What does Divine Omnipotence really mean?

[R_Daneel]

Clever or just lazy? No, I could never “find it easily” and neither could you. Methinks you couldn’t “google” a single source, could you? Of course not, the real reason you cannot cite an authority for your claims is simply because you are badly misinformed as to Catholic thinking.

If I was misinformed, then you should berate your Catholic brethren on the board for spreading that misinformation. But I don’t think so. The Catholic teaching that “the end does not justify the means” is something that I happened to see with great delight, because it is something that I also hold true - very strongly. On the other hand, in innumerable threads (about the problem of evil) it has been asserted that God does not allow “gratuitous” evil, only “seemingly evil” acts, which would turn out to be “sheep in wolf’s disguise” (if only we knew the reason for them) - which is in dire contradiction with the “end does not justify the means” dogma. (But I will admit that I am lazy, if that makes you feel good. I see no point in digging up quotes, which can be interpreted according to one’s desire.)

As a matter of fact, I find it vastly amusing and entertaining to present the same problem in slightly different form, and see those Catholics argue vehemently against their previously asserted “truth”.

 

[tonyrey]

Moreover, there’s the obvious problem with evil, and the inconsistency between a loving god and the existence of evil (and claims made, which seem to accuse god himself of evil acts, like the killing of all Egyptian male infants).

Almost all philosophers agree that the concept of a loving God is not inconsistent with the existence of evil. It remains to be proved that evil is excessive or unnecessary…

 

[bridgeforsale]

It means that you are using theological words but misunderstanding their concepts.

I always appreciate the irony of the religious partisan who charges the skeptic with “ignorance” or “misunderstanding” (yet then turns around and calls the skeptic arrogant)?

This is merely a study and theorizing of HOW God does things. The theological stance is that without considering the total, the whole, the Holy, you cannot discern what can or cannot be done because the entirety of a situation is what determines (causes) what can or cannot happen. Without really knowing ALL possible concerns, all knowledge, you cannot know what can happen. Thus seek the true balance of all concerns, all knowledge, all potential for doing anything, “God”.

I think there’s more nuance to knowledge than you’re suggesting here. For instance, theoretical physicists are often able to make predictions based on past observations, and theories drawn from those observations. In many cases those predictions are confirmed by later observations. This is one example of how we’re able to predict the likelihood of something being true, without knowing for sure whether it’s true or not.

Without God, the balance of ALL of a situation, you cannot accomplish anything. Man has never accomplished anything without the balance of all forces being a part of it. God is “in” all things, omnipresent.

This itself begs the question. It doesn’t follow that just because during the brief history of the human race nature hasn’t destroyed us, “all forces” are both directed by god and have conspired to work in our favor.

Science has merely been a studing how to “walk with God” more precisely. What Science can or cannot do is determined by that same balance. Science inherently knows this as each experiment ensures a “controlled environment”. Science then attempts to isolate each “force” or principle, each “Eloha” so that for any real situation, an engineer can sum the principles into a realistic accomplishment. Without that sum being accurate, even if by accident, the effort fails.

First, are all scientific discoveries taken from experiments done in a “controlled environment” (usually a laboratory)? Obviously not. Indeed most of what we know about cosmology has nothing to do with experiments at all, but rather is drawn from our observations of the universe. The same goes for evolution, which is in large part taken from our observations of nature as it exists. Sure, many things are taken from laboratory experiments, which for one reason or the other are controlled in certain ways. However, to try and apply this fact to a theological or philosophical construct, and infer that all who fail to see the logic in your reasoning must lack your degree insight into this issue, is frankly the type of argument most will be inclined to resist (even if it might have some latent merit).

 

[bridgeforsale]

Almost all philosophers agree that the concept of a loving God is not inconsistent with the existence of evil. It remains to be proved that evil is excessive or unnecessary…

Even if somehow evil were necessary (for humans to appreciate goodness or something to that effect) it still doesn’t excuse god’s murder of Egytian infants in an act of vengance or to illustrate his power. These are not only human characteristics, but an unstable human at that. I’m willing to believe in god, I’m just not willing to believe a god can be as flawed as the various holy books that exist in the world today describe him.

The bible and many other holy books in our world describe a god who is by any reasonable account insane, yet also depicts this god as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. IMHO it’s simply not plausible. It’s unable to sustain even the most rudimentary logical analysis, and therefore the better view IMHO (objectively speaking) is to at least “seriously” consider the possibility that classical depictions of god could be wrong

 

[James_S_Saint]

I always appreciate the irony of the religious partisan who charges the skeptic with “ignorance” or “misunderstanding” (yet then turns around and calls the skeptic arrogant)?

I said nothing of being arrogant, nor thought it.

 

[tonyrey]

We can speculate about the nature of omnipotence, immutability, atemporality and how they are related but it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality. For that we need to be omniscient…

Ironically your criticism reveals your misunderstanding of my statement. “It is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality” does not entail “epistemological nihilism”…

So therefore.

Unnecessary repetition!

1. we must be able to understand something, though not everything, about omnipotence, and be able to discuss it on those grounds…

Which is precisely what is implied by “it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality”!

If He can’t “change His mind” you have more freedom than He has!

If He can “change His mind”, He is changeable and mutable…

God does not “change His mind” but simply intervenes when necessary to ensure that His project is successful. The process of Creation does not entail the mutation of the Creator…

Are you an open theist or a process theologian?

Forget about labels and deal with facts!

It depends whether you have absolute control… Which is what I am trying to flesh out regarding God.

Well, that is progress!

Can’t you arrange for modifications to a plan of yours once it is in operation?

Yes, of course, but that would be due to circumstances unforeseen by me. God, knowing everything right from the start, would take that into account making His plan in the first place!

You are assuming:

1. Everything has not been taken into account right from the start and
2. It makes subsequent intervention unnecessary - which is absurd in such an immensely complex, dynamic process. Try drawing up a blueprint of a developing universe and ecological system…

No! Most contingent facts stem from the laws of nature and many from human decisions.

Did God not will the laws of nature, though? If so, then He is willing every natural fact that stems from them.You are failing to distinguish between events that are directly willed and those that are permitted because they are inevitable consequences of the interplay of physical laws, i.e. coincidences. In an immensely complex system where there an immense number of individuals pursuing different goals there is bound to be interference and conflict.

It’s a logical contradiction to say He wills that there should be a gravitational force between two objects given by F = GmM/r^2 but yet He doesn’t will that the two bodies should move towards each other.

You are again failing to distinguish between the value and necessity of a general law and the inevitability of unwanted side- effects.

They are foreseen and permitted but not directly willed by God - pace Calvin who believed that not a drop of rain falls without His express command. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

Notice that’s why I said “positive contingent fact”. Evil is not a thing, it is the privation of a thing.

Do you regard brain tumours, earthquakes that destroy cities or commands that condemn Jews and other races to death as privations?! The causes and effects are horrifically positive. It is the consequences that are negative and destructive…

So the presence of evil is not really a good reply to this, because that’s a negative contingent fact.

An arbitrary distinction. To will something entails excluding its contrary…

 

[tonyrey]

We can speculate about the nature of omnipotence, immutability, atemporality and how they are related but it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality. For that we need to be omniscient…

Ironically your criticism reveals your misunderstanding of my statement. “It is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality” does not entail “epistemological nihilism”…

So therefore.

Unnecessary repetition!

1. we must be able to understand something, though not everything, about omnipotence, and be able to discuss it on those grounds…

Which is precisely what is implied by “it is foolish to believe our limited intelligence can fully understand Supreme Reality”!

If He can’t “change His mind” you have more freedom than He has!

If He can “change His mind”, He is changeable and mutable…

God does not “change His mind” but simply intervenes when necessary to ensure that His project is successful. The process of Creation does not entail the mutation of the Creator…

Are you an open theist or a process theologian?

Forget about labels and deal with facts!

It depends whether you have absolute control… Which is what I am trying to flesh out regarding God.

Well, that is progress!

Can’t you arrange for modifications to a plan of yours once it is in operation?

Yes, of course, but that would be due to circumstances unforeseen by me. God, knowing everything right from the start, would take that into account making His plan in the first place!

You are assuming:

1. Everything has not been taken into account right from the start and
2. It makes subsequent intervention unnecessary - which is absurd in such an immensely complex, dynamic process. Try drawing up a blueprint of a developing universe and ecological system…

No! Most contingent facts stem from the laws of nature and many from human decisions.

Did God not will the laws of nature, though? If so, then He is willing every natural fact that stems from them.

You are failing to distinguish between events that are directly willed and those that are permitted because they are inevitable consequences of the interplay of physical laws, i.e. coincidences. In an immensely complex system where there an immense number of individuals pursuing different goals there is bound to be interference and conflict.

It’s a logical contradiction to say He wills that there should be a gravitational force between two objects given by F = GmM/r^2 but yet He doesn’t will that the two bodies should move towards each other.

You are again failing to distinguish between the value and necessity of a general law and the inevitability of unwanted side- effects.

They are foreseen and permitted but not directly willed by God - pace Calvin who believed that not a drop of rain falls without His express command. Otherwise He would be directly responsible for all the disasters, diseases, deformities, disabilities and premature deaths in the world…

Notice that’s why I said “positive contingent fact”. Evil is not a thing, it is the privation of a thing.Do you regard brain tumours, earthquakes that destroy cities or commands that condemn Jews and other races to death as privations?! The causes and effects are horrifically positive. It is the consequences that are negative and destructive…

So the presence of evil is not really a good reply to this, because that’s a negative contingent fact.

An arbitrary distinction. To will something entails excluding its contrary…

 

[tonyrey]

Even if somehow evil were necessary (for humans to appreciate goodness or something to that effect) it still doesn’t excuse god’s murder of Egyptian infants in an act of vengeance or to illustrate his power. These are not only human characteristics, but an unstable human at that. I’m willing to believe in god, I’m just not willing to believe a god can be as flawed as the various holy books that exist in the world today describe him.

I have pointed out that not all Christians interpret the Old Testament literally.

The bible and many other holy books in our world describe a god who is by any reasonable account insane, yet also depicts this god as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. IMHO it’s simply not plausible. It’s unable to sustain even the most rudimentary logical analysis, and therefore the better view IMHO (objectively speaking) is to at least “seriously” consider the possibility that classical depictions of god could be wrong

A Christian believes the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father. Any view which contradicts this teaching is false…

 

[bridgeforsale]

I said nothing of being arrogant, nor thought it.

I was referring to the “common sentiment” in this regard (but it probably was an overstatement, so my apologies).

 

[tdgesq]

With all due respect, I’m not sure what any of this means, and herein lies one problem I have with theology. What does it mean to be “all-mighty”?

I’m sorry, but I find it a little bit bizarre that people are having trouble grasping the concept of the almighty. Christianity claims God created the universe. That requires a being of immense power - a far greater power than any other entity we know of possesses. There are many other aspects and attributes of God that Christianity teaches demonstrates God’s immense power, but isn’t “creation of the entire universe” enough to qualify?

Seriously, can anybody here describe the relative power of mere human creatures in a catchall definition that would be accurate? No. Somebody could list many attributes of human beings that demonstrate their relative powers. We can call man a “rational animal” perhaps and then be criticized for the lack of specificity of that definition.

There are some things about Christianity and theism in general that can be legitimately criticized. But it is silly to assert that there is a problem with the concept of God’s omnipotence because there isn’t paragraph of writing that completely describes (to the reader’s satisfaction) the vast power of God. Come on.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I have pointed out that not all Christians interpret the Old Testament literally.

And I think this is an excellent and honest perspective; but in my experience “non-literal” interpretation of the old testament is usually confined to the early chapters of Genesis. It is noteworthy that many liberal Jewish rabbis today embrace the idea that the Exodus never happened, but I haven’t heard an equally ambitious proclamation from even the most liberal Christian denomination, much less the Catholic Church (but I could be wrong, and frankly I hope I am).

A Christian believes the teaching of Jesus that God is a loving Father. Any view which contradicts this teaching is false…

OK great, but as far as I know the majority view has been (and remains) that killing all male Egyptian newborns (in order to induce the Pharoah into freeing the Jews, and also to avenge the Pharoah’s murder of Jewish male infants at the outset of the Exodus narrative, and to illustrate and assert his power and supremecy over Egyptian gods) IS consistent with the idea of an all loving god.

If the story is understood as a myth designed (and inspired by god) to convey a particular message, obviously that changes the entire paradigm of this discussion (and would nullify many of my objections; although it would certainly raise new questions, like why would god possibly inspire anyone to write such a thing). I guess my immediate reaction here is to simply note the majority view among Christians, and point out that viewing a story as central as the Exodus as a myth is an unusual position. The impression I have is a belief like that would deviate too far from orthodoxy to be considered valid or within an acceptable range of disagreement (but again I could be wrong; and btw I could think of plenty of reasons why god might inspire the authorship of Exodus, certainly much more easily than I could reconcile god having actually killed thousands of newborn infants).

 

[bridgeforsale]

I’m sorry, but I find it a little bit bizarre that people are having trouble grasping the concept of the almighty. Christianity claims God created the universe. That requires a being of immense power - a far greater power than any other entity we know of possesses. There are many other aspects and attributes of God that Christianity teaches demonstrates God’s immense power, but isn’t “creation of the entire universe” enough to qualify?

Seriously, can anybody here describe the relative power of mere human creatures in a catchall definition that would be accurate? No. Somebody could list many attributes of human beings that demonstrate their relative powers. We can call man a “rational animal” perhaps and then be criticized for the lack of specificity of that definition.

There are some things about Christianity and theism in general that can be legitimately criticized. But it is silly to assert that there is a problem with the concept of God’s omnipotence because there isn’t paragraph of writing that completely describes (to the reader’s satisfaction) the vast power of God. Come on.

Your critique is fair in one aspect, you’re right to say the ability to create a universe easily qualifies god for the title “all-mighty” (something that would indeed be silly to quarl over). But the discussion here is more pointed. It’s directed at defining “omnipotence.” In other words (if we equate omnipotence with the term all-mighty) the question at issue here is the definition of all-mighty

I don’t think it’s wise for us to gloss over the importance of this issue. For example, we might ask how is it possible that an all loving and supposedly all powerful god found the time to cure 65 out of 5 million sick visitors to Lourdes, but ignored the cries of six million Jews (and other German minorities) as they were being slaughtered by Hitlers killing machine?

I suppose there’s all sorts of elaborate explanations we might come up with, but the most logical assumption seems to be that god didn’t help those Jews because he lacked the power to intervene and stop Hitler. Perhaps triggering a quantum fluctuation and thereby causing the inflation, which led to our modern universe (and understanding what the general, or “macro” results would be from that action) is much different than intervening in the natural world in the way that would have been required to stop Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot (or whomever). The same logic goes to questions like why would a god who could truly do anything, create the universe and biological life using a process like big bang cosmology or evolution, if he could simply create things ex nihilo? Why would god only cure illnesses that are capable of healing on their own (even if the chances are low), and not heal amputees or other sick people whose conditions lack any possibility of treatment?

For these reasons I think omnipotence is an immensely important issue.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I suppose there’s all sorts of elaborate explanations we might come up with, but the most logical assumption seems to be that god didn’t help those Jews because he lacked the power to intervene and stop Hitler.

The *most *logical assumption would be the one that does not conflict with your original premise: that God is almighty. Thus, we might conclude that (if God exists and is almighty) God’s idea of goodness is not identical to our own idea of goodness. This proposal makes perfect sense, so why discard it?

God’s existence and omnipotence are logically compatible. But are they compatible with his goodness? To answer, we must know what goodness is, over and above our own personal ideas of what a good person ought to do.

 

[tdgesq]

I don’t think it’s wise for us to gloss over the importance of this issue. For example, we might ask how is it possible that an all loving and supposedly all powerful god found the time to cure 65 out of 5 million sick visitors to Lourdes, but ignored the cries of six million Jews (and other German minorities) as they were being slaughtered by Hitlers killing machine?

The answer to this question is simple from the standpoint of omnipotence. God decided not to. He certainly had the power to save every single Jew murdered in the holocaust. He simply didn’t.

I suppose there’s all sorts of elaborate explanations we might come up with, but the most logical assumption seems to be that god didn’t help those Jews because he lacked the power to intervene and stop Hitler.

He did have the power. He chose not to exercise the power. I think even most Jewish theologians (not all) would agree with that. The real question is: Why didn’t God choose to save these precious human lives in the face of great of evil? It isn’t because He lacked the ability to do so.

 

[bridgeforsale]

The *most *logical assumption would be the one that does not conflict with your original premise: that God is almighty. Thus, we might conclude that (if God exists and is almighty) God’s idea of goodness is not identical to our own idea of goodness. This proposal makes perfect sense, so why discard it?

God’s existence and omnipotence are logically compatible. But are they compatible with his goodness? To answer, we must know what goodness is, over and above our own personal ideas of what a good person ought to do.

That’s the common argument, but I also think it’s valid to question the premise that there could be an unknown “good attribute” in the murder of thousands of infants (as in the Exodus story)? Nevertheless, the real basis of my own objections to the classical view of omnipotence is the science surrounding cosmology and evolution. I know you’ll say there are reasons why god creates using a process rather than ex nihilo (even though you may believe god can, if he wishes to, create without the need for a process).

I think science, the way god works in the present world, etc. infer real limitations on his power. I think he created the universe and triggered evolution by utilizing a process because that was the best means he had at his disposal (and even god lacks a magic wand). I don’t think god prefers cancer patients over amputees, rather I think god’s curative power lies in his abilty to promote healing by inspiring our spirits, and he is limited by the nature he created (in other words god does not cause the spontaneous regrowth of limbs because he lacks the ability to).

I think the physical evidence consistently bears this out.

 

[tdgesq]

That’s the common argument, but I also think it’s valid to question the premise that there could be an unknown “good attribute” in the murder of thousands of infants (as in the Exodus story)?

You are conflating concepts. Theists accept that God had the power (omnipotence) to prevent these evil acts, regardless of whether there was some “good attribute,” as you put it, contained in that decision of God. Since this is a discussion about omnipotence, the reasons why God chose to refrain from saving human lives in these instances don’t matter - unless we are going to discuss the problem of evil. I don’t have any problem doing that if you wish.

Nevertheless, the real basis of my own objections to the classical view of omnipotence is the science surrounding cosmology and evolution. I know you’ll say there are reasons why god creates using a process rather than ex nihilo (even though you may believe god can, if he wishes to, create without the need for a process).

The existence of matter has a cause, just like everything else we observe in nature has a cause. Where did the matter come from to form such a universe? God is the first cause of the existence of matter. He is the ultimate cause of all being we observe in the universe for that matter. But hey, I still think God qualifies as omnipotent even if there was some kind of pre-existent matter that he managed to arrange. God is the ultimate cause of all being we observe in the universe - well - according to Christianity at least.

 

[bridgeforsale]

The answer to this question is simple from the standpoint of omnipotence. God decided not to. He certainly had the power to save every single Jew murdered in the holocaust. He simply didn’t.

He did have the power. He chose not to exercise the power. I think even most Jewish theologians (not all) would agree with that. The real question is: Why didn’t God choose to save these precious human lives in the face of great of evil? It isn’t because He lacked the ability to do so.

I simply disagree (regardless of what any theologian may think). I think the evidence (I’m speaking of real, physical evidence) consistently bears this out. Every single medical and scientific fact correlates with my assumption, every single one. There has never been a case (a verified case that is, not an unsubstantiated ancient claim with no supporting correborating evidence) of god causing the spontaneous regrowth of a limb, or promoting some sort of unprecedented healing. There is nothing in nature that we know of, which has not been created through a process. There is no recorded physical evidence, beyond out of body experiences and metaphysical arguments (and the latter isn’t really proof), showing that god exists at all.

I’m not trying to debunk the idea that god exists. I’ve actually looked at the data concerning “out of body experiences,” and as weird as it sounds to even most religious people, it is real and compelling evidence that something else exists. I’ve heard explanations by skeptics and I don’t think they provide adequate explanations (psychological reactions do explain some aspects of this phenomena, but cannot explain certain of the other aspects). However, we cannot pretend the nature god created doesn’t represent him insofar as it illustrates how he creates and how he operates on an ongoing basis, which is suggestive of his abilities (and implies limitations, at least relative to what the concept of “omnipotence” could conceivably encompass).

I believe Paul exhorts us (in Romans) to view creation as a testimony to the existence of god. I imagine Paul didn’t anticipate how far science would come, and how much we would eventually learn about god’s creation. Nonetheless, his words are no less applicable. Anyway, time for this guy to hit sack … good night folks!

 

[tdgesq]

I simply disagree (regardless of what any theologian may think). I think the evidence (I’m speaking of real, physical evidence) consistently bears this out. Every single medical and scientific fact correlates with my assumption, every single one. There has never been a case (a verified case that is, not an unsubstantiated ancient claim with no supporting correborating evidence) of god causing the spontaneous regrowth of a limb, or promoting some sort of unprecedented healing.

What does God causing the spontaneous growth of a limb (which all non-theists would attribute to a non-divine origin anyway) have to with God’s omnipotence? You attribute the lack of this particular act on the part of God to be a lack of his ability to do it. That is a bare assumption on your part. Jesus healed the man with the withered hand, but perhaps that is too ancient along with the other miracles recorded by the Catholic Church in this regard. True, cases within the past 30 years of amputee healings are pretty much unheard of. I’m just curious as to how you decided that means God doesn’t have the power to heal such folk. Could it be that he decided not to heal them?

I’m not trying to debunk the idea that god exists. I’ve actually looked at the data concerning “out of body experiences,” and as weird as it sounds to even most religious people, it is real and compelling evidence that something else exists. I’ve heard explanations by skept).ics and I don’t think they provide adequate explanations (psychological reactions do explain some aspects of this phenomena, but cannot explain certain of the other aspects However, we cannot pretend the nature god created doesn’t represent him insofar as it illustrates how he creates and how he operates on an ongoing basis, which is suggestive of his abilities (and implies limitations, at least relative to what the concept of “omnipotence” could conceivably encompass).

Then again, perhaps there is some other reason that God doesn’t perform the type of miracles you expect. Jesus would not provide all signs requested of him to a disbelieving age. You need to look at what orthodox theologians teach on this subject before striking out on your own. God will not interfere with our free will. It is here that you need focus your efforts I think.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I’m sorry, but I find it a little bit bizarre that people are having trouble grasping the concept of the almighty. Christianity claims God created the universe. That requires a being of immense power - a far greater power than any other entity we know of possesses. There are many other aspects and attributes of God that Christianity teaches demonstrates God’s immense power, but isn’t “creation of the entire universe” enough to qualify?

Then obviously you aren’t understanding the issue at hand. It involves not what God has done, but what He has not, for instance saving the Jews from the Holocaust or creating a pink unicorn. Power to do something normally involves a potency. But God has no potency. How does it make sense to say He has the power to do something He has not done? He has not done it, so He is not in act in that regard. He can not be in potency in that regard either by definition. Another way of putting it is that His will cannot change. Saying there is a logically possible world in which God creates the pink unicorn doesn’t quite get there - there is a logically possible world in which I create a pink unicorn. So that’s why I asked does omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact is due to God’s will?

 

[JDaniel]

Then obviously you aren’t understanding the issue at hand. It involves not what God has done, but what He has not, for instance saving the Jews from the Holocaust or creating a pink unicorn. Power to do something normally involves a potency. But God has no potency. How does it make sense to say He has the power to do something He has not done? He has not done it, so He is not in act in that regard. He can not be in potency in that regard either by definition. Another way of putting it is that His will cannot change. Saying there is a logically possible world in which God creates the pink unicorn doesn’t quite get there - there is a logically possible world in which I create a pink unicorn. So that’s why I asked does omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact is due to God’s will?

In my opinion, you are correct: God is not concurrent with us in “time”. He is already infinitely past us. If it occurs before our very eyes, it has already happened. If it occurred in the past, it has already happened.

You are correct when you say that “God has no potency.” And, you are quite correct to further say, “How does it make sense to say He has the power to do something He has not done?” This does not make sense and can’t possibly make sense. We can’t possibly know all that God has done, in our past. We cannot possibly know what God’s immanent creating will reveal to us in the future.

You asked. “does omnipotence entail that every positive contingent fact is due to God’s will?” It must be - at least, in some way. God created its occurrence, AND it has already occurred, or, is concurrently occurring (if this is even possible), but will, nevertheless, be relative to God’s will. And, even here, we can’t precisely know in what manner. We can surmise it from what we know of God’s nature. And those who well know His nature can, I believe, do that accurately.

You are quite a thinker, sir.

jd