The Peril of Divine Intervention

[lemondiesel]

My apologies for the questioning threads of recently. My quest for faith has lead to many forks in the road, which I must wait until I can choose a direction to take.

My thread On Eternal Happiness (forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=517446) has brought about this thread.

Any thoughts (agreements or disagreements) or any critical analysis would greatly be appreciated.

First, assumptions based on characteristics commonly associated with God: that such a thing is omniscient and also forgiving.

Second, granting the premise of eternal happiness in some form.

On deserving eternal happiness, if the assumptions are true, God cannot punish anyone. I conclude this because an omniscient god would pre-know the completeness of my reasoning, and being a forgiving god would not create me if it did not intend to forgive me for becoming what it knew I would become. Therefore, granting the premise of eternal happiness, it awaits us regardless of our belief in God. If the assumption of forgiveness is not true, then God is sadistic.

I can return to the original dilemma by eliminating the assumption of omniscience and assuming there is at least one god powerful enough to create the universe. If the creator does not have total knowledge but has the ability to predict the future (such as through prophecies), then it can create the universe such that it will unfold just as it expects so long as it never intervenes. What, then, would be its motive for making itself known?

It might not be the creator making itself known, but another supernatural entity with less influence. An additional entity with a different plan would have a motive for making itself known: change the established order of things. If this additional entity revealed itself, it would force the creator to also reveal itself in order to address the unexpected changes. However, we would have no way of telling one supernatural entity from another. The first entity to influence us would win us over by default as long as we put our faith in monotheism.

If we put our faith in an interloper and inadvertently branch away from the planned path of existence, does that not put the premise of eternal happiness into jeopardy?

Conclusions: if the assumptions all hold, it does not matter whether I have faith in God. If God is not omniscient, then the faithful could be just as undeserving (if not moreso) as myself. If God is not forgiving, then it is sadistic and we shouldn’t expect a sadistic God to give us eternal happiness. If God is neither omniscient nor forgiving, what reason should we have to go on granting the premise of eternal happiness in any form?

Who brought humans into the world? Would the blame for the created imperfection not belong on the being who did?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

…First, assumptions based on characteristics commonly associated with God: that such a thing is omniscient and also forgiving.

Second, granting the premise of eternal happiness in some form.

On deserving eternal happiness,**Here is a problem. You ‘jumped’ from the premise of eternal happiness to the idea that it is deserved. Christianity has never taught that eternal happiness is deserved; on the contrary Christianity teaches quite clearly that human beings do not ‘deserve’ eternal happiness. if the assumptions are true, God cannot punish anyone. I conclude this because an omniscient god would pre-know the completeness of my reasoning, and being a forgiving god would not create me if it did not intend to forgive me for becoming what it knew I would become. Therefore, granting the premise of eternal happiness, it awaits us regardless of our belief in God. If the assumption of forgiveness is not true, then God is sadistic. *** Again, you ‘jumped’ from “eternal happiness is real” to “eternal happiness is deserved by humanity”. That ‘leap’ is not Christian teaching. Therefore, since your premise is flawed your conclusions are necessarily flawed as well.

I can return to the original dilemma by eliminating the assumption of omniscience. . .** Repeat: Your original premise is flawed. Therefore your ‘elimination’ based on your FLAWED premise is also flawed. Thus, this speculation is pointless.

,.

If we put our faith in an interloper and inadvertently branch away from the planned path of existence, does that not put the premise of eternal happiness into jeopardy? ** Let’s recap. Eternal happiness exists. However, it is not something that humanity ‘deserves’. Therefore, humanity can ‘reject’ eternal happiness. However, humanity cannot reject this ‘unknowingly’. There is no ‘inadvertent’ branching away.

Conclusions: if the assumptions all hold,***But they don’t. Your original premise that eternal happiness is deserved is a false assumption. it does not matter whether I have faith in God. If God is not omniscient, then the faithful could be just as undeserving (if not moreso) as myself. If God is not forgiving, then it is sadistic and we shouldn’t expect a sadistic God to give us eternal happiness. If God is neither omniscient nor forgiving, what reason should we have to go on granting the premise of eternal happiness in any form?

See, your flawed premise has led inescapably to false conclusions.
So let’s try an unflawed premise.

A: Eternal happiness exists.
B. Eternal happiness is not something we deserve.
C. Eternal happiness is a free gift from God.
D. We can either accept that gift, or reject that gift.

God is omniscient. Therefore, He:
A. Knows that a given individual will accept or reject His gift.
B. Offers that gift anyway.

Now, your problem is that you think that it is all GOD’S fault if He creates a being who winds up rejecting Him.

You’re missing the point.

All through that person’s life, that person has the opportunity --free gifts, due to that life–to do good (or evil). God has given that person UNTOLD CHANCES. It is ENTIRELY the decision of the person to accept or reject God.

How is this not ‘fair?’

Suppose you create a bunch of ‘androids’ with free will, and give them a choice --they can serve you, or they can go off into space and flail around, conscious but never able to ‘do’ anything, forever.

So many androids (free will) choose to serve you out of love, and some androids will choose to jump into space.

The only way you could have ‘prevented’ this was to make them robots who would only choose ‘you.’

Is THAT fair? You don’t have a choice, you are ‘programmed’ to do not what YOU want.

God lets people do what they want. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Who brought humans into the world? Would the blame for the created imperfection not belong on the being who did?

Humans were created ‘perfect’ (read the book). However, they freely CHOSE to sin. This is not an imperfection on God’s part but a choice of humans.

So the ‘blame’ is on the individuals who sin. . .not God.

You seem to think that God ‘could have’ made an Adam and Eve who wouldn’t have sinned. . .by ‘forcing’ them into only being able to do good, and NEVER have the capacity to do evil. . .IOW, to make them ‘robots.’

Why can’t you see that it is precisely the fact that we CAN sin which makes our good deeds more 'worthy?" And that it is the fact that we can do GOOD which makes our evil more despicable?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*lemondeisel

On deserving eternal happiness, if the assumptions are true, God cannot punish anyone. I conclude this because an omniscient god would pre-know the completeness of my reasoning, and being a forgiving god would not create me if it did not intend to forgive me for becoming what it knew I would become. Therefore, granting the premise of eternal happiness, it awaits us regardless of our belief in God.** If the assumption of forgiveness is not true, then God is sadistic.***

Atheism is not a free pass to heaven. Where did you get such a foolish notion?

"Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

God is sadistic? Because he grants the wish of the atheist never to know him? Come on!
*
“Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’” Psalms 14:1*

The atheist who says he will get to heaven is going rather to a fool’s paradise.

 

[lemondiesel]

B. Eternal happiness is not something we deserve.

So you’re saying that with prior knowledge, a forgiving God has given us suffering knowing it will not lead to happiness. That is not a consistent premise.

C. Eternal happiness is a free gift from God.

This cannot be so. If it is a free gift from God (Life is a gift), then it should be mine regardless of whether I ever know about it. And yet, God demands our envy, so it is not free at all.

D. We can either accept that gift, or reject that gift.

Here we are at the Wager again. Assuming this “gift” is real, no one will reject it if given a straightforward choice. On the other hand, there may be wisdom in refusing this metaphysical bribery. For example, the entities that often offer this “gift” demand payment via envy, and try to hold it away from us while pretending they are forgiving. Is it a good idea to put all your faith into something so sketchy?

All through that person’s life, that person has the opportunity --free gifts, due to that life–to do good (or evil). God has given that person UNTOLD CHANCES. It is ENTIRELY the decision of the person to accept or reject God.

If we look to God to define good and evil, isn’t it we who are missing the point?

The most evil of evils contains just enough good to make nobility seem disgusting, and the most good of goods is usually evil at least enough to look down its nose at lesser good (if not perform acts of evil trying to force others to a higher standard of goodness).

It is hardly as simple as one or the other, and as faithful as we might be, we can never know for sure whether the experiences of humanity reaching out to God have been answered by beings with good or evil intentions. Any being that powerful could convince us they are something they are not.

Suppose you create a bunch of ‘androids’ with free will,

If I am loving, smart enough to predict futures for these androids in which they will suffer and never find a greater happiness, then there is no way for them to have free will. I would not create them just to watch them suffer, and their individual free will would suffer.

Your point here seems to be that God is not forgiving.

Also, they would not serve me out of love unless I programmed them to, in which case free will suffers yet again. If I do not program them to love me, then I must intervene in order to make that happen, and once again free will suffers. The only way for them to have truly free will is if I don’t invest myself in their affairs and I don’t make my existence known.

This, in my view, is most likely what has happened if in fact a god created the universe.

And if free will is important to you, then you should realize that an omniscient belief of god destroys human free will completely. Every choice you will ever make known by some other being with the power to intervene invisibly at any time, maybe even as closely as inside your cranium.

I can see one exception: a creator with no investment who will never make itself known. This should save both ideas of divinity and free will. Then where does the idea of God come from? If you’ve ever “felt” it when someone was looking at you, perhaps that is what could explain it.

Humans were created ‘perfect’. However, they freely CHOSE to sin.

Firstly, we don’t know any of this and that’s important to remember. It is said that man was created “perfect” but you’re saying he then chose to sin. I want to know if you can see the bat-signal of contradiction contained in that statement.

Then, I’d like to know what forgiving god would punish the entire future of the human race mere hours after its creation for the actions of the ignorant still-born. Isn’t this a bit of an overreaction?

Why can’t you see that it is precisely the fact that we CAN sin which makes our good deeds more 'worthy?" And that it is the fact that we can do GOOD which makes our evil more despicable?

I do not deny that.

I do not suggest that God should have created a world with no evil, either. If anything, I’ve said that God created an imperfect world seeking to see God itself as perfect when it’s quite possibly not the case. I said that a creator ought to be smart enough to set up the pieces and stay out of the way, and that its best interests are in staying detached.

I’m not sure about eternal happiness, but I granted it for the sake of my thought excersize. The very idea strikes me as ungodly, especially if we concern outselves with freedom of will.

I remember hearing the analogy of a donkey led by a carrot on a stick and someone suggested the string ought to be cut so that the donkey can get what he wants without all the effort.** I am positing that the carrot itself is an illusion.** If you want a carrot, plant a carrot and care for it until it is ready to eat.

If eternal happiness exists and is contingent on human behavior, then humanity will have never had any true freedom.

We clearly don’t see eye to eye, but I’m happy to see that you provided thoughtful (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[tonyrey]

On deserving eternal happiness, if the assumptions are true, God cannot punish anyone. I conclude this because an omniscient god would pre-know the completeness of my reasoning, and being a forgiving god would not create me if it did not intend to forgive me for becoming what it knew I would become. Therefore, granting the premise of eternal happiness, it awaits us regardless of our belief in God. If the assumption of forgiveness is not true, then God is sadistic.

I agree with you but whatever punishment we receive is not inflicted by God but self-inflicted. We know full well we shouldn’t be selfish at the expense of others. If we choose to live for ourselves and alienate everyone as a result of our egoism we have only ourselves to blame.

Who brought humans into the world? Would the blame for the created imperfection not belong on the being who did?

You are confusing evil and imperfection. We are not responsible for all our faults, failings and weaknesses, only those we can rectify or overcome. We are to blame only when we can resist our temptations and make a conscious decision to give way to them, i.e. when there are no mitigating circumstances.

It is absurd to blame God for what we choose to do. He shares His power with us so that we are capable of love and shaping our own destiny rather than being puppets compelled to obey with no individuality, originality or responsibility. He foresees the evil and suffering we may cause but He knows it would be a greater evil to deprive everyone of the opportunity to share life with Him in heaven.

We have to prove what we are worth, justify His confidence in us and show we are capable of following in the footsteps of Jesus if we are to become perfect as He is perfect, i.e. according to our nature. We are not expected to achieve absolute perfection or to work miracles but do the very best we can. That is perfection as far as we are concerned, not some unattainable goal but the practical expression of love in our daily lives - such as the Little Way of St Therese de Lisieux and the unnoticed sanctity of St Teresa of Avila among the pots and pans in the kitchen!

 

[danserr]

I am positing that the carrot itself is an illusion. If you want a carrot, plant a carrot and care for it until it is ready to eat.

As I suggested in the previous thread: You are not really suggesting we get create Eternal happiness for ourselves are you? This doesn’t really seem possible, even if I could somehow (I don’t know how) create perfect happiness in this life, that wouldn’t prevent me from dying and thereby losing it all. If the only source of eternal happiness is God, you have to go to Him for it

Why think that eternal happiness is an illusion? We have some idea of what the “new creation” will be like via Jesus’ own Resurrection. St. Paul speaks of Jesus as the “first fruits,” the “first born of the new creation,” and somewhere else, that he’s the "first born of new creation. Jesus himself says in his father’s house their are many dwelling places and that he’s going to prepare a place for us. So why think eternal happiness is an illusion?

Who brought humans into the world? Would the blame for the created imperfection not belong on the being who did?

If humans do not have free will, then certainly the blame would belong to the being who created them. Just the same way, the blame for a poorly made computer rests on the manufacturer of the computer. But you reckon without the remarkable miracle of free will. (incidentally the existence of free will may be one of the proofs that God is good, since I don’t see that a malevolent being would want us free, but that is by the by.) The computer had no free will and could not be otherwise, but people do. It is a divine humility that God should create creatures capable of freely choosing him, and even, if they insist on it (since God, as Peter Kreeft says, is a gentleman, he forces no one), of freely rejecting him.

On deserving eternal happiness, if the assumptions are true, God cannot punish anyone. I conclude this because an omniscient god would pre-know the completeness of my reasoning, and being a forgiving god would not create me if it did not intend to forgive me for becoming what it knew I would become. Therefore, granting the premise of eternal happiness, it awaits us regardless of our belief in God. If the assumption of forgiveness is not true, then God is sadistic.

And what I say above helps explain your difficulty with understand what is meant by forgiveness. God will forgive anyone, but the person must choose to accept God’s forgiveness, he can reject it. God, I am certain, would forgive even a tyrant who killed millions. But suppose, in the end, the tyrant refuses to accept that forgiveness and in the end insists that he rejects both God and his forgiveness. C.S. Lewis said that in the end there are two kinds of people “those who say to God, ‘thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says thy will be done.” So of course, God intends to forgive all of us, but people can (and I suspect do) reject God’s forgiveness. But the blame for that is not in God, but in us.

So you might ask, why then did God create us free at all? Because to have created us without free will would have made us like the computer, or any other manufactured thing. God made the world good and he loves it, but he intends for us to be more than automata, he intends us us sons, a far higher and holier destiny. That he would create creatures who would come to a knowledge of him. And for this we require free will.

If eternal happiness exists and is contingent on human behavior, then humanity will have never had any true freedom

So now you can see that, on the contrary, making such an important thing dependent (at least somewhat) on human behavior is quite important for human freedom. Even though we need do nothing more than accept God’s freely offered gift.

 

[John21652]

My apologies for the questioning threads of recently. My quest for faith has lead to many forks in the road, which I must wait until I can choose a direction to take.

My thread On Eternal Happiness (forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=517446) has brought about this thread.

Any thoughts (agreements or disagreements) or any critical analysis would greatly be appreciated.

First, assumptions based on characteristics commonly associated with God: that such a thing is omniscient and also forgiving.

Second, granting the premise of eternal happiness in some form.

On deserving eternal happiness, if the assumptions are true, God cannot punish anyone. I conclude this because an omniscient god would pre-know the completeness of my reasoning, and being a forgiving god would not create me if it did not intend to forgive me for becoming what it knew I would become. Therefore, granting the premise of eternal happiness, it awaits us regardless of our belief in God. If the assumption of forgiveness is not true, then God is sadistic.

Your logic fails here because of your perception of God as a forgiving God. To say He is forgiving does not mean he is forced to forgive, or will always forgive, yet your conclusion relies on this being the case. Did it ever occur to you that God has His own free will? That He Created the world out of His own free will and gave that free will to mankind? He is forgiving, provided you request forgiveness, that is, you exercise your free will. He can then exercise His free will and forgive you. However, He has already let it be known that there is no automatic forgiveness, and for some acts of your free will, forgiveness is to be earned, yet your conclusion comes from not acknowledging this. In fact, your conclusion denies that God has free will.

The second sentence I underlined means you accept that God knows whether or not you will exercise your free will and seek forgiveness. True, because he is Omniscient. However, you seem to think God simply said “poof, Lemondiesel now exists”. You forget that you were created out of the exercising of the free will of your parents. For you to suggest that God would not have allowed you to exist because you would be bad and unsavable would be for God to not allow your parents to exercise their free will and for you to not be allowed to exercise your free will. In other words, you are assuming a God who would intervene whenever imperfection, that is the improper use of free will, crept into His creation. Not so. An interfering God contradicts the notion of free will.

I can return to the original dilemma by eliminating the assumption of omniscience and assuming there is at least one god powerful enough to create the universe. If the creator does not have total knowledge but has the ability to predict the future (such as through prophecies), then it can create the universe such that it will unfold just as it expects so long as it never intervenes. What, then, would be its motive for making itself known?

No need to remove omniscience. In this paragraph you are mixing up a lot of different ideas and assumptions. Take the one I have underlined. Maybe the answer would be “to force a reality check amongst His creation”. After all, Moses was supposedly given the Ten Commandments because men had forgotten, or were ignoring, the natural laws which were written on their hearts.

It might not be the creator making itself known, but another supernatural entity with less influence. An additional entity with a different plan would have a motive for making itself known: change the established order of things. If this additional entity revealed itself, it would force the creator to also reveal itself in order to address the unexpected changes. However, we would have no way of telling one supernatural entity from another. The first entity to influence us would win us over by default as long as we put our faith in monotheism.

End times prophecies tellm us to be aware and wary of the anti-Christ, who would fool us with pretending to be the saviour.

If we put our faith in an interloper and inadvertently branch away from the planned path of existence, does that not put the premise of eternal happiness into jeopardy?

Yep.

Conclusions: if the assumptions all hold, it does not matter whether I have faith in God. If God is not omniscient, then the faithful could be just as undeserving (if not moreso) as myself. If God is not forgiving, then it is sadistic and we shouldn’t expect a sadistic God to give us eternal happiness. If God is neither omniscient nor forgiving, what reason should we have to go on granting the premise of eternal happiness in any form?

Your assumptions are wrong. To suggest that God is sadistic because you wont be forgiven is just plain wrong. Instead of calling God sadistic, try calling him just. This is where our whole idea and the entire concept of Justice comes from. You know the routine, you break the rules, so expect justice. A just God is not and cannot be sadistic.

**

Who brought humans into the world? Would the blame for the created imperfection not belong on the being who did?

**See above. You have free will. You misuse it, then you must accept responsibility for that misuse. Here you are blameshifting, just like a little kid caught pinching cookies from the cookie jar. Smack, smack, shame on you. Go to your room!