The Ultimate Question

[fhansen]

Sorry, guys and gals, this is not what I asked. To put it simply:

1. God created Lucifer (the Lighbringer).
2. God knew he will rebel.
3. God was not obliged to create him.
4. Satan or Lucifer or the devil (whichever name you prefer) makes no positive contribution, only negative ones, by trying to turn people away from God.

Why would God create anything that is (or will turn to be) an evil being? Such an action is irrational and nonsensical. Do you find an excuse for it? Free will, or love simply does not cut it. Let’s see the next attempts.

Any created being with free will can rebel so the same could be said for man. Satan just committed the original Original Sin. We all play satans’ role when we try to seduce others to do wrong so he’s no big deal-just the negative mentality we observe in this world that strives to pull down rather than build up-that prefers selfishness to love. God’s already on the side of love and doesn’t have to set up a game with Himself as a “player” and where love and it’s opposite are opposed due to free will. But, if His desire were to create beings He could share His love with, then they would necessarily have to choose to do so. And free will cannot guarantee that all will not go astray or choose rightly, as you imply. If it could, it wouldn’t be free.

 

[Windfish]

Why would God create anything that is (or will turn to be) an evil being? Such an action is irrational and nonsensical. Do you find an excuse for it? Free will, or love simply does not cut it. Let’s see the next attempts.

Screw you. Gutting people’s answers and arrogantly framing the discussion.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

No. God knows every possible outcome, which is the definition of omniscience, but He allows for free choice.

I’m a little confused. If omniscience is infinite awareness or complete knowledge, wouldn’t God also know which choice we would make? In other words, why wouldn’t God know which choice someone would make out of a possible set of choices to choose from given that God is omniscient?

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m a little confused. If omniscience is infinite awareness or complete knowledge, wouldn’t God also know which choice we would make? In other words, why wouldn’t God know which choice someone would make out of a possible set of choices to choose from given that God is omniscient?

No, because our choice is a contingency, and contingencies don’t exist yet. Does God know the names of your great-great-grandchildren? No, not yet. Whether you will have such children is dependent on your will, those of your children and their spouses, etc. He does know everything about all the children you could possibly have–except which of these children you will actually have, if any.

God knows the set of choices and all of the outcomes but leaves you free to pick one. This is why He weeps when we choose wrongly.

 

[TimothyH]

Why did God create Satan?

I think the question could be phrased, “Why didn’t God make everything perfect?”

To be perfect, is to lack nothing which is not perfect and to posess nothing which is imperfect. That is the very definition of perfection. Anthing less is (name removed by moderator)erfection.

Following along, for two different things to be perfect, each would have to have exactly the same perfection and lack nothing imperfect. This would cause all perfect things to be exactly the same, posesssing the exact same perfect attributes and lacking the exact same imperfect attributes. This would mean that all perfect things would be exactly the same thing as every other perfect thing.

Moving further, for a thing to be perfect, it would have to posess all perfect attributes all at once. If it lost one of those perfect attributes, it would cease to be perfect. This means that perfect things could never ever change.

Now, God is the only thing which is perfect as God alone posesses all perfection and does not possess any imperfection. God, being perfect, does not change. The implication for us, and for satan as well, is that to be perfect means that we would have to be God. This is your answer.

For God to have created anything perfect, he would have to create himself and he already exists. (Himself, in fact, already exists, and that is his Son, the second person of the trinity). Everything else God created would necessarily be less than perfect and therefor less than God. God alone is perfection. This imperfection in all created things draws its logical conclusion in that which does not posess any perfection and posesses only imperfection… Satan.

The answer, in a nutshell is then, “Because Satan is not God.”

Reference F.J. Sheed, Theology for Beginners.

As Sheed states, you just have to continue to stare at it until you get it.

-Tim-

 

[dcrowmik]

Why would God create anything that is (or will turn to be) an evil being? Such an action is irrational and nonsensical. Do you find an excuse for it? Free will, or love simply does not cut it.

Perhaps one must look inward to themselves to begin to try to comprehend the answer. Did not God create us in His image and likeness? Why would anyone of us love another so much to the point of creating even another in the form of a child only knowing that that child, though loved by us immensely, would at times make the free will choice to disobey us, go against what we would “will” for them and possibly cause evil that would affect many others.

Spock, please think deep down to just what your human concept of love is and tell us, from that framework, the beginnings of the answer to your question. I’m sure your answer would be enlightening to all of us as it would be to yourself.

Where you find love you find God dwelling. Where you see love in yourself and others you see the image and likeness of God. Do you love, Spock? Have you loved? Is love dwelling within you?

Peace and love.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

No, because our choice is a contingency, and contingencies don’t exist yet. Does God know the names of your great-great-grandchildren? No, not yet. Whether you will have such children is dependent on your will, those of your children and their spouses, etc. He does know everything about all the children you could possibly have–except which of these children you will actually have, if any.

Given that a contingency does not exist yet, it should be reasonable to assume that what is contingent will exist once a choice is made (correct me if I am wrong here). It is said that God exists outside of time. If this is so, wouldn’t events that will exist in the future be as events that have occurred in the past to God? Or is it erroneous to believe that God knows what will happen in the future?

 

[JDaniel]

Screw you. Gutting people’s answers and arrogantly framing the discussion.

Windfish:

I have read your posts in these forums and found you to be an excellent and clear thinker. The above is not the best example of that though.

Please read my posts, on this subject, and tell me what you think.

God bless,
jd

 

[Cat_Herder]

Given that a contingency does not exist yet, it should be reasonable to assume that what is contingent will exist once a choice is made (correct me if I am wrong here). It is said that God exists outside of time. If this is so, wouldn’t events that will exist in the future be as events that have occurred in the past to God? Or is it erroneous to believe that God knows what will happen in the future?

Yes and yes. God is aware of all of the alternate timelines but does not know which ones will be made present by the countless choices made by humans every day.

 

[Sonoran_Son]

Yes and yes. God is aware of all of the alternate timelines but does not know which ones will be made present by the countless choices made by humans every day.

Is this similar to there being multiple worlds, a world for each choice we have to choose from? Not that there are actually multiple worlds, but rather multiple worlds as a logical device to think about freewill. Thank you for your responses.

 

[fhansen]

Yes and yes. God is aware of all of the alternate timelines but does not know which ones will be made present by the countless choices made by humans every day.

Omniscience guarantees that God knows the future. He just doesn’t cause it-he allows the choices to be ours.;

 

[Cat_Herder]

Is this similar to there being multiple worlds, a world for each choice we have to choose from? Not that there are actually multiple worlds, but rather multiple worlds as a logical device to think about freewill. Thank you for your responses.

Yes. As creatures made in the image of God we are in a sense co-creators, in that we decide which timelines will actually come into being.

 

[JDaniel]

Spock, I truly enjoy reading your posts. The phrase from Pascal comes to mind “you would not be seeking me unless you had found me.”

Now, the short and honest answer that I think all Christians ought to come to grips with is this.

God is not bound to maintain defective creatures in a state of perfect existence. They are from nothing, and, unless he sustains them in being, they tend to return to nothing. They are changible and defective. God permits some of these creatures to fail, to sin. He does this in accordance with his wisdom and justice, in order to bring about a greater good.

I don’t see what’s so irrational about creating a being who tests the hearts of his creation. God could have created a world without any evil, without even the possibility of evil. Any time a creature would be about to sin, he could simply hold their thoughts at bay and turn them to something good, but it seems to me such a world would involve less good, not more.

Precisely. How much goodness can possible come from a non-volitional thing?

To sum up the points briefly:

a) All creatures are from nothing, and therefore by nature defectible.
b) God could maintain each of them in a state without sin, but he is not bound to.
c) It is not clear that were he to maintain each of them in such a state, the universe would be better than it is.
d) God in his omnipotent wisdom and justice certainly knows which universe brings about the most good.
e) God, in his nature, is not unjust or unwise, so there is no possibility of him unjustly or irrationally creating a universe.
d) God therefore brings about the current creation.

And, how much goodness can come from a non-volitional world?

Great summation!

God bless,
jd

 

[TimothyH]

God is aware of all of the alternate timelines but does not know which ones will be made present by the countless choices made by humans every day.

I’m coming late to the table and this may not be germain to the discussion at hand so please accept my apology in advance but something in me says that this aint right.

How could God not know something? For God to not know something would mean that he is not God. God not knowing something cannot possibly be right.

Knowing what someone will choose ahead of time and yet permitting them to make that choice are not mutually exclusive.

-Tim-

 

[Spock]

I guess, we are cooking now with gas. I will try and reflect on the several different point that have been brought up.

Exodus said:

I don’t see what’s so irrational about creating a being who tests the hearts of his creation. God could have created a world without any evil, without even the possibility of evil. Any time a creature would be about to sin, he could simply hold their thoughts at bay and turn them to something good, but it seems to me such a world would involve less good, not more.

There are several way to achieve this, without any “forceful” intrusion on God’s part. I would like to ask you: “why do you think that a world without actual evil is ‘less good’ than a world with actual evil?” I see no reason to assume that. To use an analogy: your assertion is something like: “it is better to be ill and then recover, than to be constantly healthy”. Such a state of affairs would “rob” us the happiness of “recovery”, for sure. But I consider the state of affairs of being constantly healthy much more preferable then the opposite.

EricFilmer says the same thing, with different wording.

CatHerder says something very different:

This is a faulty presupposition. God knows I could take a number of roads to get to work today. He knows each possibility and combination thereof. He knows what would happen to me as I travel each road. But He does NOT know which one I will actually take.

This is the Molinist “middle knowledge”, which has several problems of its own. Suppose I have a coin in my hand, which I am about to toss. I can say that the result is 1) it will be heads, or 2) it will be tails, or 3) the coin will land on its rim and will not flip over, or 4) someone snatches the coin in mid-air. In case 3) or 4) the result is undefined. That is not what “omniscience” is usually understood. If this were “omniscience”, we would all be “omniscient”. “Omniscience” is more than just knowing all the hypothetical possibilities, it also entails the actual outcome. Nevertheless, your scenario would let God off the hook, but it sacrifices “omniscience”.

Because an imperfect world can be redeemed and only a redeemed world is truly perfect.

I don’t accept this definition of “perfection”.

Pieman says the same thing as CatHerder. Molinist middle knowledge is not what “omniscience” is supposed to be.

JDaniel. Sorry, I still don’t see the answer to the “why”. I looked at your later post, too.

Simpst’s post is complicated. I can go into detail, but Plantinga is wrong.
Let me just present a very simple scenario: “Suppose that there is only one moral agent in the world. Suppose that this agent is confronted by only one moral dilemma”. The agent is free to choose which way to resolve the dilemma, but - natually - he cannot choose both ways, only one. Therefore there are only two possible worlds, one, in which the agent chooses the moral solution, and the other one, where the agent chooses the immoral solution. God can instantiate either world. In the first one, the agent will freely choose morally, in the second one the agent will freely choose immorally.
It is the agent who makes the choice, not God. God merely provides the “freamework”, so to speak. By the fact that God chooses to intstantiate world #1, God does not “force” or “compel” the choice. The choice is free, and there is no immoral decision.

TimothyH I don’t accept that there is some “blanket” perfection. A perfect bullet can penetrate any armor. A perfect armor cannot be penetrated by any bullet. Perfection is always “perfect” in some respect.

Windfish says: “Screw you”. What a delight to see this phrase on the board. I would have liked to say it several times, but I lacked the courage to use it, since I thought it was against the rules. I am happy to see that it is not. Cheers, mate!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Knowing what someone will choose ahead of time and yet permitting them to make that choice are not mutually exclusive.

Correct. Which is why I said that God does know every possible outcome.

 

[JDaniel]

This is a faulty presupposition. God knows I could take a number of roads to get to work today. He knows each possibility and combination thereof. He knows what would happen to me as I travel each road. But He does NOT know which one I will actually take. He has given me a choice as to which route to take. When I make the choice then my will becomes fixed as to that choice, to a certain degree. I can turn around and take another road.

Cat:

I’m not so sure about this . . . God has already seen everything that we have done, do, and will do. That’s the price of Divine foreknowledge and Omniscience. He knows what path you took before you chose it. For Him there is no “before.”

As for lucifer, his car is defective by design. God did not give the angels the ability to revise their choices. So lucifer cannot turn around once he took the bad road.

Well, we don’t regard the angels’ inability to change their minds as a “defect.” But, as you rightly point out, once they choose a path they are bound to take it.

God bless,
jd

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is the Molinist “middle knowledge”, which has several problems of its own. Suppose I have a coin in my hand, which I am about to toss. I can say that the result is 1) it will be heads, or 2) it will be tails, or 3) the coin will land on its rim and will not flip over, or 4) someone snatches the coin in mid-air. In case 3) or 4) the result is undefined. That is not what “omniscience” is usually understood. If this were “omniscience”, we would all be “omniscient”. “Omniscience” is more than just knowing all the hypothetical possibilities, it also entails the actual outcome. Nevertheless, your scenario would let God off the hook, but it sacrifices “omniscience”.

The possibilities are not hypothetical. God is outside of time and hence is aware of not only the outcomes but also the consequences and future events resulting from each.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Cat:

I’m not so sure about this . . . God has already seen everything that we have done, do, and will do. That’s the price of Divine foreknowledge and Omniscience. He knows what path you took before you chose it. For Him there is no “before.”

Well, we don’t regard the angels’ inability to change their minds as a “defect.” But, as you rightly point out, once they choose a path they are bound to take it.

God bless,
jd

I’m not being precise enough. God knows what route I plan to take to work. Since my future choice is present to Him, he knows what the outcome will be, as well as all possible outcomes. But He permits detours and U-turns, so if you were to ask God, “How will Cat Herder get to work today?” God would probably say that there are a number of routes and I will get to choose one.

Any further questioning will probably be met by “I can’t tell you, that’s up to that kitty wrangler.” It is not the case that God cannot know the ultimate outcome; of course God could exercise His omniscience in such a way. But this would also require God to exercise His will against mine. I certainly wish He would do so–but He has ordained otherwise. God does not know the outcome because He chooses not to predetermine it.

Emphasis: God can know the ultimate outcome but chooses not to. God does not know what I will choose not becuause He cannot know, but because He chooses not to.

More in a moment…

 

[EricFilmer]

There are several way to achieve this, without any “forceful” intrusion on God’s part.

God gives us a conscience and instructions through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Furthermore, he empowers us through grace. All of these are ways in which God helps us without “forceful intrusion”. All of these ways involve God respecting our freewill.

I would like to ask you: “why do you think that a world without actual evil is ‘less good’ than a world with actual evil?” I see no reason to assume that.

Exodus was correct in his assessment. The greater the reality of hate, the greater the act of love which overcomes it. The greater the temptation and opportunity to commit gluttony, the greater the act of temperance which overcomes it. And so on and so on. In the current state of affairs in our world, there is the opportunity for people to be true champions of virtue, and moral victories can indeed be victories in every sense of the word. A man may want his teenage son to be a great football player, but if his son only plays football against kindergartners then his successes would hardly be considered “great victories.”

To use an analogy: your assertion is something like: “it is better to be ill and then recover, than to be constantly healthy”. Such a state of affairs would “rob” us the happiness of “recovery”, for sure. But I consider the state of affairs of being constantly healthy much more preferable then the opposite.

If everyone is healthy then there is no responsibility to make healthy choices, to maintain good health, or to correct a life when it becomes unhealthy. Moreover, there are no charitable works for people to assist the sick and injured. Just as we are called to be true champions of virtue, in your example the idea would be to be true champions of health.

And if you believe it is “much more preferable” for there to be constant health, you are simply stating your opinion. I think things are realistic the way they are. Neither of our opinions is the “litmus test” for reality and truth.