The greatest coincidence

[STT]

What should be created according to our decisions with what should be created according to what God knows.

God should created things according to our decisions because God sustains the creation and we decide.

 

[Gorgias]

What should be created according to our decisions with what should be created according to what God knows.

God should created things according to our decisions because God sustains the creation and we decide.

Your question seems to follow the presumptions of theologies and philosophies that have touchpoints with medieval Islamic philosophers. Al-Ghazali, for instance, in his Incoherence of Philosophers, makes the case that all things that happen aren’t examples of cause-and-effect, but rather, are examples of God reaching down and creating the effects directly.

The Catholic response asserts that there are both ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ causation; that is, God causes the universe to exist, and the entities in the universe perform actions that have cause-and-effect relationships.

Therefore, according to this way of thinking, God creates the universe and sustains it, and we have the freedom to take actions that have real effects.

The one example I remember from al-Ghazali centered on fire and cotton. He maintained that, when fire was brought into contact with cotton, it wasn’t the case that the fire caused the cotton to burn. Rather, he claimed, God caused the cotton to burn – directly, as an action of God himself – in a time frame that would be coincident with the proximity of the cotton to the fire.

So, if you’re asking that question – namely, whether God makes things happen directly and without mediation – then I’d answer “no, we believe that there actually are effects that happen according to the laws of physics”, even if God was the one who instantiated these laws and created the universe.

Is that what you’re asking? Does this help?

 

[STT]

Your question seems to follow the presumptions of theologies and philosophies that have touchpoints with medieval Islamic philosophers. Al-Ghazali, for instance, in his Incoherence of Philosophers, makes the case that all things that happen aren’t examples of cause-and-effect, but rather, are examples of God reaching down and creating the effects directly.

The Catholic response asserts that there are both ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ causation; that is, God causes the universe to exist, and the entities in the universe perform actions that have cause-and-effect relationships.

Therefore, according to this way of thinking, God creates the universe and sustains it, and we have the freedom to take actions that have real effects.

The one example I remember from al-Ghazali centered on fire and cotton. He maintained that, when fire was brought into contact with cotton, it wasn’t the case that the fire caused the cotton to burn. Rather, he claimed, God caused the cotton to burn – directly, as an action of God himself – in a time frame that would be coincident with the proximity of the cotton to the fire.

So, if you’re asking that question – namely, whether God makes things happen directly and without mediation – then I’d answer “no, we believe that there actually are effects that happen according to the laws of physics”, even if God was the one who instantiated these laws and created the universe.

Is that what you’re asking? Does this help?

No, the presumptions are Catholic one. God creates&sustains, first cause, we decide& act, second cause. God should know what we decide in order to sustain things properly and this is the greatest coincidence since reality could be very different depending on our decisions.

 

[Gorgias]

No, the presumptions are Catholic one. God creates&sustains, first cause, we decide& act, second cause. God should know what we decide in order to sustain things properly and this is the greatest coincidence since reality could be very different depending on our decisions.

Your assertion depends completely on what you mean by “to sustain things properly”. What, precisely, do you mean? What would “proper sustenance” entail?

Let’s take a practical example: let’s suppose that I walk into draught-stricken forest and light a huge bonfire and walk away. What would God’s “proper sustenance” look like in this case?

 

[STT]

Your assertion depends completely on what you mean by “to sustain things properly”. What, precisely, do you mean? What would “proper sustenance” entail?

Let’s take a practical example: let’s suppose that I walk into draught-stricken forest and light a huge bonfire and walk away. What would God’s “proper sustenance” look like in this case?

In this case God should sustain the creation such that that you can walk draught-stricken forest and light a huge bonfire and walk away.

 

[Gorgias]

In this case God should sustain the creation such that that you can walk draught-stricken forest and light a huge bonfire and walk away.

Not sure what you’re claiming, then.

What’s the ‘coincidence’ between “the thing that I do” and “the effects of the thing that I do”, then?

 

[STT]

Not sure what you’re claiming, then.

What’s the ‘coincidence’ between “the thing that I do” and “the effects of the thing that I do”, then?

The coincidence is between what you do and God’s knowledge about what you do. God should have proper knowledge in order to sustains things to let you do what you want to do.

 

[Gorgias]

The coincidence is between what you do and God’s knowledge about what you do. God should have proper knowledge in order to sustains things to let you do what you want to do.

Again, then: it all comes down to what you think “sustains” means. So… what do you think it means?

 

[STT]

Again, then: it all comes down to what you think “sustains” means. So… what do you think it means?

Matter and soul simply cannot exist without God’s sustention. God creates and sustain everything eternally.

 

[Gorgias]

Matter and soul simply cannot exist without God’s sustention. God creates and sustain everything eternally.

Agreed. Not sure what your original post is trying to say, though: what are you saying that God’s sustenance of creation has to do with human decisions?

 

[STT]

Agreed. Not sure what your original post is trying to say, though: what are you saying that God’s sustenance of creation has to do with human decisions?

Yes.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Agreed. Not sure what your original post is trying to say, though: what are you saying that God’s sustenance of creation has to do with human decisions?

Yes.

Hmm… that wasn’t a “yes/no” question, so… let me try again:

In your OP, you seem to be attempting to make a link between “human decisions” and “God’s sustenance”. What is the link you’re proposing? In response to a human decision, what are you proposing that God does, vis-a-vis His sustaining of creation?

 

[STT]

Hmm… that wasn’t a “yes/no” question, so… let me try again:

In your OP, you seem to be attempting to make a link between “human decisions” and “God’s sustenance”. What is the link you’re proposing? In response to a human decision, what are you proposing that God does, vis-a-vis His sustaining of creation?

Suppose you decide to move your hand and move it. God exactly at the same time should sustain your hand according to how do you move it.

 

[Gorgias]

Suppose you decide to move your hand and move it. God exactly at the same time should sustain your hand according to how do you move it.

So, let’s suppose that I move my hand into a bonfire. What kind of “sustaining” are you proposing? Are you saying that God causes my hand to blister and burn?

 

[STT]

So, let’s suppose that I move my hand into a bonfire. What kind of “sustaining” are you proposing? Are you saying that God causes my hand to blister and burn?

God sustains your hand so you can move it into the bonfire. God also sustain the fire and the fire burns your hand.

 

[Gorgias]

God sustains your hand so you can move it into the bonfire. God also sustain the fire and the fire burns your hand.

Agreed. Let’s move the example a little, in order to keep the discussion civil:

God sustains creation; therefore, he sustains my existence, and he sustains the existence of the tree in my backyard.

I decide to cut down my tree and burn it. As the tree burns in the bonfire, it is reduced to ash.

I would answer your (still rather obscure to me) question in this way: God sustains creation. Whatever form it takes (acorn, tree, burnt ashes) depends, to a certain extent, on the events it experiences and its particular nature. God does not sustain “state”, so much as “existence” of the matter.

So, in my example, that means that God doesn’t “cause” the tree to become ash, per se.

Is that what you’re trying to ask? Does this help?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

God should have proper knowledge in order to sustains things to let you do what you want to do.

Rapists and serial killers could go along with that.

We might get away with things in this world, but at some point we shall all have to stand before God. At which point, God’s will be done.

 

[STT]

Agreed. Let’s move the example a little, in order to keep the discussion civil:

God sustains creation; therefore, he sustains my existence, and he sustains the existence of the tree in my backyard.

I decide to cut down my tree and burn it. As the tree burns in the bonfire, it is reduced to ash.

I would answer your (still rather obscure to me) question in this way: God sustains creation. Whatever form it takes (acorn, tree, burnt ashes) depends, to a certain extent, on the events it experiences and its particular nature. God does not sustain “state”, so much as “existence” of the matter.

So, in my example, that means that God doesn’t “cause” the tree to become ash, per se.

Is that what you’re trying to ask? Does this help?

I agree. Now here is the problem (the greatest coincidence): What should be created according to our decisions with what should be created according to what God knows.

 

[Gorgias]

I agree. Now here is the problem (the greatest coincidence): What should be created according to our decisions with what should be created according to what God knows.

You’re going to have to phrase your question a bit differently, I’m afraid. There’s no ‘problem’ or ‘coincidence’, as far as I can see, and therefore, your question seems content-free. Yes, our decisions cause effects. Yes, God sustains creation. No confusion or conflict there.

That’s why I asked whether you thought that God was ‘causing’ the effects of our actions; when you said ‘no’, it surprised me, since that misunderstanding might cause the kind of question you’re asking.

So, again: what’s your understanding of the meaning of the phrase “God sustains creation”? How does this understanding create a problem, as you see it? What’s the source of the problem you’re positing?

 

[STT]

You’re going to have to phrase your question a bit differently, I’m afraid. There’s no ‘problem’ or ‘coincidence’, as far as I can see, and therefore, your question seems content-free. Yes, our decisions cause effects. Yes, God sustains creation. No confusion or conflict there.

That’s why I asked whether you thought that God was ‘causing’ the effects of our actions; when you said ‘no’, it surprised me, since that misunderstanding might cause the kind of question you’re asking.

So, again: what’s your understanding of the meaning of the phrase “God sustains creation”? How does this understanding create a problem, as you see it? What’s the source of the problem you’re positing?

It is a little confusion but you can get the idea. There are two things here: (1) What should be created according to our decisions and (2) What should be created according to what God knows. The knowledge of God should be exactly what it should be in order to sustain creation according to our decisions. The question is where the knowledge of God about our decisions comes from? You can say that this knowledge is eternal. In this case we have the greatest coincidence. This knowledge cannot comes from observing our decision since God’s knowledge would depend on our decision which this is problematic.