Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?

[Candide_West]

Why not?

Because if he is wrong about something then that means he doesn’t know something. Which by definition means not omniscient.

We do not have those four characteristics.

Of course humans do not have those characteristics. But as I have said, as far as I can see, if God does, then free will is an illusion. For the reasons I gave. Do you disagree? If so could you explain why / how?

And it is our choice.

This appears to be a bald assertion. Can you support this at all?

Thanks

 

[sw85]

I’d also caution that it’s probably inappropriate to say that God created “you.” He created your soul (your form or essence, as the Aristotelians would say). Your parents provided the substance.

The act of creation (as far as new human life is concerned) is therefore a collaborative act.

 

[Candide_West]

On what basis do you equate knowledge with causality, as you did above?

I haven’t equated knowledge with cause.

Essentially what I have done is pointed out that if you do something knowing exactly what the consequences would be and with the freedom to do it any different way you selected, the you are responsible for that consequence. I illustrated this with a couple examples. The train example is the simplest.

God laid the track and set the train in motion (created the universe and my soul).

He could see it led to the edge of the table (he’s omniscient).

He could have laid it differently (he’s omnipotent).

He could change the signals (intervention).

Thus, as I said, if God exists and has those characteristics, then humans no more have free will than the train does. It’s just an illusion.

This is an invalid conclusion based on the false premise that knowledge = cause.

Nope, that would be a very silly mistake indeed.

 

[Spock]

Ok, cool. Out of curiosity does anyone reading know the official catholic view?

I would love to see it, too. Strangely enough I never found an officially endorsed infallible list of anything. However, the list of dogmas at (Dogmas) contains the following:
**II.9: God keeps all created things in existence.**Which means that the world simply would disintegrate if God would not consciously keep all the atomic and sub-atomic particles in place. All of our particles, molecules etc. and their interactions would be impossible if God did not guide them and would not actively participate in their actions and interactions. Now, since our thoughts and decisions are the results of the electro-chemical interactions in the brain, obviously they are the results of God’s actions. Therefore the so-called free will is just a misnomer. We are not in charge of our thoughts, God is. We really are just puppets on a string - if one takes the corollary of the dogmas to its logical conclusion. And a Catholic must do it, unless he wants to be called a “heretic”.

There is another way to support this line of thought: we cannot speak of free will unless the following criteria are met:

1. the person has the Locus of Decision.
2. there are at least two different options to choose from: PAP - Principle of Alternate Possibilities, and
3. those options allow to fulfill one’s wish/want/will/desire.

If any of these is missing, we cannot speak of “free will”. Let’s examine them:

1. The person does not have the locus of decision, since it is God, who moves his electrons and creates the chemical interactions in the brain - therefore it is God who makes the decision…
2. There is no PAP. There is only one option “to choose from”, the one that God knows according to his alleged omniscience. We may think (incorrectly, since it is God who moves the electrons, and thus does the “thinking”) that we are in charge, but from God’s omniscience it follows that we are only “free” to choose (still a misnomer) the option that God has decided.

Now the believers may find solace in the fact that God hides his action from us. If the Church did not “reveal” that it is “God who maintains all the created things in existence” we would be happy in our ignorance. But we are deprived of our ignorance. We must take the pill, no matter how bitter it is:

**Free will is merely an illusion. **

 

[greylorn]

I’d also caution that it’s probably inappropriate to say that God created “you.” He created your soul (your form or essence, as the Aristotelians would say). Your parents provided the substance.

The act of creation (as far as new human life is concerned) is therefore a collaborative act.

If the soul is not “you,” what is?

If you are a soul, how can you possibly have one?

 

[perro_sarnoso]

Yes, he gave me free will, but he is also omniscient, so he knows what I’m going to do with my free will - therefore - he knew before I was ever created that I would ultimately choose hell.

If I knew that my actions would cause someone else to go to hell, I would abstain from that action. Am I not morally obliged to abstain from that action? If not, why not?

God’s action is creation. Why did he create man if he knew that many of us would spend eternity without him?

Thoughts?

No.

Your example is an automaton. An unthinking thing - unaffected by God’s grace. Your example is flawed and programmed to fail.

Your example wants God to committ abortion. Because He knew you would go to hell so He aborted you. That’s the same argument used by women who prefer to abort than bring a child into this “terrible world to suffer”.

God knows the result of every possible decision and variation of decision you could or would make or not make. And He still creates you because He wants to give you the opportunity to choose Him and eternity with Him.

WAKE UP!!!

 

[benedictus2]

On what basis do you equate knowledge with causality, as you did above?

This is an invalid conclusion based on the false premise that knowledge = cause.

And that hits it right on the head. Succinct and to the point.

 

[benedictus2]

I haven’t equated knowledge with cause.

Essentially what I have done is pointed out that if you do something knowing exactly what the consequences would be and with the freedom to do it any different way you selected, the you are responsible for that consequence.

Actually that is not what you said. David is correct, you equated knowledge with cause.

I illustrated this with a couple examples. The train example is the simplest.

God laid the track and set the train in motion (created the universe and my soul).

He could see it led to the edge of the table (he’s omniscient).

He could have laid it differently (he’s omnipotent).

He could change the signals (intervention).

Thus, as I said, if God exists and has those characteristics, then humans no more have free will than the train does. It’s just an illusion.

Here’s the problem with that analogy. The train has no free will.

 

[Candide_West]

Actually that is not what you said. *David is correct, you equated knowledge with cause.

Apologies if I have failed to explain sufficiently clearly. Perhaps you could indicate where you think I have done this so that I can clarify for you.

Or perhaps you could explain how you could “choose” to do something that God did not intend for you to do. Keep in mind that if he couldn’t have designed you soul in a way which prevented you from doing it then he isn’t omnipotent. And if he didn’t know that you would do it if he made you in that way then he’s not omniscient.*

Here’s the problem with that analogy. The train has no free will.

Exactly the point. And neither do we if God has the identified characteristics.*

You seem to be struggling with the idea that free will can be an illusion. This is suggested by your repeated return to “but we have free will”.

Perhaps it would help if you imagine a tiny train driver on the train. He believes that he’s in control and driving the train. But in fact he’s just another part of the toy mechanism set in motion by God.*

We are like that train driver, a part of the mechanism of the universe. Every last movement of which has been pre-planned by God… If he exists and has those characteristics.*

 

[benedictus2]

Apologies if I have failed to explain sufficiently clearly. Perhaps you could indicate where you think I have done this so that I can clarify for you.

Or perhaps you could explain how you could “choose” to do something that God did not intend for you to do.

So you are saying that God intended the murderers to murder? That God intended Hitler to starve and gas to death millions of Jews?

And should you decide to go on a killing rampage that would be because God told you to do so? I thought only schizophrenics make such a claim.

Keep in mind that if he couldn’t have designed you soul in a way which prevented you from doing it

If He designed your soul in such a way that prevents you doing evil then you are a puppet, a robot. Which means there is no free will.

then he isn’t omnipotent.

Did I not say before that He is omnipotent but CHOSE to curb this omnipotence by the extent of your free will. He didn’t have to, He chose to.

Imagine a King with absolute rule over his subjects who says, you may do as you please when you are in my castle. If some decided to trash the castle, and he does not send them to the gallows it is not because he cannot send them to the gallows, it is because he CHOSE not to.

There is a difference between can and will and can’t and wont.

And if he didn’t know that you would do it if he made you in that way then he’s not omniscient.*

As I have said before, when we talk of omniscience, you apply this to linear time which is what time is in the cosmos. But God is in the Kairos - in the Eternal Now. There is no past or future with Him.

 

[benedictus2]

Exactly the point. And neither do we if God has the identified characteristics.*

Sorry but no. You have not convincingly shown that we don’t have free will if God is omniscient.

At the most all you can say is that God knew we will be good/bad/love/hate and allowed us to will goodness/badness/love/hatred.

As David’s incisive post said, you are equating knowledge with causation.

You seem to be struggling with the idea that free will can be an illusion.

You seem to be struggling with the fact that you are unable to make a case for that statement.

This is suggested by your repeated return to “but we have free will”.

This is suggested by your insistence that because God is omniscient and omnipotent we are therefore robots.

So I presume your girlfriend/boyfriend was forced upon you, your job was not your choice and some deity must be holding a gun to your head which is the reason you post in this thread.

Perhaps it would help if you imagine a tiny train driver on the train. He believes that he’s in control and driving the train. But in fact he’s just another part of the toy mechanism set in motion by God.*

Perhaps if you imagine the train driver is actually in control of the train because surprise, surprise he can control the train and the reason he is not in control was because he’d gotten himself mighty drunk.

Oh, that’s right. It was God’s fault that he’d decided to drink himself to oblivion.

We are like that train driver, a part of the mechanism of the universe

Is this how you off load your culpability for your wrong doings? God made me do it.

So if you should happen to drive while intoxicated and kill a passerby in the process well, that was God’s fault. Forget about the fact that you know that drinking and driving just don’t mix.

. Every last movement of which has been pre-planned by God… If he exists and has those characteristics.*

Sad. You must be in prison then, unable to think for himself, unable to make a choice. If that is so then I don’t know if I should keep talking to you since I want to talk the Candide West who thinks for himself, not Candide West the robot.

 

[Perplexity]

Hmm, if the ability to choose an evil is a defining characteristic of ‘free-will’ and God doesn’t have this ability, then God doesn’t have free-will?

“St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection.” - Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum

 

[vz71]

And it is our choice.

This appears to be a bald assertion. Can you support this at all?

Thanks

Perhaps it is. But it is also a basic teaching of the Catholic faith.
And it is also a premise asserted in the question titling this thread.

The inability to have a free will would also preclude our ability to think and reason.

 

[vz71]

Hmm, if the ability to choose an evil is a defining characteristic of ‘free-will’ and God doesn’t have this ability, then God doesn’t have free-will?

The problem with this thought is that evil is actually defined in reference to God.
God has free will. His will is Good. Going against his will is evil.

 

[benedictus2]

Hmm, if the ability to choose an evil is a defining characteristic of ‘free-will’ and God doesn’t have this ability, then God doesn’t have free-will?

“St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection.” - Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum

But I am not saying that the possibility of deflection from good is the perfection of liberty.

For man, free will includes the ability to choose evil. This same idea cannot be applied to God because He is the sum of all goodness and evil is the absence of good.

Freedom to choose evil is part - not perfection - of free will.

The truly free, interestingly enough, will not choose evil because evil is binding, sin is enslaving. A truly free person will only say yes to God even though he can choose to say no.

I suppose one can say that while man’s will is free it has been compromised by sin so it is not absolutely free.

 

[Perplexity]

The problem with this thought is that evil is actually defined in reference to God.
God has free will. His will is Good. Going against his will is evil.

vz: I’m not sure many would accept that definition of evil, Leo XIII certainly didn’t. Most definitions of free-will say nothing about good or evil, also.

But, my post was apropos the question, why didn’t God create us all immediately in the beatific vision? Some have said because God desired us to have free-will which entails our potential moral demise.

In response to this, it has been argued that God could’ve attained this end without needing to tolerate our potential moral demise. i.e., since this potential isn’t essential to free-will, he could give us free-will without this ability.

 

[Candide_West]

So you are saying that God intended the murderers to murder? That God intended Hitler to starve and gas to death millions of Jews?

Not just those events but every other one as well. Everything down to the smallest movement of subatomic structures. If God has the previously mentioned characteristics then by definition nothing can happen which he didn’t intend to happen. Otherwise he made a mistake.

And should you decide to go on a killing rampage that would be because God told you to do so? I thought only schizophrenics make such a claim.

Ok, but I don’t make those kinds of claims (I don’t believe in any God, let alone one which has those characteristics). However, you seem to have realised one of the key results of these four characteristics. Which is that individuals could not be responsible for their actions. Just like the toy train driver. Hence God “punishing” the toy train driver would be immoral.

If He designed your soul in such *a way that prevents you doing evil then you are a puppet, a robot. Which means there is no free will.

Right, and he has in fact designed my soul in a way which means I won’t do millions of things and will do exactly every thing that I will do in my life.*

So we seem to be reaching agreement here. Free will is an illusion if God exists and has those characteristics.

Did I not say before that He is omnipotent but CHOSE to curb this omnipotence by the extent of your free will. He didn’t have to, He chose to.

Ok, but as previously discussed that would in itself not be sufficient to grant us free will. He would need to have limited his own omniscience as well.

Imagine a King with absolute rule over his subjects who says, you may do as you please when you are in my castle. If some decided to trash the castle, and he does not send them to the gallows it is not because he cannot send them to the gallows, it is because he CHOSE not to.

There is a difference between can and will and can’t and wont.

Right, I’m fine with God choosing to give away some of his omnipotence. but in your example the subjects have free will because their king does not have the four specified characteristics.

As I have said before, when we talk of omniscience, you apply this to linear time which is what time is in the cosmos. *But God is in the Kairos - in the Eternal Now. There is no past or future with Him.

No, I think that actually is part of the problem. I’m thinking of God having what I would call omniscience which is knowledge of everything at every point in time as well as every permutation of possibilities dependent on his own actions. You seem to be imagining some kind of mist which obscures Gods omniscience regarding human decisions. Clearly if that existed God would not be omniscient.*

If you are saying that the God you believe in is not truly omniscient and has taken away from himself the omnipotence to interfere with human choices then I agree that humans can have free will. As per my previous statement of God only being able to have 2 out of 4 if we are to have free will.*

 

[benedictus2]

vz: I’m not sure many would accept that definition of evil, Leo XIII certainly didn’t. Most definitions of free-will say nothing about good or evil, also.

But, my post was apropos the question, why didn’t God create us all immediately in the beatific vision? Some have said because God desired us to have free-will which entails our potential moral demise.

In response to this, it has been argued that God could’ve attained this end without needing to tolerate our potential moral demise. i.e., since this potential isn’t essential to free-will, he could give us free-will without this ability.

But the free will without this ability is to be God. So you are saying that He should have made gods?

Although that is essentially what theosis is.

 

[Perplexity]

But the free will without this ability is to be God. So you are saying that He should have made gods?

Although that is essentially what theosis is.

Benedictus, many, many Catholics and Christians [Leo XIII, Augustine et al] have said the residents of heaven (angels and saints) cannot choose evil.

In fact, as an aside, this idea has given rise to what is known as ‘the problem of heaven’, which has to do with the fact that God could therefore create a realm in which the greatest goods are realized but in which no one has the ability to cause or choose evil, so why didn’t he? How is a world with less good, tons of evil and suffering, better than all of us existing in heaven from the get go?

But, to answer your question, no. These Christians would probably respond by saying to be without this ability is not to be God, it’s to have your intellect and will totally orientated towards the good, something Christians hope for, and which God already has.

 

[bethanysamuel]

Bear in mind that God has the power to empty Hell. For all we know, one day we might see Adolf perched on a pink cloud getting his back rubbed by angels.