, this has to be about creation, the idea that God gave us some authority to be co-creators with Him. But in failing to trust/believe in God, we created our own sinful desires, things, which, although God fore-knew, He did not intend.

Doing God’s will = God knowing what will happen.
Not doing God’s will = God knowing what could happen

And that’s what God wants, why doesn’t it happen?

Because we don’t do what God wants us to do SeekingCatholic. That’s why. We’re not doing His will.

Well, right from St. Thomas.

I will come back to St. Thomas tomorrow, after some more prayer.

In the meantime…

We can agree that God loves everyone, insofar as God wills some good for them, but not in the specific manner necessary for salvation. You’re going have to get up-to-speed on what Thomism actually teaches on these things.

Again from the man himself…

So God rejects others (and this is, note well, prior to their sins), so that He will be able to punish and “manifest His goodness”.

This God, I say, is evil.

I will say this right now: If you continue insulting God that way (by calling Him evil), which is what you’ve been doing all along, I will place you on my ignore list and shake the sand from my feet away from you. It is despisable to read these kinds of words being typed openly about God here on these forums.

God is not evil and this knid of speech against Him should not be tolerated.

 

[Camron]

Then you have no business telling us we’re wrong.

I sure can. If you’re not willing to actually make the effort to explain this in a manner that I can understand then I can totally reject what you’re claiming. As one of my old teachers once said, “Make an effort and not an excuse.”

I’m willing to learn from you.

You’re just willing to insult me.

Argumentum ad ignorantium.

No. It’s not.

Then you should be happy to provide them and support them with reason and logic.

I am.

But proof has now been provided.

No. It hasn’t.

Care to defend the “goodness” of God based on the excerpts from St. Thomas I just provided?

Only to a certain degree. I would rather quote some excerpts from the Council of Trent.

But I don’t think you’re really interested.

It’s God’s will that some people send themselves to hell. Is that what you really mean?

Now you’re just twisting the words around SeekingCatholic. You know that’s not what I mean.

I’m saying that it is God’s will that people will go to hell if they mortally sin against God. Yes, that is God’s will. And they are responsible for their own fate too.

What is the trust founded on?

God’s love.

Then we have foundation to trust Him.

We have access to that foundation now.

Sure.

No. Not if you’re making it out as if it’s God’s ‘desire’ that some people send themselves to hell. No, we have no agreement.

God gave us the potency but we actualized it then. Do we give the one supplying the building materials the sole credit for building a house, to the exclusion of the builder?

I’d say it’s more like giving the sail to the sailboat the credit that the wind deserves. Without the wind, the sail does nothing. Or, one could say, it’s like giving credit to the light bulb when in fact the electricity going to the light bulb did it.

But then if we are saved it is our own glory and achievement, insofar as we actualized it.

There is some truth to this in the sense that we can merit things from God.

But you’re not really listening are you?

Then we don’t credit God for our own successes.

Yes we do because God is doing it through us. Without Him we cannot do it at all. And He can do it without us too. He doesn’t need us. We need Him.

But if God willed it, we would do it.

Yes, that is true. But how He accomplishes it can be either by us accomplishing His will by doing His will or by resisting His will. Either way we go, His will is going to be accomplished. We cannot escape God’s will.

By either moving the will to infallibly choose the good (efficacious grace), or ensuring that the circumstances in which sin will occur (which, as you admit, God knows beforehand) don’t come to pass.

I see. So we’re back to this again.

God is moving the will of all people to choose the good and has prepared the circumstances in advance which would prevent sin. We’re the one’s messing things up SeekingCatholic.

Because He desires it. And, if He really loves them as a real loving Father really would, He could not bear to see them in hell and would, as I have proven to be possible (whether you admit the proof or not), ensure they do not go there.

I agree that He desires it. But I think He can really love them and bear to see them in hell too.

Perhaps you should pray for others to assist them.

Otherwise, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. It’s a shame too because I was really hoping to learn something from you. Anyway, thanks for your efforts to explain your position. I guess we’ll see whether your mathematical induction is correct on the day we pass away someday-- hopefully many, many years from now after living a good long life. Really, that’s the only proof that will count in the end. I’m fairly sure this will prove it for you too. Hopefully, I will see you in heaven someday too. :tiphat:

 

[TLDenmark]

Dear SeekingCatholic

But then if we are saved it is our own glory and achievement, insofar as we actualized

Then we don’t credit God for our own successes.

Is a farther not blameless if his son squanders his inheritance? Is a farther not praiseworthy, if his soon can gain success and happiness trough his inheritance? I believe that is somewhat analogous to our relationship with God.

God bless you
TL

 

[SeekingCatholic]

You just love to call people creationists. That seems to be one of your favorite ad hominems actually.

It isn’t an ad hominem to call your line of argument epistemological nihilism, and it’s simply a fact that’s used by creationists.

By the way, I’m not saying that we don’t know everything so we can’t really know anything. I’m saying that it is reasonable to believe that, since God is good, then the methods of His offering of grace will be fair to all, especially if “God is love”.

Fine, but what does that have to do with the mathematical induction at issue here?

But you are insulting God by making the claim that He is evil, which is what you’ve been alluding to since you first started posting here.

God, if He exists, can’t be evil by definition. God, as He exists as a concept in our minds, most certainly can be. The concept does not necessarily correspond to the reality.

I’m sure that you understand mathematical induction. I’m not so sure if you’re applying it properly in this formula though.

Look. It’s simple. There are only two premises: it is possible for God to actualize a world, with a single individual, who is saved. Given a world with some number of individuals in it who are saved, it is possible for God to actualize a world with an extra individual who is also saved. From these two premises we conclude it is possible for God to actualize a world with any number of individuals who are saved. The conclusion follows logically from the premises.

Beside that, you both started off in the The Problem of Evil and Free Will Defense (which carried over to this thread) with the insult of saying that people in the United States probably wouldn’t be able to understand it.

That’s not what ateista said, actually.

You replied with this…

That’s a slam on our educational system (and a well-deserved one I think), not Americans in general.

SeekingCatholic, do you think the above post isn’t loaded with ad hominems?

No. It was a jesting off-topic post.

For the record, I’m Canadian and I don’t understand what you’re claiming either… I am willing to learn if you would explain this to me.

Well I explained it to you above.

Anyway, the tone of your posts are fairly arrogant. You never seem to admit to ever making any mistakes in any debate here that you participated in (not that I’ve read). You’re not really interested in learning Catholic theology, except to try to convince others that Catholic Theology is somehow wrong or stupid or the result of an evil god or in need of revision.

Now above is what an ad hominem really is. It’s because I’ve learned Catholic theology that I am convinced it’s in need of revision. You can call that arrogant, but I don’t care. Deep down, it shows me I’m right - and that you don’t really have good answers to my arguments.

God’s desire is for you to find salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ through the Catholic Church. Does that define it in a way which makes any philosophical sense to you?

No, that doesn’t define desire in any way.

Do you not understand that God is acting through us via the Holy Spirit? Are you really not aware that we can resist the motion of the Holy Spirit too?

I’m guessing that you’ve certainly read enough Catholic theology to know this part about salvation.

Yes, I know the part about resisting grace. It doesn’t solve the problem of moral evil at all, merely moves it up another level. Why is grace accepted or resisted?

This is not outside God’s control because:

a) He is still in control of our final destination regardless of whether we sin or not.

b) He still determines the outcome of our lives too, via the actions that He fore-knew we would do.

c) And, when we do His will, He is doing it through us when we are docile to the Holy Spirit.

Then all should be saved, if He is the one in control of our final destination and the one determining the outcome of our lives, and He desires that all should be saved.

So when we resist His will, we are not acting according to His will-- we are acting according to our own will.

And just how can the will of an omnipotent being be “resisted”? Think about it for a second. If God’s will can be resisted by circumstances outside God’s control, He is not omnipotent (from the definition of omnipotence). If those circumstances are inside God’s control, the thing did not come to pass because He did not will it.

You didn’t really answer this…

How can God desire what He does not will? All good is supposed to be the result of His positive will. If He does not will it, it does not happen. For Him to desire what He does not will is for Him to desire the impossible. If He desires it, why does He not will it?

Except to say this…

Because we don’t do what God wants us to do SeekingCatholic. That’s why. We’re not doing His will.

But is God willing us to do what He wants us to do? If He is, then we should be doing it. If He is not, then He is willing contrary to His own desire.

I will come back to St. Thomas tomorrow, after some more prayer.

By all means.

In the meantime…

I will say this right now: If you continue insulting God that way (by calling Him evil), which is what you’ve been doing all along, I will place you on my ignore list and shake the sand from my feet away from you. It is despisable to read these kinds of words being typed openly about God here on these forums.

God is not evil and this knid of speech against Him should not be tolerated.

Please stop with the affected self-righteous indignation. What I said was, this God was evil. It should have been evident that by this God was the concept as it exists in the mind, not the reality. It is possible to conceive of an evil god.

 

[SeekingCatholic]

I sure can. If you’re not willing to actually make the effort to explain this in a manner that I can understand then I can totally reject what you’re claiming. As one of my old teachers once said, “Make an effort and not an excuse.”

I’m willing to learn from you.

Students have to make effort too. You could easily have googled for “mathematical induction”. If you don’t understand you can say you don’t understand, but you have no business telling us we’re wrong; for all you know we could be right.

Only to a certain degree. I would rather quote some excerpts from the Council of Trent.

But I don’t think you’re really interested.

I’m quite familiar with the Council of Trent. Quote away. I probably already know the passages.

I’m saying that it is God’s will that people will go to hell if they mortally sin against God. Yes, that is God’s will. And they are responsible for their own fate too.

Yes. But is God the one who keeps them from mortal sin, or not?

No. Not if you’re making it out as if it’s God’s ‘desire’ that some people send themselves to hell. No, we have no agreement.

You’re simply not going to wiggle out of the following conundrum:

It’s not God’s desire that people send themselves to hell.
But for people not to send themselves to hell, positive action on the part of God is absolutely required.
Without such action on the part of God, people will send themselves to hell.
Therefore, it’s God’s desire that He act differently than He does.

I’d say it’s more like giving the sail to the sailboat the credit that the wind deserves. Without the wind, the sail does nothing. Or, one could say, it’s like giving credit to the light bulb when in fact the electricity going to the light bulb did it.

The light bulb and the sail do not have the ability to “resist” the electricity and the wind. So your analogy fails.

Yes we do because God is doing it through us. Without Him we cannot do it at all. And He can do it without us too. He doesn’t need us. We need Him.

Yes, that is true. But how He accomplishes it can be either by us accomplishing His will by doing His will or by resisting His will. Either way we go, His will is going to be accomplished. We cannot escape God’s will.

This sounds Calvinist. Perhaps this was poorly expressed?

I see. So we’re back to this again.

Yes, we’re back to this again.

God is moving the will of all people to choose the good and has prepared the circumstances in advance which would prevent sin. We’re the one’s messing things up SeekingCatholic.

No, if God is moving the will of all people to choose good and has prepared circumstances in advance which would prevent sin then it is impossible that we would mess things up. Our wills would be infallibly moved to choose good and we would never be in circumstances where we would choose sin.

I agree that He desires it. But I think He can really love them and bear to see them in hell too.

What loving Father would allow his child to go to hell, when it was within His power to prevent?

 

[john_doran]

What loving Father would allow his child to go to hell, when it was within His power to prevent?

a loving father who could have prevented one child from going to hell only by allowing another child he loved to go there.

for example.