Very much disappointed

[Trurl]

Here is a quote of someone’s question to the official apologists:

I am under the impression that God knows everything about our lives: past, present, and future. If he knows when he creates us that we are going to make choices that will end up with us being in hell, how can he even create us? Isn’t that very cruel?

And here is the answer:

To the contrary, it shows us the depths of God’s love for us that he gave us the free will to reject him. Had he only created those he knew would choose him, then the gift of free will would have been a sham because it would have prevented its free exercise.

The apologist asserts that if no one would reject God, then the ones who would choose and embrace God would not do this freely? The apologist says that the “freedom” of choosing God is CONTINGENT upon someone else rejecting God? How can something be “free” if it is contingent upon someone else’s action?

 

[bilop]

I believe it is you who makes the logical error. Free will is not contingent on someone else choosing, it’s contigent on the choice being available.

It is theoretically possible for everyone to choose to obey God’s will and be saved. But they must have the option to choose otherwise, or else there is no choice.

So, theoretically, Hell could be empty, and we could still have free will. Practically, there is much in the Bible and other private revelation that shows Hell is far from empty.

God Bless

 

[Trurl]

I believe it is you who makes the logical error. Free will is not contingent on someone else choosing, it’s contigent on the choice being available.

Agreed, but that is NOT what the apologist asserted. Now if God would only create those ones who will freely choose him, how does that affect the created ones’ freedom to act differently? They could have but they did not. However, the apologist said that IF only the ones would have been created, who will choose God, then their free will would be a “sham”. And THAT is the logical error.

Just play a short thought experiment. There are no moral beings at this moment. God “contemplates” creating Joe and Jack. God knows that Joe will choose him, and that Jack will reject him. If God decided to create only Joe, then is Joe’s freedom to choose God a “sham”? But if God decides to create both Joe and Jack, then Joe’s freedom would be real? Because that is what the apologist said, effectively that the “freedom” to choose God is contingent upon someone else reject God. Read the words of apologist again.

 

[Actaeon]

Agreed, but that is NOT what the apologist asserted. Now if God would only create those ones who will freely choose him, how does that affect the created ones’ freedom to act differently? They could have but they did not. However, the apologist said that IF only the ones would have been created, who will choose God, then their free will would be a “sham”. And THAT is the logical error.

The problem with your “found” logical flaw is that it presupposes that all people exist prior to their creation, and that God could simply presumably not let them “come into play” if they might choose wrong when they play the game.

Unfortunately, that does not work out, because people do not exist before their creation. Not allowing anyone to exist who might be inclined to choose to reject God means that ONLY people who accept God have any possibility of ever existing… that isn’t free will at all, and it certainly isn’t love for ALL of His potential beings… God loves us enough to let us exist even if we are going to reject him (existance is greater than non-existance)

 

[Trurl]

The problem with your “found” logical flaw is that it presupposes that all people exist prior to their creation, and that God could simply presumably not let them “come into play” if they might choose wrong when they play the game.

Ah, but God is supposed to know everything: past, present and future. God is supposed to know “us” before we were even conceived. And God is supposed to be sovereign, who can decide whether to create a particular person or not. So where is the problem? Are you going to deny God’s omniscience just to be contrarian?

Unfortunately, that does not work out, because people do not exist before their creation. Not allowing anyone to exist who might be inclined to choose to reject God means that ONLY people who accept God have any possibility of ever existing… that isn’t free will at all,

Why not? Is the existence of someone who rejects God a necessary logical prerequisite for the freedom of those who embrace God?

and it certainly isn’t love for ALL of His potential beings… God loves us enough to let us exist even if we are going to reject him (existance is greater than non-existance)

Why would it be? Nonexistence is far superior to eternal suffering.

 

[bilop]

Why not? Is the existence of someone who rejects God a necessary logical prerequisite for the freedom of those who embrace God?

Not the existence, but the possibility. And given the billions and billions of souls created throughout history, and the large amount of evil in the wordl, practicality dictates that many have chosen against God. We know Satan and ~1/3 of the Angels did.

God Bless

 

[dshix]

Trurl, the apologist is correct. You may not like the answer, or think it is inconsistent, but the apologist gave the right answer and others on this thread already answered your concerns.

If you are still unsatisfied, there is no way anyone can help you, really.

What are your further concerns?

 

[Trurl]

Not the existence, but the possibility.

The possibility is there, even if it does not get actualized.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I take it the “official apologist” is a Catholic Answers apologist in the Ask an Apologist forum.

If that assumption is correct I do not feel comfortable taking on their answer directly. I will say though that it is not consistent with my own amateur understanding of free will, which has been informed largely by Thomist theology.

In my experience, Catholic Answers people are often not very sympathetic to Thomist theology on subjects of predestination, grace, and free will. This is understandable given the current feeling in the Church on these subjects and given their specific focus as an organization of responding to Protestantism.

I would recognized that those of us with more nuanced opinions regarding free will are in the minority in the Church right now and not expect too much understanding or support from our contemporaries.

 

[liquidayno]

God is supposed to be sovereign, who can decide whether to create a particular person or not.

Didn’t God give free will to humans who can then choose to procreate? In other words, people exercise their free will and decide to create a particular person or not. God created the possibility of human propigation, though is involved in creating the soul of each person at conception, “knitting them together in their mother’s womb”.

I hope that is consistent with Church teaching

 

[Trurl]

I take it the “official apologist” is a Catholic Answers apologist in the Ask an Apologist forum.

Correct.

If that assumption is correct I do not feel comfortable taking on their answer directly. I will say though that it is not consistent with my own amateur understanding of free will, which has been informed largely by Thomist theology.

In my experience, Catholic Answers people are often not very sympathetic to Thomist theology on subjects of predestination, grace, and free will. This is understandable given the current feeling in the Church on these subjects and given their specific focus as an organization of responding to Protestantism.

I would recognized that those of us with more nuanced opinions regarding free will are in the minority in the Church right now and not expect too much understanding or support from our contemporaries.

I understand your position. Thanks for the contribution.

 

[bilop]

The possibility is there, even if it does not get actualized.

Correct, it was a possibility that no one would chose to defy God. If even one person suffered double predestination, free will would be violated. But we know from Revelation, that it is actualized, e.g.

Matthew 7:13
Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat.

God Bless

 

[yunat]

The problem with your “found” logical flaw is that it presupposes that all people exist prior to their creation, and that God could simply presumably not let them “come into play” if they might choose wrong when they play the game.

Unfortunately, that does not work out, because people do not exist before their creation. Not allowing anyone to exist who might be inclined to choose to reject God means that ONLY people who accept God have any possibility of ever existing… that isn’t free will at all, and it certainly isn’t love for ALL of His potential beings… God loves us enough to let us exist even if we are going to reject him (existance is greater than non-existance)

Actually, it is free will.

God could only choose to bring people into existence who he knows will choose correctly.

I’m not quite sure how it is that you don’t understand the op’s wisdom.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Actually, it is free will.

God could only choose to bring people into existence who he knows will choose correctly.

I’m not quite sure how it is that you don’t understand the op’s wisdom.

This smacks of the “Can God make a rock bigger than he can lift?” conundrum.

God could only choose to bring into existence those people he knows will choose correctly only if has already created those people who will determine their choices by their free will.

For free will to have any meaning, God could not determine beforehand what choices free agents would make without first creating them so they could, in fact, freely make those choices.

The OP’s entire argument traffics on the misconception that God abides in a “past, present, future” kind of reality. He doesn’t. He exists in an Eternal Present which allows the “present” that we exist in to be actual and realized.

 

[Linux]

Here is a quote of someone’s question to the official apologists:

And here is the answer:

The apologist asserts that if no one would reject God, then the ones who would choose and embrace God would not do this freely? The apologist says that the “freedom” of choosing God is CONTINGENT upon someone else rejecting God? How can something be “free” if it is contingent upon someone else’s action?

First of all, i don’t think it is logically possible for God to not create a being that he “knows” will freely and actually choose a particular thing, since he would have to be judging a non-existent entity to begin with, which makes no rational-sense.

However; God would not be respecting the value of a person’s freedom if he rejects their existence on the basis of knowing that he or she will make a particular unfavorable choice. That would be a selfish act which would not reflect the love of the Creator. If free choice is the greater good, then God would be wrong not to create as a response to free action, even if it does lead to hell.

Hence, the rain falls on the good and the wicked.

This i think is what the Apologist was trying to say; and it is correct.

The only way you will succeed in a refutation is by arguing that hell is not a justified response to unrepented mortal sin.

Good luck; but i don’t think you can do it.

 

[yunat]

This smacks of the “Can God make a rock bigger than he can lift?” conundrum.

God could only choose to bring into existence those people he knows will choose correctly only if has already created those people who will determine their choices by their free will.

For free will to have any meaning, God could not determine beforehand what choices free agents would make without first creating them so they could, in fact, freely make those choices.

The OP’s entire argument traffics on the misconception that God abides in a “past, present, future” kind of reality. He doesn’t. He exists in an Eternal Present which allows the “present” that we exist in to be actual and realized.

You’re incorrect.

God brings people into existence who he knows will spend eternity in heaven, as he knows they will choose correctly.

God brings people into existence who he knows will spend eternity in hell, as he knows they will choose incorrectly.

In both cases, he knows that the people will ultimately choose freely.

Eliminating one of the groups does not eliminate free will.

 

[DCNBILL]

You’re incorrect.

God brings people into existence who he knows will spend eternity in heaven, as he knows they will choose correctly.

God brings people into existence who he knows will spend eternity in hell, as he knows they will choose incorrectly.

In both cases, he knows that the people will ultimately choose freely.

Eliminating one of the groups does not eliminate free will.

This is not the Christian view of free will.

The elimination of one of the groups is not an option, either there is free will to either choose God or reject God for the individual or not.

A thing can not be and not be at the same time.

Nonsense is still nonsense even when attributing it to God. (C.S. Lewis)

 

[yunat]

This is not the Christian view of free will.

The elimination of one of the groups is not an option, either there is free will to either choose God or reject God for the individual or not.

A thing can not be and not be at the same time.

Nonsense is still nonsense even when attributing it to God. (C.S. Lewis)

You seem to be ignoring the logic.

God has chosen to create people who he knows will reject them.

God created them, despite knowing they will reject him and then condemns them to hell.

He has created them, knowing full well they will agonize in hell for eternity.

 

[DCNBILL]

You seem to be ignoring the logic.

God has chosen to create people who he knows will reject them.

God created them, despite knowing they will reject him and then condemns them to hell.

He has created them, knowing full well they will agonize in hell for eternity.

You misunderstand the Christian view of free will and the concept of hell. I agree that this is not an easy concept to grasp but it is essential to the faith.

First, there must be the ability to actually turn from the love of God, to choose hell, it is a choice of the free will that God has given us, if this possibility does not exist for the individual then there would not be a free will to begin with, we would all be “programmed” or predetermined to make a particular choice, thereby, in effect eliminating that choice.

Second, God does not condemn one to hell, the individual does that himself by choosing not to follow the will of God.

The theology behind these concepts fills volumes of works and much of it is beyond my understanding but it essentially boils down to that.

 

[Trurl]

First of all, i don’t think it is logically possible for God to not create a being that he “knows” will freely and actually choose a particular thing, since he would have to be judging a non-existent entity to begin with, which makes no rational-sense.

My friend if you wish to use reason and logic, then you had better drop this whole “religion-thingie”.

I am arguing on the basis of classical theism which declares that God knows everything that happens, happened and will happen, but also the “variants” of what “would happen, if…”. You can look it up in the dogmas, if you don’t believe me (here, under I.27, I.28 and I.29). As such it is perfectly reasonable to assume that God is aware of the “possible future of the person about to be created”. That is what classical theism says. Of course you are free to dispute this “teaching”, and risk to become a heretic… that is your option. But for a faithful catholic it is unquestionable that 1) God is sovereign, that is God is under no “obligation” to create or not to create someone, and 2) God knows with infallible certainty what the fate of the created person would be.

However; God would not be respecting the value of a person’s freedom if he rejects their existence on the basis of knowing that he or she will make a particular unfavorable choice. That would be a selfish act which would not reflect the love of the Creator. If free choice is the greater good, then God would be wrong not to create as a response to free action, even if it does lead to hell.

“Love of the Creator”? You gotta be kidding. Last time I checked, “agape” (or divine love) is acting in the best interest of the loved one. If you think that “being tortured forever” is in the best interest of this hypothetical person, then I will have to ask you to leave me alone, because I am not interested in that level of irrationality.

And, by the way, I vehemently deny that unbridled freedom of choice has any value at all. In my opinion it is dumbest option for any creator. But this is not relevant in this case.