Problems with the notion of Divine simplicity

[St_Gregory]

In Catholic Doctrine, God is Simple; this means that God is of one substance (godly) and has no parts or bits (all the elements of God, such as knowledge, power, persons etc, are just different expressions of the one ““thing””)

There is several implications of this:

1. God is immutable, has no motion, no potentiality
2. God is necessary, He Is What He Is (exo 3:14) and nothing else, everything about God MUST be just that (including His existence but that’s not important for this post)
3. God is “perfect” and “good” in the Aristotelian/Thomist sence of fufilling an objects fucntion. For example ,in Aristotelian/Thomist thought, something is good if it does what it is meant to do, a tsunami is good if it acts like a tsunami should and does what it is intended for; even Satan is good in that Satan fufills the quality of existence and exercises power: Satan is a good devil. So a Simple God MUST be good in this sense of the word “good” (but whether God need be good in the moral, personal, loving sense of the word is heavily debatable)
4. God is Timeless and Spaceless, outside of time/space completely since time/space were created by Him and God is subject to no parts or contingencies: many Protestants reject this and argue God is everlasting (i.e. immortal, but still within time)

There seems, to me, to be two massive problems with a Christian accepting the notion of God being Simple (the third is less strong).

1. If God is immutable, then how can He become man? If Jesus was true God, then, as an immuatable being, how can He walk around, grow old and die?
2. God being Necessary and simple means that God’s knowledge IS God and necessary. This seems fine at first BUT if God’s Knowledge is neccesary then He knows who will sin or go to hell/heaven before it happens (since all time/space is immanent to God) and it MUST be that way. If God’s knowledge of who will sin or do good is Necessary, then however it turns out was already Predetermined (in a Thomist or 5-point-calvinist sense) by God. If I hate God and people and so go to Hell, logically (if God is Simple/exists) that was always what was going to happen. So if God is Simple, do we really have Freewill???
   — as a note, St Thomas Aquinas knew of this problem and decided that God WAS Simple, and we are Predestined totally, we have freewill in a way, but that freewill is determined by God’s Grace (it is questionable whether this is true freewill at all then)
3. It gives a Deist idea of God: the Simple God may not be loving or personal or morally good (of course He MAY be, but there is no philosophical way to prove this); yes He is Functionally good, but I doubt whether this is adaquet for a Christian idea of God

(1 and 2 are my main criticisms, 3 is less important since I think I could argue that the Simple God is morally good)

I know Catholics don’t like it when another Catholic criticises there own doctrines but I think our human reason demands us to think rationally always, even if it is not to our liking.

I do have a potential solution but I don’t know how logically strong it is or how consisent it is with Catholic Doctrine: maybe God is, by nature, simple; but that He became complex because that is the most loving thing to do (i.e. becomes in time, suffers with us and carries us, becomes man, allows true freewill by having contingent knowledge rather than necessary etc) and by becoming complex we can have a true relationship with God. Although, I admit I cannot think of how a Simple being or logical proposition can become complex or become contingent but maybe if “God is love”, then “love” will naturally imply that it will sacrifice itself (i.e. become complex) if that is loving to do — part of the mystery of God.

It’s a weak argument I know, but I’d like to hear anyone’s thoughts.

 

[Ghosty]

1. If God is immutable, then how can He become man? If Jesus was true God, then, as an immuatable being, how can He walk around, grow old and die?

Deity didn’t undergo a change with the Incarnation. The human nature of Christ was certainly mutable, but His Divine Nature was not. This is similar, but not identical, to how we have both a physical and spiritual aspect; I can cut my flesh, but my soul is not cut in the process.

1. God being Necessary and simple means that God’s knowledge IS God and necessary. This seems fine at first BUT if God’s Knowledge is neccesary then He knows who will sin or go to hell/heaven before it happens (since all time/space is immanent to God) and it MUST be that way. If God’s knowledge of who will sin or do good is Necessary, then however it turns out was already Predetermined (in a Thomist or 5-point-calvinist sense) by God. If I hate God and people and so go to Hell, logically (if God is Simple/exists) that was always what was going to happen. So if God is Simple, do we really have Freewill???

The problem your having here comes from not viewing things from the Eternal perspective. Since all time is immanent to God, it’s not that God knows what we will do “beforehand”, it’s that God infallibly knows what we have already done in the future. The fact that I know you wrote your post does not change the fact that you freely willed to do so. You also can’t choose otherwise than to have written the post, as that action is now determined. The fact that it is determined doesn’t take away from it being an act of free will. Now just extend this reality to the eternal perspective which covers all actions, and you’ll begin to see how “predetermination” actually works.

— as a note, St Thomas Aquinas knew of this problem and decided that God WAS Simple, and we are Predestined totally, we have freewill in a way, but that freewill is determined by God’s Grace (it is questionable whether this is true freewill at all then)

I think you’re confusing the Thomist position with that of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas didn’t say that our actions are determined by Grace, but later Thomists did make that argument, inventing the concepts of “sufficient” and “efficient” Grace. Aquinas argued from the perspective of eternal knowledge, and the part the free-will plays in making an action happen.

It’s a weak argument I know, but I’d like to hear anyone’s thoughts.

I don’t see how it’s logically possible for a purely simple thing to become complex. For one the very definition precludes it, because there is nothing from within a purely simple thing that can become “parts”. Another point is that it would mean the destruction of the simple thing, in this case it would be the death of God.

Thirdly, it would mean that God is not “pure being and act”, because the simple God would have potency towards complexity. This is very important because it would mean that God couldn’t be the origin of everything, since the existence of contingent, potential things depends ultimately on the existence of something that is “pure being and act”.

Keep exercising that mind, but don’t let it trip you up!

Peace and God bless!

 

[St_Gregory]

Ghostly:

Deity didn’t undergo a change with the Incarnation. The human nature of Christ was certainly mutable, but His Divine Nature was not.

Well I have two criticisms of this argument:

1. There was not a Jesus-God and Jesus-Man; but only one of Jesus the God-Man. You cannot treat one nature without respect to the other; therefore you cannot maintain that Jesus as a man was in motion but as God was still immutable
2. My second problem follows from (1), if God became man, then God became necessarily related to the man (duh: Jesus=God=Man), which means that any motion in Jesus of Nazareth will cause motion in Jesus Christ, God’s Son.
   This can be formulated as thus: if A is necessarily related to B, then A —> B and B —> A; thus A <—> B
   If A <—> B, then A’ —> B’
   IOW if Jesus the man moves, then some motion must occur in the Deity in at least relation

This is similar, but not identical, to how we have both a physical and spiritual aspect; I can cut my flesh, but my soul is not cut in the process

I disagree, if you cut the flesh, the soul will either be affected, or respond in some way. Your soul may feel anger or love, or praise God for your pain or pray for it to go away or whatever. I could logically show how the soul would necessarily be affected using similar logic as above.

The problem your having here comes from not viewing things from the Eternal perspective. Since all time is immanent to God, it’s not that God knows what we will do “beforehand”, it’s that God infallibly knows what we have already done in the future. The fact that I know you wrote your post does not change the fact that you freely willed to do so. You also can’t choose otherwise than to have written the post, as that action is now determined. The fact that it is determined doesn’t take away from it being an act of free will. Now just extend this reality to the eternal perspective which covers all actions, and you’ll begin to see how “predetermination” actually works.

I know what you mean; it was well explained in Boetheius “The Consolation of Philosophy” where Philosophy (a women) explains the difference in conditioned necesity and necessary necessity. It is neccessary that I am typeing on my laptop because I know that I am and sound knowledge is necessily true, but this is only conditioned necessity because there is no logical reason why I absolutely MUST have been typeing now. However the statement “2+2=4” is a necessary necessisity because is always aboslutely MUST logically be true. Philosophy explains how God has absolute knowledge, but regarding freewill it is conditioned necessary knowledge because He sees all time/space at once.
My criticism still stands, however, because if God’s knoweldge is this conditioned necessity, then He, Himself (i.e. His knowledge), is contingent – which contradicts the notion of Divine Simplicity.
Yes I accept there is a way out of the Prescience/Freewill dialema, but I think taking this rout contraditicts the other imporant doctrine of Simplicity.
It seems to me that either:

1. We do not have genuie freewill, our will is ultimately necessarily necessary and our fate immutably predestined
2. God is not Simple
3. God does not Know about about our Free act’s, our virtue and vice, at all

---- clearly any one of these senarios is unacceptable to a Roman Catholic – which is clearly a problem that we rational thinkers need to consider

Freewill; Divine simplicity and God’s Omniscience — an inconsistent triad

I think you’re confusing the Thomist position with that of St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas didn’t say that our actions are determined by Grace, but later Thomists did make that argument, inventing the concepts of “sufficient” and “efficient” Grace. Aquinas argued from the perspective of eternal knowledge, and the part the free-will plays in making an action happen.

Well, to be fair to me, that’s an easy mistake to make then.
But I think there’s something wrong in this passage from your post: see newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm, for example of Aquinas view of Predestination.

I don’t see how it’s logically possible for a purely simple thing to become complex. For one the very definition precludes it, because there is nothing from within a purely simple thing that can become “parts”.

I’m not sure I agree. Something simple could become complex if it had a reason and the capability to. And I think God would have both a very good reason and the power to do so.

Another point is that it would mean the destruction of the simple thing, in this case it would be the death of God.

Hmm, that’s a very high-level philosophical answer
Let me ask you: are you the same person you were when you were a baby? Certainly you are very different but surely you’re the same person. So I see no reason why God could not become something other-than-God-but-which-we-still-call-“God” if He Willed to.

Thirdly, it would mean that God is not “pure being and act”, because the simple God would have potency towards complexity. This is very important because it would mean that God couldn’t be the origin of everything, since the existence of contingent, potential things depends ultimately on the existence of something that is “pure being and act”.

If my theory was correct, it would not mean that God had a “potency” towards complexity (which would be, of course, ungodly) but tended towards love (which is very Godly) which may naturally lead to complexity.
Yes I know this a a poor response, but I think it is time to reconsider what a Perfect God would be like and time to let go of the Ancient Greek views of the deity.

Keep exercising that mind, but don’t let it trip you up!

Peace and God bless!

U2

 

[reggieM]

The way we understand the simplicity of God is from our perspective where we point out unity, lack of parts and lack of contingency (God must always exist).

You have to match that against a timeless and eternal quality.

Things for God do not happen in sequence, before or after.

His only-begotten Son is forever begotten, the Spirit is always proceeding, etc.

The paradox is that God created time, so to us, it appears as if things happen in a sequence.

The only way mankind could freely choose God and love Him in a way that “belongs” to us (so we could merit by loving Him and not just be forced to), is that God had to create the opportunity for freedom of choice for each person.

The freedom to choose heaven or hell remains available to every person during life, even if God knows the outcome in the end.

There is a danger with philosophical speculations because if you use your mind alone – without a sufficient amount of prayer and living the supernatural life, you will end up in a mental trap.

The only way to see things from God’s perspective is through prayer and communication with Him. It can’t be done by just thinking and philosophizing alone.

God built paradoxes into our lives for this purpose – to teach us that we will not solve the mysteries of His creation and we have to work in attaining humility – that is a never-ending battle for us.

Philosophy works with prayer and the virtues (starting with humility, then prudence, justice, fortitude, etc).

St. Thomas Aquinas realized that himself when his mystical union with God at the end of his life cause him to consider all of his philosophizing to be “so much straw”.

 

[Ghosty]

1. There was not a Jesus-God and Jesus-Man; but only one of Jesus the God-Man. You cannot treat one nature without respect to the other; therefore you cannot maintain that Jesus as a man was in motion but as God was still immutable

I’m not positing two Christs, but pointing out the two distinct natures of Christ. We can indeed speak of one nature without respect to the other, but we can’t speak of one nature without respect to the one personhood of Christ.

This was dealt with by the Third, Fourth, and Sixth ecumenical Councils.

While Christ is certainly mutable, as a Person with a mutable human nature, it doesn’t follow that the Divine Nature is therefore mutable. Just as, for example, the fact that I’m material doesn’t mean that my soul is material (which was the point of my cutting example). We can even say that the Son is mutable, but this must always be understood as refering to His human nature and not the Divine. There’s no reason why we can’t speak in this way of a Person who has two different natures, since the two natures need not overlap for the Person to “overlap” both of them.

What you seem to be doing is confusing Person with Nature, which is an error.

My criticism still stands, however, because if God’s knoweldge is this conditioned necessity, then He, Himself (i.e. His knowledge), is contingent – which contradicts the notion of Divine Simplicity.

God’s knowledge is not contingent, it’s knowledge of contingent things. There’s a big difference. I recommend this question and article from the Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#article13

In that Aquinas explains how something can be contingent in itself (our actions, for example) but still be absolute in the knowledge of God, without applying absolute necessity on the action itself, nor applying contingency on the knowledge of God.

To sum it up, my action is contingent on my will, but God’s knowledge of my contingent action is not contingent, but necessary, since He sees from the perspective of all actions already having occured, and His sight extends to all things. Considered in itself, the action is purely contingent, since it follows on a choice, but considered as an action already completed (as it is in eternity) it is necessary since it’s impossible for something to be both true and false at the same time (I’m either sitting or I’m not; I can’t be sitting and standing). Since the contingency of the action itself doesn’t impose contingency on the knowledge of the action as it is completed, such knowledge doesn’t make God mutable; His knowledge is at once perfect and unchanging, since He sees all things as they are completed from eternity, and He’s not subject to time, and is therefore never “waiting for the outcome” to complete His knowledge.

1. We do not have genuie freewill, our will is ultimately necessarily necessary and our fate immutably predestined
2. God is not Simple
3. God does not Know about about our Free act’s, our virtue and vice, at all

You’re falling into the mindset of Molinism, which tends to disregard the property of eternity. Our will is free, our choices are ours, but God is present to our future, and sees infallibly the results of our choices. The fact that the choices are known “as already made” by God doesn’t change the fact that they are our choices, just as my knowledge of you typing the previous post “as already made” doesn’t negate the free-willing of that post. My post-knowledge doesn’t impose absolute necessity on your choice to type, but rather it merely reflects the necessity of something already completed; you can not “freely choose” to have not done what you’ve already completed, but we don’t call that a limitation on free choice. It’s the same with God’s knowledge, it’s just that from His eternal perspective He already “stands at the completion of all acts”.

Well, to be fair to me, that’s an easy mistake to make then.
But I think there’s something wrong in this passage from your post: see newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm, for example of Aquinas view of Predestination.

I’m actually basing everything I’m saying on that Question from the Summa. What are you specifically are you refering to as my error?

I’m not sure I agree. Something simple could become complex if it had a reason and the capability to. And I think God would have both a very good reason and the power to do so.

The problem is that there is no capability for a simple thing to become complex, anymore than 1 is capable of beign 7. They are fundamentally different things, and it’s logically impossible for one to become the other without ceasing to be entirely. Complex things can become more or less complex, certainly, but they can never become simple, and visa versa. For something simple to become complex, it would need to have potency, which would mean it wasn’t simple since it would be composed of potency and act.

If my theory was correct, it would not mean that God had a “potency” towards complexity (which would be, of course, ungodly) but tended towards love (which is very Godly) which may naturally lead to complexity.

That’s still potency towards complexity, because God has the “potential to become complex”. As I said above, that’s impossible for a purely simple being, a contradiction in terms.

Peace and God bless!

 

[St_Gregory]

The way we understand the simplicity of God is from our perspective where we point out unity, lack of parts and lack of contingency. The paradox is that God created time, so to us, it appears as if things happen in a sequence.

The only way mankind could freely choose God and love Him in a way that “belongs” to us (so we could merit by loving Him and not just be forced to), is that God had to create the opportunity for freedom of choice for each person.

The freedom to choose heaven or hell remains available to every person during life, even if God knows the outcome in the end.

There is a danger with philosophical speculations because if you use your mind alone – without a sufficient amount of prayer and living the supernatural life, you will end up in a mental trap.

The only way to see things from God’s perspective is through prayer and communication with Him. It can’t be done by just thinking and philosophizing alone.

God built paradoxes into our lives for this purpose – to teach us that we will not solve the mysteries of His creation and we have to work in attaining humility – that is a never-ending battle for us.

Philosophy works with prayer and the virtues (starting with humility, then prudence, justice, fortitude, etc).

St. Thomas Aquinas realized that himself when his mystical union with God at the end of his life cause him to consider all of his philosophizing to be “so much straw”.

I’m not sure of the rationalness of the statement “God built paradoxes into our lives for this purpose – to teach us that we will not solve the mysteries of His creation and we have to work in attaining humility – that is a never-ending battle for us.” It seems, to me, that God would build a logical, coherant world and humans are granted the power of rational thought – it seems wrong (even unintelligible) to suggest God could build paradoxes. If we accepted that, then all knowledge would become meaningless since logic need not be coherant - absurd I think.

As for you mystic-related point. True, I agree with you, but I’ll try and develope virtues how I feel is right to. Since I think rigourous philosophical rationality is a good thing, I will continue to practice it as best I can.
Ghostly:

I’m not positing two Christs, but pointing out the two distinct natures of Christ. We can indeed speak of one nature without respect to the other, but we can’t speak of one nature without respect to the one personhood of Christ.

But if Christ has two distinct natures, then is not that a complex in the person of Christ? Also if you want to make this distinction between Christ’s nature and person, then you’ve made a metaphysical complex in who Christ is.

Ghosty:

God’s knowledge is not contingent, it’s knowledge of contingent things. There’s a big difference. I recommend this question and article from the Summa:

newadvent.org/summa/1014.htm#article13

In that Aquinas explains how something can be contingent in itself (our actions, for example) but still be absolute in the knowledge of God, without applying absolute necessity on the action itself, nor applying contingency on the knowledge of God.

Hmm, I read this article just now and…
I can only see contradictory arguementation in Aquinas work here. If God has knowledge of contingent objects, then God relates (at least via that knowledge) to contingent things, and thus He is partially contingent.

Aquinas:

things known by God are contingent on account of their proximate causes, while the knowledge of God, which is the first cause, is necessary.

This is a contradiction. If God’s knowledge is necessary, then all that follows will be neccesary since they follow from God who is “First cause”. Regardless of whether God sees timelessly or not, that does not change the fact that a necessary, simple being, cannot have knowledge of contingent objects since, timeless or not, they are contingent.

Aquinas:

Now God knows all contingent things not only as they are in their causes, but also as each one of them is actually in itself. And although contingent things become actual successively, nevertheless God knows contingent things not successively, as they are in their own being, as we do but simultaneously. The reason is because His knowledge is measured by eternity, as is also His being; and eternity being simultaneously whole comprises all time, as said above (Question 10, Article 2). Hence all things that are in time are present to God from eternity, not only because He has the types of things present within Him, as some say; but because His glance is carried from eternity over all things as they are in their presentiality. Hence it is manifest that contingent things are infallibly known by God, inasmuch as they are subject to the divine sight in their presentiality; yet they are future contingent things in relation to their own causes.

Again, I accept that God can infallible know everything including contingent actions; but mear infallible knowledge is not enough when talking about a Simple God since His knowledge must be Necessary - not conditioned infallible knowledge, but causal definitive knowledge.

I might like to explain that most of my Aquinas’ knowledge is from Dr Peter Vardy (who got his doctorate through a large study of Aquinas) who maintains that Aquinas believes that God’s knowledge is causal and not caused by our free actions. Yes we have freewill, but only as caused by God’s grace. Vardy explains Aquinas position clearly, with quotes and stuff, and argues that it is impossible to accept a Simple God as well as uncaused freewill; Vardy explains that Aquinas believed in strict Predeterminism,

 

[reggieM]

I’m not sure of the rationalness of the statement “God built paradoxes into our lives for this purpose – to teach us that we will not solve the mysteries of His creation and we have to work in attaining humility – that is a never-ending battle for us.” It seems, to me, that God would build a logical, coherant world and humans are granted the power of rational thought – it seems wrong (even unintelligible) to suggest God could build paradoxes. If we accepted that, then all knowledge would become meaningless since logic need not be coherant - absurd I think.

Interesting points here. First of all, you are looking for solutions to the problems by use of human analytics and reasoning powers.

Unfortunately, however, you’re already starting from an irrational position. So, you’ve undercut your own opinion before you even got started.

A key phrase above “it seems to me, that God would build a logical, coherent world …”

This is an assumption that you haven’t proven by use of reason.

The fact that every human being must die is clear proof that your assumption is incorrect (if taken absolutely).

It seems as if you do not want to refer to Catholic teaching on this matter, so I can’t offer the more obvious refutation of your first premise (that God would build a world entirely comprehendable by human reason, and that God would not build paradoxes into this world). The Holy Church uses the term “mystery” for a reason. But back to human reasoning powers …

I could also refer you to the Holy Scripture which teaches clearly that human reason, not only cannot penetrate into the depths of the meaning of creation (and into the mind of God) but those who attempt to do so actually drift farther from the truth (which I fear you are doing with your questions).

I’m suggesting that you re-evaluate your own first principles.

Again, you haven’t proven that human reason is capable of understanding the mysteries of the universe. You’ve assumed such, but you need to prove it.

Working against you are a few bits of logic that can help …

– Your reasoning powers, here on earth, are finite (they will end). They are also limited by your abilities and level of mental perfection (there are others more capable with higher powers of thought). Do you possess the power to capture (fully “surround”) the infinite, eternal and entirely perfect intelligence of God?

– Similar to the above, you exist in time and view things from the perspective of time. What kind of analogy can you use to understand the timeless?

There are other ways to consider your own being in contrast with that of eternal, necessary Being, and in fact, if you do that long enough you will take an opposite view. You will begin to wonder how it is possible that you, a contingent being, dependent on many things to support and sustain your own knowledge, very subject to deception, ignorance, misunderstanding, and errors of every kind – how you are able to understand anything about the universe. It’s a gift and a miracle in itself.

The answer from Catholic teaching, and the perennial Catholic philosophers is that the universe is built, both with component that is compatible with human reason, and with components which are paradoxical.

Now the last point I’d note in your reply, which again is not based in rationality is that “If we accepted [that God created paradoxes], then all knowledge would become meaningless since logic need not be coherant - absurd I think”.

This again is an assumption – this time, you’re assuming that logic can only work if the entire universe is subject to logical deductions.

First, that is impossible to prove because you’d have to investigate the entire universe to test it. But more importantly, as Catholics we should know very well that there are other means of arriving at the truth that are not strictly logical.

It’s important to reflect on the paradoxes that Our Lord gave us Himself. While He did use logic, he was not limited to logical formulae.

His life itself was a paradox, and that is why philosophers mocked him … “he who loves his life will lose it”? By dying you will live? In giving you will receive?

There are many such paradoxes.

Msgr. Benson has a good book entitled the Paradoxes of Catholicism – highly recommended.

Of course, Chesterton built most of his writing on the paradoxical nature of the universe, as did Belloc.

The great Catholic philosopher, Frederick D Wilhelmsen has a book entitled: “The Paradoxical Structure of Existence” – again, recommended reading.

In summary, we are capable of using reason to explore and understand many aspects of life and the universe. But God also provided us with paradoxes within the structure – for a definite reason.

Again, the death of each human being is a paradox – one in which many atheists cannot understand and think to be absurd. But that’s the danger of using mere human reason alone.

p.s. I will be taking a break from CAF for the next 40 days so I won’t be able to answer you until I return.

 

[St_Gregory]

reggieM:

p.s. I will be taking a break from CAF for the next 40 days so I won’t be able to answer you until I return.

That’s okay, but I’ll pick up on a couple of points anyway.

Interesting points here. First of all, you are looking for solutions to the problems by use of human analytics and reasoning powers.

Unfortunately, however, you’re already starting from an irrational position. So, you’ve undercut your own opinion before you even got started.

A key phrase above “it seems to me, that God would build a logical, coherent world …”

This is an assumption that you haven’t proven by use of reason.

I took is as universally accepted actually :lol:
okay then: If God is meaningful then His Creation would follow suite as it reflects His Will. Furthermore a omnibenevolent God would not decieve us.

The fact that every human being must die is clear proof that your assumption is incorrect (if taken absolutely).

Huh? What’s logically wrong with dieing? We are mortals, mortals → death

– Your reasoning powers, here on earth, are finite (they will end). They are also limited by your abilities and level of mental perfection (there are others more capable with higher powers of thought). Do you possess the power to capture (fully “surround”) the infinite, eternal and entirely perfect intelligence of God?

– Similar to the above, you exist in time and view things from the perspective of time. What kind of analogy can you use to understand the timeless?

I actually take a fairly agnostic approach to Eternal Laws, but I do think that if God exists (if that even makes sense) then He would grant us meaningful knowledge though imperfect. I do not clain to know about God, but I can certainly follow basic logic.

 

[St_Gregory]

Ghostly:

The problem your having here comes from not viewing things from the Eternal perspective. Since all time is immanent to God, it’s not that God knows what we will do “beforehand”, it’s that God infallibly knows what we have already done in the future. The fact that I know you wrote your post does not change the fact that you freely willed to do so. You also can’t choose otherwise than to have written the post, as that action is now determined. The fact that it is determined doesn’t take away from it being an act of free will. Now just extend this reality to the eternal perspective which covers all actions, and you’ll begin to see how “predetermination” actually works.

According to you, God’s knowledge of how we will behave/sin is caused by how we will behave/sin - this causes God’s knowledge before we do it because He is Timeless of course BUT that doesn’t take away from the fact that God’s knowledge is caused. Look at this piece of logic:
According to a Catholic dogma God is Simple
-therefore God’s knowledge is God
God’s knowledge of our behavior is timelessly caused by our behavior
-therefore God’s knowledge is at least partially contingent
-therefore God is at least partially contingent
but this contradicts the doctrine of Divine Simplicity
-therefore God’s knowledge is either Necessary (so we cannot really have freewill, we cannot be “originating causes of our actions” - this would sit uncomfortably with most Catholics) or God cannot be Simple (in which case Catholic “Infallible” doctrine is wrong; therefore Catholicism is wrong)

do you understand the problem I have now?

 

[Daedelus76]

From what I’ve understood from studying Process philosophy, God does change to a certain extent, having an essence that doesn’t change, and a contigent existence subject to change- God as God is as much a process as a being. Also, in the Orthodox theology, certain aspects of God, such as the “uncreated Energies”, change. These energies are a kind of emanation from God, and create the physical universe. Both are somewhat panentheistic.

 

[Ghosty]

From what I’ve understood from studying Process philosophy, God does change to a certain extent, having an essence that doesn’t change, and a contigent existence subject to change- God as God is as much a process as a being. Also, in the Orthodox theology, certain aspects of God, such as the “uncreated Energies”, change. These energies are a kind of emanation from God, and create the physical universe. Both are somewhat panentheistic.

In Byzantine theology the Divine Energies certainly do not change; if they did they would not be uncreated by definition, but created at the point they were changed (“all change is a creation”).

St. Gregory: I’ll try to address your points later on tonight.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

According to a Catholic dogma God is Simple
-therefore God’s knowledge is God
God’s knowledge of our behavior is timelessly caused by our behavior
-therefore God’s knowledge is at least partially contingent
-therefore God is at least partially contingent
but this contradicts the doctrine of Divine Simplicity
-therefore God’s knowledge is either Necessary (so we cannot really have freewill, we cannot be “originating causes of our actions” - this would sit uncomfortably with most Catholics) or God cannot be Simple (in which case Catholic “Infallible” doctrine is wrong; therefore Catholicism is wrong)

God’s knowledge is not caused by us; God is still the cause of our actions, but not in such a way that we don’t freely do them.

First off, having free will doesn’t mean we are the originating causes of our actions. In fact, being the originating cause of an action is impossible for any creature, with or without the Catholic notion of God. Our actions always flow, at least in some way, from what has come before us because we are not our own cause. My mother and father are causes of my actions by conceiving me, for example, so even though I make choices those choices only have “being” and act because of a previous cause giving this being to them, in this case my parents giving me being. So it’s utterly impossible for any creature to be the absolute cause of anything, let alone its own actions.

So we must find a definition of free will that is actually applicable to reality. The definition that St. Thomas Aquinas uses is that free will means that our minds can consider the world and choose an action based on deliberation. This definition doesn’t necessitate us being the absolute cause of our actions (which is impossible), but it does mean that what we choose is our own choice, and not chosen for us.

With this in mind we can consider how God causes our free actions. For one thing, as we’ve already discussed, God knows our free actions before they occur. This doesn’t make His knowledge contingent, because our actions are not the cause of Him knowing (they can’t be, because our actions are temporal, while God’s knowledge is eternal). Since God’s knowledge is eternal, we must always view it as prior to any temporal actions, and in fact it is the cause of those actions in a couple of different ways.

The first way that God’s knowledge is the cause of our action is by giving us being and free will in the first place. Everything we do is subsequent to this, and so everything we do is caused by this. The second way that God is the cause of our actions is by giving those actions being; every moment of time is “activated” by God, or else it doesn’t happen, just as everything that exists is constantly held in existence, given being, by God.

Both of these things must occur prior to the actions themselves, and therefore these acts of God can’t be caused by our our choices. That being said, our free will isn’t curtailed because we are still choosing an action based on our own deliberation and determination, even though we rely on God to have this ability, and to put it into act.

For a really good illustration of this, I recommend the movie “Stranger Than Fiction”, about a man who’s life is actually a story being currently written by an author in the same city. It depicts the interplay between free-choice and outside influence very well, and it shows how free will is not necessarily curtailed by your “story” being written by someone else.

Peace and God bless!

 

[St_Gregory]

God’s knowledge is not caused by us; God is still the cause of our actions, but not in such a way that we don’t freely do them.

First off, having free will doesn’t mean we are the originating causes of our actions. In fact, being the originating cause of an action is impossible for any creature, with or without the Catholic notion of God. Our actions always flow, at least in some way, from what has come before us because we are not our own cause. My mother and father are causes of my actions by conceiving me, for example, so even though I make choices those choices only have “being” and act because of a previous cause giving this being to them, in this case my parents giving me being. So it’s utterly impossible for any creature to be the absolute cause of anything, let alone its own actions.

So we must find a definition of free will that is actually applicable to reality. The definition that St. Thomas Aquinas uses is that free will means that our minds can consider the world and choose an action based on deliberation. This definition doesn’t necessitate us being the absolute cause of our actions (which is impossible), but it does mean that what we choose is our own choice, and not chosen for us.

With this in mind we can consider how God causes our free actions. For one thing, as we’ve already discussed, God knows our free actions before they occur. This doesn’t make His knowledge contingent, because our actions are not the cause of Him knowing (they can’t be, because our actions are temporal, while God’s knowledge is eternal). Since God’s knowledge is eternal, we must always view it as prior to any temporal actions, and in fact it is the cause of those actions in a couple of different ways.

The first way that God’s knowledge is the cause of our action is by giving us being and free will in the first place. Everything we do is subsequent to this, and so everything we do is caused by this. The second way that God is the cause of our actions is by giving those actions being; every moment of time is “activated” by God, or else it doesn’t happen, just as everything that exists is constantly held in existence, given being, by God.

Both of these things must occur prior to the actions themselves, and therefore these acts of God can’t be caused by our our choices. That being said, our free will isn’t curtailed because we are still choosing an action based on our own deliberation and determination, even though we rely on God to have this ability, and to put it into act.

For a really good illustration of this, I recommend the movie “Stranger Than Fiction”, about a man who’s life is actually a story being currently written by an author in the same city. It depicts the interplay between free-choice and outside influence very well, and it shows how free will is not necessarily curtailed by your “story” being written by someone else.

Peace and God bless!

Okay firstly: thank’s for replying and second you have argued your case beautifully without writing far too many words to read.

Your line of think seems very coherent and valid and indeed that was the position I used to take (though you explained it better that I did).

I guess in a way you are right in your understanding of God’s SImplicity being reconciled with freewill and I see no major logical fallacies anywhere. However there is a few difficulties:

Ghosty:

… therefore these acts of God can’t be caused by our our choices. That being said, our free will isn’t curtailed because we are still choosing an action based on our own deliberation and determination, even though we rely on God…

It’s difficult to understand how we can exercise moral agency if our behavior and thoughts are ultimately predetermined, yes we may behave freely, but if that freedom is limited to one option and my final fate is necessary then how can I be to blame? After-all, God made me like this and God put me in this situation etc etc??!!?

I accept that on a purely rational basis, your argument is pretty good, but it is difficult and I’m not sure I can ever hope to find a perfect solution.

Take care buddy
~Greg

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you for your kind words, and for being so understanding about the time it’s taken for me to reply.

As for your difficulty, I think it’s a reasonable and natural one, and I would even argue that such difficulties are important for any philosophical discussion because I believe they point us in the direction of common sense, which is where all philosophy must ultimately rest.

The first thing we must keep in mind is that our choices are “predetermined to one answer” not so much because all factors add up to that one answer, but because we can only make one choice for each deliberation. Every decision, by virtue of it occuring in linear time, is going to be set at a single choice.

So, when considered as a completed act, everything is “necessary”, because if I’m sitting then it’s necessary that I’m sitting and not standing. When considered as an kind of action, however, something can be contingent or necessary, and we understand this quality by looking at its immediate cause. When something in and of itself is utterly determined to one outcome, like water following gravity and the path of least resistance, we call it a necessary outcome, but when something follows on deliberation and choice it’s a contingent outcome even if it is ultimately set to one (which, as I said before, is a given for all things considered as completed), because it is choice that sets it to a certain outcome, and not a necessity of nature as in the case of water flowing downhill.

When an action is determined contingently, in this sense, we can give it moral weight on the part of the person making the choice, because it is their choice which gives the action its quality. So the question is: does God make us in such a way that our choices follow from our nature, or from deliberation? I’m honestly not sure if we can answer this purely on reason alone, or if it requires some “faith” to decide, but I do know that we do take it on Faith that God gives us free will, the ability to weigh, consider, and decide. The fact that God gives us this ability, and puts our choices into “act”, doesn’t necessarily take away from this freedom of choice, but it does mean that we are not the sole, ultimate cause of our free will (which, as I said in the previous post, would be impossible even if we left God out of the equation).

So while we can certainly say that it is because of God that we have this choice, and because of God that this choice is made real, we can also certainly say that this choice comes from our deliberation. We end up with a complicated answer, but one that is no less true, namely that God freely chooses to make a person who freely chooses good or evil, and freely chooses to make that choice a reality. We remain morally culpable because it is our own freedom that determines the quality of the action, even though when considered from God’s eternal and necessary knowledge the choice is already “set” (just as every choice, considered as completed, is set).

The bigger question then is why does God choose to make a world in which people freely choose evil, but that is beyond the scope of our particular topic of free will and necessity. This is where we get into the “problem of evil”, and it does have answers of its own. After all, absolutely considered, is it better to exist, or not to exist? Is goodness displayed more by not allowing something to exist, or is goodness better demonstrated by allowing it to exist even if it is evil in itself? I think that it is better to exist than to not exist, and that ultimately speaking there is “good” even in the existence of Satan, because existence itself is a manifestation of God (and God works Good through Satan’s actions), but considered in himself Satan is morally evil. It is good that evil men exist, and good that their evil is punished, and good that they have the choice of evil, and it’s even good that good actions can arise from evil (Christ’s actions in response to Satan, and all our good works in response to the evil of the world).

As I said, though, all of these things fall outside the question of whether or not God is Simple, and whether or not our actions are free. This is where we say that God makes some vessels for honor, and others for dishonor, but that this honor and dishonor is morally reduced to the choice of those persons. We can’t believe in any kind of “absolute free will”, but that is the case purely on philosophical grounds; absolute free will on the part of creatures is simply a contradiction in terms, because we aren’t the cause of reality (only pure solipsism could possibly allow for “absolute free will”, and even then it’s ultimately an illusion). We can believe in free will that is morally culpable, however, and in choices that are immediately determined by us and our deliberation, and not by necessity of nature. It’s only by ignoring this complex answer that we fall into the trap of absolute predetermination (the error of Calvin), where choice is an illusion and we are actually compelled by our individual natures to “make bad choices”.

I hope this makes some sense.

Peace and God bless!

 

[St_Gregory]

Yeah, that all makes sense.
I appreciate that the issue of moral evils belongs to the Problem of Evil - I wasn’t so worried about that so much but I do appreciate that the ideas intertwine a little bit.

I can’t really criticise you there.

I still find it difficult but that’s that :lol:

Okay I still have problems with the idea of Simplicity in relation to the Incarnation and Christ’s Death but I think we’ve come a long way.

 

[Spirithound]

1. If God is immutable, then how can He become man? If Jesus was true God, then, as an immuatable being, how can He walk around, grow old and die?
2. It gives a Deist idea of God: the Simple God may not be loving or personal or morally good (of course He MAY be, but there is no philosophical way to prove this); yes He is Functionally good, but I doubt whether this is adaquet for a Christian idea of God

I’d like to comment on 3) first because I don’t think anyone else has. Basically I think that knowing God’s attributes goes beyond the scope of philosophy, and into theology. You can’t discern my personality unless you actually read my posts or get to know me personally. Same with God.

Regarding 1), this is a Mystery. We can know it partially, but I don’t think we can ever (in this life) fully comprehend what it means for an Infinite Being to become a man.

It’s difficult to understand how we can exercise moral agency if our behavior and thoughts are ultimately predetermined, yes we may behave freely, but if that freedom is limited to one option and my final fate is necessary then how can I be to blame? After-all, God made me like this and God put me in this situation etc etc??!!?

I feel there is a distinction between “foreknowledge” and “causation”. Yes, God knows what we will do with perfect accuracy, but that is because (in addition to His infinite scope) of His supremely intimate knowledge of us, not because He makes us do it. Consider how you know pretty well how your family will react to certain things. I know this from living with them for 20 years. But even after 20 years, my foreknowledge is fallible. Think then how God, an infinite being would know each of us so much better than I know my family. But just as I don’t cause their actions, God doesn’t cause our actions.

I think this is a hard concept to process (for me anyways) because I am uncomfortable, in a way, of being fully known to someone. I’ve done things I am ashamed of, and there is definitely a part of me that wants to bury that so no one will ever know it! I’m sure (regrettably) that I will do things in the future that I will be ashamed of, and I’m not entirely certain (to say the least) that I want God looking at those things!

 

[Ghosty]

I feel there is a distinction between “foreknowledge” and “causation”. Yes, God knows what we will do with perfect accuracy, but that is because (in addition to His infinite scope) of His supremely intimate knowledge of us, not because He makes us do it. Consider how you know pretty well how your family will react to certain things. I know this from living with them for 20 years. But even after 20 years, my foreknowledge is fallible. Think then how God, an infinite being would know each of us so much better than I know my family. But just as I don’t cause their actions, God doesn’t cause our actions.

I think this is a hard concept to process (for me anyways) because I am uncomfortable, in a way, of being fully known to someone. I’ve done things I am ashamed of, and there is definitely a part of me that wants to bury that so no one will ever know it! I’m sure (regrettably) that I will do things in the future that I will be ashamed of, and I’m not entirely certain (to say the least) that I want God looking at those things!

I think the major difficulty that this concept of foreknowledge runs into is that God must be said to be the cause of our actions in some way, and that’s where the issue becomes thorny. It can be very difficult to find the line between God causing our actions, and our actions being absolutely set in stone entirely apart from our own free will.

We must say that God causes our actions because we must say that nothing has being without God, and not just no thing, but no moment in time exist without the constant action of God. In this sense, we can not sin without God giving us the power to act at all, and putting our actions into reality. It’s a very difficult concept to deal with, but it has reasonable answers as I hope I’ve shown above.

Peace and God bless!