Question about God's attributes

[laocmo]

Does anyone know who first thought up that big list of all the many attributes God is supposed to have? In addition to the more commonly known three:

Immutability – means God cannot change
Omnipotence – refers to Him being “all powerful”
Omniscience - refers to Him being “all knowing”.

There are about a dozen more that I was not even aware existed. (Google God’s attributes and you will see what I mean) I would guess they were first listed by some well meaning theologians in the early days of the Church when people in general were very ignorant. And is it time to revise the list now that we can look at God more logically?

For instance Omniscience refers to him being all knowing of things past, present, and future. Yet this seems to be a false attribute as demonstrated by simple logic. If God knows where I will end up, Heaven or Hell and if he could write the answer down and give it to me, I could read it. And then if He wrote Hell reform my life enough to merit Heaven, or if he said Heaven I could purposely defy Him, turn into a vicious heartless killer, commit suicide and surely go to Hell. This logic seems to say that either I do not have free will, or that God does not have Omniscience. I have free will, so that only leaves one other possibility, that God can not see the true future as we have assumed.

Any ideas here? Thanks.

 

[buffalo]

1. 
   *]The Attributes of God in General
   *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)
   
   1. 
      *]The Attributes of the Divine Life
      *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
      *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
      *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
      *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
      *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
      *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
      *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
      *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
      *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
      *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
      *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
      *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
      *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
      *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
      *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
      *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)

 

[Mintaka]

This isn’t an insult, because I don’t know much philosophy and logic myself. But it’s really really obvious from your comment about a “more logical” way of looking at God that you haven’t actually done much real philosophy and logic, much less theology.

Your question isn’t anything new or different. It’s a very old, very basic one.

God does not exist exclusively inside time and space (which He created), although He basically permeates every point in space and time, simultaneously. (And that alone would be enough to make Him omniscient.) He is in eternity, in which space and time do not exist. The combination of these two attributes allows Him to know everything that has ever and will ever happen, all at once.

So saying that God’s knowledge of what’s going on affects free will is like you telling me that me watching CNN affects the free will of all the little people in the video box. He already saw it happen, and it is happening now.

Now, when it comes to your fate, this would be why God doesn’t usually give us exact prophecies about our final fate; it’s His courtesy that allows us free will, just as it was His courtesy not to make us puppets and robots in the first place. Prophecies in the Bible are usually conditional, allowing people to change if they accept the warning. But if God does tell us about our final fate, He wouldn’t be predicting or forcing anything; He would just be reporting the news.

This is not a particularly good explanation, btw. I urge you to read real theology and philosophy, with real explanations, from primary source theologians. Even the pagan Greek philosophers came to believe in unlimited definitions of deity like the Unmoved Mover. Limited gods are ultimately of limited interest to humanity, because such beings would only exceed us in degree and not in kind, and not deserve worship.

 

[DavidFilmer]

God does not have attributes. Created beings have attributes (which they may possess to a greater or lesser degree). God has only existence. God does not HAVE love, God IS love.

If God knows where I will end up, Heaven or Hell and if he could write the answer down and give it to me, I could read it. And then if He wrote Hell reform my life enough to merit Heaven, or if he said Heaven I could purposely defy Him, turn into a vicious heartless killer, commit suicide and surely go to Hell.

You don’t understand - you are thinking as a creature who has his existence doled out to him a moment at a time.

To God, everything that ever will happen has already happened.

Let me try to explain: All of the free will in the world cannot change what you decided to do yesterday. You know what you decided to do yesterday, but your knowledge today had no influence on your free will yesterday. You still had free will up until you committed yourself to the choice, but from that point forward you have full knowledge of the choice you made, and you can never go back and choose differently. We have no free will over any choices that we have already made.

God knows every choice you will ever make. You cannot trick him by doing something that he does not expect (because he already knows). Whatever he wrote on that paper would be true, but only because you would make a series of freewill decisions to make it happen.

God’s knowledge of your fate does not control your actions today any more than your own knowledge of yesterday’s actions controlled those.

 

[bzkoss236]

Does anyone know who first thought up that big list of all the many attributes God is supposed to have? In addition to the more commonly known three:

Immutability – means God cannot change
Omnipotence – refers to Him being “all powerful”
Omniscience - refers to Him being “all knowing”.

There are about a dozen more that I was not even aware existed. (Google God’s attributes and you will see what I mean) I would guess they were first listed by some well meaning theologians in the early days of the Church when people in general were very ignorant. And is it time to revise the list now that we can look at God more logically?

For instance Omniscience refers to him being all knowing of things past, present, and future. Yet this seems to be a false attribute as demonstrated by simple logic. If God knows where I will end up, Heaven or Hell and if he could write the answer down and give it to me, I could read it. And then if He wrote Hell reform my life enough to merit Heaven, or if he said Heaven I could purposely defy Him, turn into a vicious heartless killer, commit suicide and surely go to Hell. This logic seems to say that either I do not have free will, or that God does not have Omniscience. I have free will, so that only leaves one other possibility, that God can not see the true future as we have assumed.

Any ideas here? Thanks.

Your thoughts on changing the future are wrong. You could claim that you could change what was written on the paper, but it logically follows that if the paper did foretell your future that you wouldn’t be able to change it, because for God it already happened. This doesn’t negate your free will, since it would be your free will that would inevitably lead you to the answer on the paper, but it would be inescapable.

Also, it would be more likely that if God showed you a paper saying that you would go to hell, and in knowing that it would be inescapable, you would fall into depression, doubt, and ultimately reject God for judging you worthy of hell, which would then lead you to go to hell. Similar could be said for heaven.

God can see past, present, future, and he knows your thoughts. If God wrote something down on paper about your future, it would be inevitable, because it is your future. You would not be able to change it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Does anyone know who first thought up that big list of all the many attributes God is supposed to have?

Yes, this sort of theology reached a high point in the Age of Scholasticism (middle ages) and is best articulated (and adopted by the Church) by Aquinas in SCG and his Summa and his commentary on Pseudio Dionysius’s “The Divine Names.”

In your wisdom you suggest these are the naiive thoughts of ignorant “theologians” from the Dark Ages who did not know any better. In fact Aquinas was an Intellectual giant (he is called the “Angelic Doctor” of the Church) whose stature and systematic writings have not been surpassed even after 700 years.

The problem is you may not understand the philosophy behind this theology. Obviously “attributes” does not mean what you think it means and distinctions need to be made which Aquinas clearly makes. I offer the following from Chapt 30 of his SCG. You may not understand it as one needs to be trained in the philosophy of Aristotle to understand the technical jargon and the meaning of the english words which is not colloquial.

And thus in every name that we utter, if we consider the mode of signification, there is found an imperfection that does not attach to God, although the thing signified may attach to God in some eminent way, as appears in the name ‘goodness’ and ‘good.’ ‘Goodness’ denotes something as not subsisting by itself: ‘good,’ something as concrete and composite. In this respect, then, no name befits God suitably except in respect of that which the name is imposed to signify. Such names therefore may be both affirmed and denied of God, affirmed on account of the meaning of the name, denied on account of the mode of signification. But the mode of supereminence, whereby the said perfections are found in God, cannot be signified
by the names imposed by us, except either by negation, as when we call God ‘eternal’ or infinite,’ or by reference or comparison of Him to other things, as when He is called the ‘First Cause’ or the ‘Sovereign Good.’ For we cannot take in (capere) of God what He is,but what He is not, and how other beings stand related to Him.

The perfections proper to other things in respect of their several forms must be attrib-uted to God in respect of His productivity alone, which productivity is no other than His
essence. Thus then God is called ‘wise,’ not only in respect of His producing wisdom, but because, in so far as we are wise, we imitate in some measure His productivity, which makes us wise. But He is not called ’stone,’ though He has made stones, because in the name of ’stone’ is understood a determinate mode of being wherein a stone is distinguished from God. Still a stone is an imitation of God its cause, in being, in goodness, and other such re-spects…Thus also God by His one simple being possesses all manner of perfection, all that other beings compass by divers faculties — yea, much more. Hereby the need is clear of many names predicated of God: for as we cannot know Him naturally otherwise than by arriving at Him from the effects which He produces, the names whereby we denote His perfections must be several and diverse, answering to the diverse perfections that are found in things. But if we could understand His essence as it is in itself, and adapt to it a name proper to it, we should express it by one name only, as is promised to those who shall behold Him in essence: In that day there shall be one Lord, and his name shall be one (Zach. xiv, 9).

 

[laocmo]

Whoever said that I’m not a theologian or a philosopher is very correct. I’m just another ignorant Catholic like the majority of my Catholic friends. However I have learned the rules for forming a simple logical syllogism. And the one I presented follows all the rules of college level logic with no fallacy of the undistributed middle, etc. I’m disturbed that the only clear cut answers to this question, that I’ve pondered for a long time, came from the atheist side of a theist/atheist discussion group. Now I would like to hear the Catholic explanation.

A summary of what I said is:

Assuming God knows my future and I have free will:

If God knows my future, He could write it down. True
I could read what was written and do the exact opposite. True
Then God either was wrong, or I am forced to do what He says negating my free will. True

There is nothing wrong with this logic. From it follows that either I do not have free will, or God lacks omniscience.

Some responses to my query that make no logical sense to me:

“But if God does tell us about our final fate, He wouldn’t be predicting or forcing anything; He would just be reporting the news………”

Which, since it hasn’t happened yet, I could change with my free will.

“Whatever he wrote on that paper would be true, but only because you would make a series of free will decisions to make it happen.”

This means I would not be able to do the opposite ?? What happened to my free will?

“If God wrote something down on paper about your future, it would be inevitable, because it is your future. You would not be able to change it.”

So with this reasoning out the window goes my free will.

If you can’t explain this dilemma in as few a words as I have stated it, do not bother with a long winded theological treatise, that I or won’t understand or read. This is simple logic, keep it as such. As to St. Thomas, he didn’t even complete his great work, saying rather…“What has been revealed to me makes all my writing seem as straw.” And remember that in his day straw was used on stable and house dirt floors to soak up the mud.

 

[JimG]

I recommend this book.

 

[neophyte]

If you can’t explain this dilemma in as few a words as I have stated it, do not bother with a long winded theological treatise, that I or won’t understand or read…

You’ve already been given a good and easy to understand answer. If you can’t be bothered to think hard about it, and if you think that because something doesn’t make immediate sense to you it therefore must not make any sense at all, why should anyone waste their time trying to explain further?

 

[laocmo]

All the answers I have read in this and other similar groups are either glaring violations of the laws of simple logic, or something that has been memorized out of some abstract theology text, or meaningless convoluted long winded sermons saying nothing. Why are diehard theists so adamant in paying no heed to simple correct logical, if A then B follows, type reasoning. I find it pitiful that only the atheist groups read my above train of logical reasoning and agree with it. That it indeed poses a problem with one of God’s attributes is obvious to them. But then they warned me to avoid trying any logical discussions with theists. When proven wrong they just change the rules or overwhelm you with memorized gibberish. I’m outta here.

 

[bzkoss236]

If God knows my future, He could write it down. True
I could read what was written and do the exact opposite. True
Then God either was wrong, or I am forced to do what He says negating my free will. True

There is nothing wrong with this logic. From it follows that either I do not have free will, or God lacks omniscience.

Actually, yeah, there is a flaw here.
Your second premise is wrong. If what God wrote down is the future (ie. something that WILL absolutely happen), then you can’t do the exact opposite. You may think you will, but just because you know the future, doesn’t mean that you can change it, especially if it is said that it will happen. That is simple logic. If A will certainly happen, then no matter what you do, it will happen.

This doesn’t impede on your free will because since it is your future, your free will is what makes it happen.

 

[tdgesq]

If God knows my future, He could write it down. True

Correct.

I could read what was written and do the exact opposite. True.

Incorrect. This assumes a free will theory of principle of alternate possibilities (PAP) rather than a locus of causal control theory. I don’t agree with PAP exactly because of scenarios like this. It may be that you read what was written and do what it states. In fact, it may be that every time God writes down how we will decide or act, we will do it exactly that way.

How is this a negation of free will? So long as the individual person is the causal source of the decision, it makes no difference if the person decides to follow God’s writing or not. It almost appears your argument is that, in order to be free, a human actor must choose the opposite of what God wrote. But that is actually a deterministic contention, so I take it you must mean something else.

Then God either was wrong, or I am forced to do what He says negating my free will. True

False again, and not only because of what I just posted above. Catholics don’t claim that God can do things contrary to his nature and in contradiction of his omni-abilities. You may not see it yet, but what you are positing isn’t even an omniscience problem. God may know exactly what you are going to do - that he is going to state X and that you are going to do Y. He still knows you are going to do Y before he ever states you are going to do X. You could make it into an omnipotence problem, except no good Catholic philosopher actually holds that God can do things contrary to his omnipotence.

There is nothing wrong with this logic. From it follows that either I do not have free will, or God lacks omniscience.

Neither of those follow, as clearly shown above. By the way, why would God be required to inform you about your future? You assume that this is something that God must do, for some reason. It is an unwarranted assumption.

But then they warned me to avoid trying any logical discussions with theists. When proven wrong they just change the rules or overwhelm you with memorized gibberish. I’m outta here.

A simple search of the philosophy forum would have led you to this thread: double trouble. The atheists there were owned hard on this issue, and not just by Catholics, but by other non-theists. You can leave if you wish, but not because there just aren’t any answers to these questions here.

 

[neophyte]

Why are diehard theists so adamant in paying no heed to simple correct logical, if A then B follows, type reasoning…

Because you haven’t shown any such reasoning. Your question suffers from ambiguous terms and false premises, and you are unwilling to examine them. You’d do well to think carefully about what Feynman said about the hardest part of discerning truth being the willingness to look for reasons that we might be wrong.