The Ultimate Question

[Cat_Herder]

Let’s look at the episode where Jesus, who is God, told Peter that Peter would deny Him. This shows that God knows the outcome of what Peter would choose. Does it then follow that Peter could not have chosen otherwise? No.

We could ask the same thing about the Annunciation. Everyone knows that Mary could have said no, even though Gabriel, as God’s messenger, had spoken in the same tense (“you WILL conceive and bear a Son.”)

What about when the prophet told David that he would die, and David begged forgiveness? The prophet seemed to revise himself and state that only David’s son would die.

Or at Cana, where Jesus seems to change His mind over the wine at Mary’s request.

God cannot change, though… What happened?

Clearly God knows the outcomes. However, people pick which of the outcomes will come to pass. God could ordain these outcomes–but God has chosen not to do so. It is only because of that choice that God does not “know” what humans will ultimately choose. Not because He cannot know, but because He chooses to remain silent and let us choose.

 

[The_Exodus]

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.

When speaking of the order of the universe, God, wanting to display a myriad of effects, allowed some defectible beings to fail. I do think God could have created a universe with no evil, but such a universe would lack many goods which this one has. God, in his wisdom, saw that the current order – where some beings can and do fail, and other beings can but do not – is better than one in which no beings fail. And again, God is not bound to hold defectible creatures in existence. He permits some to fall away, and others he draws sweetly and infallibly to himself. No being is outside the causative movement of God. Yes, this entails negative reprobation, but I see nothing wrong – logically or morally – with this doctrine, once it is clearly explicated and understood. You can read a great, concise summary of it here: chapter 9

books.google.com/books?id=vSbb6siLONoC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=john+of+st.+thomas+reprobation&source=bl&ots=gOH0rs66Zv&sig=Y9rEd0wAg6I7ZnKgnBq7V-t1ZEc&hl=en&ei=Sy0aTZ79A4yr8AbDndjDDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

spock:

This is the Molinist “middle knowledge”, which has several problems of its own.

I agree that Molina’s “scientia media” is incoherent (although I’m not sure you’ve correctly described it.) This is because no creature is outside the divine motion, and, if Molinism were true, creatures would determine (and not be determined by) God and his knowledge. Since we agree here, it seems useless to go into detail, but we can if you like.

 

[Spock]

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.

Of course I am only stating my opinion, just as you state yours. I prefer the “absolute” good of being healthy, not the “relative” good of being sick and then recovering. I am always amazed that some people prefer the “roller-coaster” to the simple and easy way to “get where you want to be”. There is a German proverb, roughly translated: “to make a virtue out of necessity”. Or the ancient: “sour grapes”… you can’t have something desirable (constant health) so you decry it as “sour grapes”.

 

[Spock]

I do think God could have created a universe with no evil, but such a universe would lack many goods which this one has.

I answered this in my post above to EricFilmer. It sure sounds like “sour grapes” to me.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Clearly God knows the outcomes. However, people pick which of the outcomes will come to pass. God could ordain these outcomes–but God has chosen not to do so. It is only because of that choice that God does not “know” what humans will ultimately choose. Not because He cannot know, but because He chooses to remain silent and let us choose.

This deep statement sent me on a voyage into the Summa, where Aquinas says:

I: q14 Gods Knowledge

a8 Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?

Main Body

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv), “Not because they are, does God know all creatures spiritual and temporal, but because He knows them, therefore they are.”

I answer that, The knowledge of God is the cause of things. For the knowledge of God is to all creatures what the knowledge of the artificer is to things made by his art. Now the knowledge of the artificer is the cause of the things made by his art from the fact that the artificer works by his intellect.

Things exist only because God knows them. That is what I mean by God choosing not to know outcomes. If God were to know an outcome then the outcome must exist. If the outcome already exists, no free will. But since God can know the outcome, the only rational conclusion seems to be that God has chosen not to know it.

Then again, this is all a mystery. We cannot know the ways of God fully with our limited human comprehension. It is written: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding.”

 

[Pieman333272]

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

Heh heh. Great minds think alike. I respond in the next paragraph.

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”.

God would know the potential outcomes but not know which one actually happens when the event happens. Let’s say I flip the coin, and my friend steals it in mid-air. Later in the day, my friend does a faceplant in the snow because he tripped while looking for the coin he took from me, which he dropped. God knew the outcome could happen, didn’t know that it would happen for certain. My friend could have not taken the coin, and God knew what could happen, but he didn’t know whether or not my friend would take the coin.

So, he knows everything I can choose to do right now, and every choice which is a result of those choices, and every choice I can make as a result of that, etc. and when each potential path ends, and the afterlife I can get as a result of each possible path. I consider this omniscience, it’s no different to knowing what we choose but gives us a “false” free will of sorts.

I may be doing a bad job of conveying these, I realize, but I’ll try to improve my wording of it later if necessary.

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!

A Point for you, Spock.

 

[The_Exodus]

I answered this in my post above to EricFilmer. It sure sounds like “sour grapes” to me.

You couldn’t even say you “prefer” the state of being healthy over and against the roller coaster, if you had not experienced the roller coaster. On your supposition, you enjoy being healthy more than you would, were there never any unhealthiness. In other words, unhealthiness makes you appreciate healthiness more, and your position proves my point.

But that is really irrelevant, and subjective.

The Christian answer is objectively and logically sound. God allows beings to fail, in order to manifest a multitude of effects, all of which combine to form a harmony more perfect than if that harmony were different.

 

[st_felicity]

Spock’s mind is made up. This thread has become “pearls before swine” fodder.

 

[EricFilmer]

Of course I am only stating my opinion, just as you state yours. I prefer the “absolute” good of being healthy, not the “relative” good of being sick and then recovering.

Actually, everyone should prefer the absolute good. That is why we should all strive to make this world a better place (even if we fall short of making goodness absolute due to human limitations). As a Christian, I also look towards heaven where goodness is actually achieved fully and absolutely.

I am always amazed that some people prefer the “roller-coaster” to the simple and easy way to “get where you want to be”.

If by “get where you want to be” means absolute goodness, from the Christian perspective, the “roller coaster” ride is simply the recognition of the realities of living in a created world where people are allowed freewill. Heaven is where we “get where we want to be.”

From an atheist perspective, there is no getting where one wants to be. After all, absolute goodness does not exist in our world, and there is no belief in an afterlife where it can be achieved.

There is a German proverb, roughly translated: “to make a virtue out of necessity”.

The proverb means to make the best of a difficult or unsatisfactory situation, or to do what one has to do cheerfully or willingly. I’m not sure what the connection is between this proverb and the material I have posted. I stated that the presence of evil in the universe is realistic, I never said that it was desirable. It is something that we struggle against, but we grow in virtue through the struggle, with the help of God.

Or the ancient: “sour grapes”… you can’t have something desirable (constant health) so you decry it as “sour grapes”.

We can have the fullness of all that is good. Once again, we can strive for goodness in this life (and possess it at least in some measure) but ultimate fulfillment is only achieved in heaven. It is just a question of where and when.

 

[The_Exodus]

Spock’s mind is made up. This thread has become “pearls before swine” fodder.

What I’m puzzled about is that he asks questions, and dismisses them if he doesn’t like them. “Sounds like sour grapes to me” etc. The answers are either sound or not. It has nothing to do with how “palatable” they are.

“Apologists” are not here to entertain you, or make you “enjoy” the answers given; yet that, it seems, is what Spock is wanting. We’re here to offer solid and true answers. If you want something else, you’re wasting your time.

 

[Sonny69]

There are a couple of threads about “why does God allow… this and that”. Those are good questions, but they do not ask the most basic question, which is: “Why did God create Satan?”. Satan is the embodiment of “evil”, Satan wants to destroy the “good” that God creates. What creator would want to create something (or someone) that is “hell-bent” on destroying the “good part” of the creation? Can there be a rational reason for it?

Don’t try the “free will” approach, because it does not work. Humans with free will have two paths: either some will go “astray” on their own, or none will. If no one goes astray, all the better, there is the “perfect” world, no sin, and everone goes to heaven, just like God would like them.

If some do go astray on their own, you have your “sin”, and Satan was not necessary for that purpose.

Of course there is a third possibility, namely that without Satan everyone would choose the “good path”, and Satan would be logically necessary to introduce “sin”. But again, what is the point of it? Why is an “imperfect” world (with sin) preferable to a “perfect” one (without sin)?

The funny thing is that the apologists painted themselves into a corner, by stipulating that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Since God knew up-front that Satan will turn against him, and since God had the freedom not to create Satan, the apologists are now left without an argument. They display God as an irrational creator, who intentionally created the agent which has one aim: “to destroy God’s good creation”. As usual, I don’t have to find arguments against Christianity; you, the apologists are the ones who supply the strongest argument against what you believe in. Pretty ironic, isn’t it?

Hello Spock,

How would you know what good is without knowledge of evil? You wouldn’t. How would you know what love was if you did not understand hate? You wouldn’t.

God created Satan and Satan choose to do evil. Evil is not a created thing any more than what a rock dreams about is a created thing. It was allowed and everything that is created is by Him and for Him; for His glory. God did not need to create anything to be perfectly content, since He is always perfectly content. He did it because He wanted to; no other reason.

God bless you? S69

 

[Sonny69]

What I’m puzzled about is that he asks questions, and dismisses them if he doesn’t like them. “Sounds like sour grapes to me” etc. The answers are either sound or not. It has nothing to do with how “palatable” they are.

“Apologists” are not here to entertain you, or make you “enjoy” the answers given; yet that, it seems, is what Spock is wanting. We’re here to offer solid and true answers. If you want something else, you’re wasting your time.

Hello The Exodus,

I like your Isaiah 43:1 description. Shows the total sovereignty of God in the salvation of men…I not only agree, but I most thankful. God bless you. S69

 

[Windfish]

Thanks for making me feel bad, guys.

Sorry, Spock.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

I think that is an impossibility. God is Infinite. He is Divinely Infinite. That means, that he is everywhere and everywhen. He exists in an eternal Now. As present as a finite human Now is to you, all of our existences is that to him. The detours we take, are already known. The choices we make, are already witnessed by him. If this were not so, there would be no Elect. There are no surprises to God.

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.

Not really. He is not exercising his Will, you are still exercising yours, but, he knows, in advance, what you will do, in human terms. That does not remove your options, your choice. It is not like putting you in a maze with one lane to the exist. God is Omniscient and knows the outcome. Otherwise, he is not infinite. He is not directing you, although his angels might be. But, they, too, are finite.

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.

I disagree.

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

But, he cannot help but know as everything in our “time” happens instantly in him.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

This deep statement sent me on a voyage into the Summa, where Aquinas says:

I: q14 Gods Knowledge

a8 Whether the knowledge of God is the cause of things?

Main Body

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. xv), “Not because they are, does God know all creatures spiritual and temporal, but because He knows them, therefore they are.”

I answer that, The knowledge of God is the cause of things. For the knowledge of God is to all creatures what the knowledge of the artificer is to things made by his art. Now the knowledge of the artificer is the cause of the things made by his art from the fact that the artificer works by his intellect.

Things exist only because God knows them. That is what I mean by God choosing not to know outcomes. If God were to know an outcome then the outcome must exist. If the outcome already exists, no free will.

Man is on a different plane than God. We exist not only on the lowest level, earth, but, from a permanent finite point of view. It seems that we always have a problem when it comes to understanding that though God pre-knows, we still have choice. Our choice is finite; his knowledge is infinite. His knowledge does not mean that he interferes, although he may.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

What I’m puzzled about is that he asks questions, and dismisses them if he doesn’t like them. “Sounds like sour grapes to me” etc. The answers are either sound or not. It has nothing to do with how “palatable” they are.

“Apologists” are not here to entertain you, or make you “enjoy” the answers given; yet that, it seems, is what Spock is wanting. We’re here to offer solid and true answers. If you want something else, you’re wasting your time.

Exodus:

The problem as I see it is that there are a number of differing opinions on the same subject. They can’t all be right. Nor, can they all be wrong.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Thanks for making me feel bad, guys.

Sorry, Spock.

OK. I love you again!

God bless,
jd

 

[Cat_Herder]

I disagree.

I had some second thoughts after I posted that. So I went to the Summa and noted that, according to Aquinas, God’s knowledge is what brings things into existence. If this is true of outcomes, then wouldn’t God have to restrain His omniscience in order to provide us with free will?

 

[JDaniel]

I had some second thoughts after I posted that. So I went to the Summa and noted that, according to Aquinas, God’s knowledge is what brings things into existence. If this is true of outcomes, then wouldn’t God have to restrain His omniscience in order to provide us with free will?

I don’t think so. I put down two types of food for the dog. I know which food he will eat. I didn’t force him to choose that menu item: he chose it freely. That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. But, when we look at the moon with our naked eye, we see a flat surface. On the moon, the landscape is totally different: it consists of hills and valleys, ravines, plains, and craters. That’s how God looks down at us, analogically, as if looking at a flat surface. He is not determining what we choose (except that he does have everything to do with what paths are available, and, thus, they are limited). But, free will is defined as choosing between two or more possible choices. We can choose either “A” or “B,” but God does not send us to “A” rather than “B” - even though he knows.

It’s a hard question to fathom. Truth be known, though we may in our limited understanding think there are only two choices, there may be many more. Even our limiting of the number of choices to two, is our exquisite choice! Unless we determine that there are but two out of ignorance.

When Aquinas says, “God’s knowledge is what brings things into existence,” he means the totality of physical being. We are currently experiencing the roll-out of Creation. What he does simultaneously, we sense in time. Sometimes the roll-out kills. Sometimes parts of the roll-out take a while to kill. But to God those are the instantaneous releasings of now discarnate souls. We are souls, no matter whether we’re on this side of our skins or the other.

God bless,
jd

 

[Gregory_I]

God is goodness itself. We do not define whether or not what he does is good or not, his actions are aboslutely good, even if mysterious. GOd chose what he chose about Lucifer, and it was good, because he is good. THe world is what it is and it is good, because he is good, does not make mistakes, and always does the HIGHEST good.

THat means, in some inexplicable way, that a world other than this one, even though seemingly “better” or “perfect” for lack of the devil is simply not the best of all the options GOd foresaw, because he did not will it, and he only wills and acts in accordance with the highest good.

Every Mother experiences labor pains, and she knows these pains are coming from the instant she knows that she conceives a child. Nevetheless, she suffers willfully and gladly and accepts the pain of an hour for the joy of a lifetime with her children.

So it is with God: This life he has planned and involved himself in for us is hard and often seems intolerable, but as St. Paul says :

“eye has not seen, ear heard, nor has it entered into the hearts of men, what God has in store for those who love him.”

What is coming is the highest and best good That God had in mind for us, even if the path is painful and the destiny a long way off: Still, it will end. THis will all one day end, all will be set right, and we will know peace and we will be with the One Incarnate Christ for all eternity, in the glory of the ressurection in the light of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

His Sovreign Will and good pleasure is the deciding factor of what is GOOD.

Will the clay say to the potter :“Why have you made me?!”

JUst shut up and be happy being a pot.