Rather a Philosophical Question

[catholic0913]

Hello,

I am having some debate with my friend and one of the arguments that backs up my reason is the following:

“Take any event A; God is either: (i) actively willing for the event A to take place, (ii)unwilling for the event A to take place, or (iii)willing to permit event A to take place.”

Is it correct? I am around 90% sure that the statement above is correct but I also feel that something is missing from the options given above. Should it be:

“Take any event A; God is either: (i) actively willing for the event A to take place, (ii)unwilling for the event A to take place, (iii)willing to permit event A to take place, or (iv)willing to permit event A to NOT take place.”

is (iv) unnecessary since (ii) and (iv) are essentially the same thing??

I am a bit confused…

 

[Rhubarb]

(ii) and (iv) seem distinct to me. How do you think they are the same?

 

[catholic0913]

(ii) and (iv) seem distinct to me. How do you think they are the same?

…because…God is sovereign. When God is simply passively allowing or permitting certain event to happen, because He is the sovereign, he still has to choose to allow or permit the event to happen. So in this sense of the word, God still “willed” the event to happen.

Likewise, when God is permitting the event A to not take place, because He is the sovereign, he still has to choose to permit things in certain order so that the event A may not take place in future - in this sense God “unwilled” the event from taking place…

So in a sense, it doesn’t matter whether God is actively willing or passively permitting, overall, God is “willing”. and it doesn’t matter whether God is actively unwilling or passively unwilling, overall, God is “unwilling”.

am I wrong? please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[paulrxp]

…because…God is sovereign. When God is simply passively allowing or permitting certain event to happen, because He is the sovereign, he still has to choose to allow or permit the event to happen. So in this sense of the word, God still “willed” the event to happen.

Likewise, when God is permitting the event A to not take place, because He is the sovereign, he still has to choose to permit things in certain order so that the event A may not take place in future - in this sense God “unwilled” the event from taking place…

So in a sense, it doesn’t matter whether God is actively willing or passively permitting, overall, God is “willing”. and it doesn’t matter whether God is actively unwilling or passively unwilling, overall, God is “unwilling”.

am I wrong? please correct me if I am wrong.

I think how you’re constructing the argument has to be reexamined. If you have 2 opposing arguments, one God wills something to happen, and the other God doesn’t allow something to happen, each statement can’t be considered A. Again, it’s very tough to even logically prove he is “unwilling” if you have 2 instances of A that are mutually exclusive. If the state of A changes, then A has to be changed accordingly ,otherwise it’s not A.

Try to apply the reasoning with regards to the Crucifixion. Was it the Fathers will that his Son be crucified? Can we assume that God is unwilling because the event had to occur? Could Jesus have avoided death as St. Peter mentioned in Matthew
s Gospel ? Is it really about being “unwilling” or is it more about the all powerful, all knowing God just knows more than we do? Should the will of the One who created us be put before our own. Jesus answered that question for all of us. The “unwilling” usually involves man’s will, not Gods

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So in a sense, it doesn’t matter whether God is actively willing or passively permitting, overall, God is “willing”.

You got that right. The church teaches that God is not a “passive” (or deistic) God, who created a bunch of physical laws, then set the “ball” in motion, and then stepped back to admire his handiwork. God actively participates in every action. If an assassin fires a gun, God actively carries the bullet all the way to its target. If God would not maintain that bullet of its course, the assassination attempt would fail.

God is an active participant in every event, be it a helping hand or a moral atrocity - like a gas chamber. Now mix it with the concept that we (humans) are free agents, whose actions are not determined by God, and picture becomes very strange indeed. We decide to commit a genocide, and God is “dragged” into the action (maybe against he will?) and carries out the human decisions. Very strange! Who is the “boss”, here?

and it doesn’t matter whether God is actively unwilling or passively unwilling, overall, God is “unwilling”.

Theoretically that is correct, but we can never know that a specific event did not happen.

 

[Rhubarb]

…because…God is sovereign. When God is simply passively allowing or permitting certain event to happen, because He is the sovereign, he still has to choose to allow or permit the event to happen. So in this sense of the word, God still “willed” the event to happen.

Likewise, when God is permitting the event A to not take place, because He is the sovereign, he still has to choose to permit things in certain order so that the event A may not take place in future - in this sense God “unwilled” the event from taking place…

So in a sense, it doesn’t matter whether God is actively willing or passively permitting, overall, God is “willing”. and it doesn’t matter whether God is actively unwilling or passively unwilling, overall, God is “unwilling”.

am I wrong? please correct me if I am wrong.

Well I think it’s right (on the assumption that what I know about Christianity to be true) that

(1) God directly wills things and it happens - like creation.
(2) God wills things to not happen but allows it to happen - like murder.
(3) God wills things to not happen, period - these things don’t happen. Um. Like. The speed of light changing?
(4) God wills things to happen but doesn’t enforce it and it still happens - like when I don’t murder people. (Assuming you believe I’m not a murderer - I’m not)

All four of these cases seem different and capture something about how the world in relation to God can be. 2 and 4 may fall out of God willing (in the first sense) free will so perhaps they can be analyzed in that way. But I still think what’s happening in each case is distinct.

 

[oldcelt]

Well I think it’s right (on the assumption that what I know about Christianity to be true) that

(1) God directly wills things and it happens - like creation.
(2) God wills things to not happen but allows it to happen - like murder.
(3) God wills things to not happen, period - these things don’t happen. Um. Like. The speed of light changing?
(4) God wills things to happen but doesn’t enforce it and it still happens - like when I don’t murder people. (Assuming you believe I’m not a murderer - I’m not)

All four of these cases seem different and capture something about how the world in relation to God can be. 2 and 4 may fall out of God willing (in the first sense) free will so perhaps they can be analyzed in that way. But I still think what’s happening in each case is distinct.

To myself…only 1 can be defended logically.

 

[Rhubarb]

Are 2-4 contradictory in your opinion? Assuming what we know about how Christians conceive of God and our natures - we have to take free will as a given under these assumptions.

We know that 2 occurs I think - we’re told not to murder people by divine command yet we have the free will to do so. I don’t think it’s contentious to say that God (under the assumptions we’re working with) wills (in a certain sense) us to not murder while at the same time not forcing us to obey. In other words, we know by religion that God wills us to not murder, and yet murder occurs.

We know 3 occurs - There are constants in the universe our human will cannot change. I assume if we take God as the creator, those are things he set up and wills them not to change. At least for a time.

And we know that 4 occurs - He’s willing me not to murder my co-worker even though I’m super frustrated with him and it is the case that I’m not murdering him. But me not murdering him doesn’t seem to be because God is forcing me to refrain from it.