Why did God create the universe the way He did?

[empther]

#32 is all Aquinas. Can you refute him?

There is hardly any argument in #32, so if you don’t mind, I am not going to waste my time on assertions.

:bigyikes: :doh2: :hypno: :sad_bye:

#32 has six of Aquinas’ famous ‘objections’ and six ‘replies’.

It that’s not argument it’s time to close down this philosophy section.

 

[belorg]

:bigyikes: :doh2: :hypno: :sad_bye:

#32 has six of Aquinas’ famous ‘objections’ and six ‘replies’.

It that’s not argument it’s time to close down this philosophy section.

Aquinas rejects the objections without much argument. Seems more like an assertion to me.
Anyway, none of these six replies adresses my objection, so even if they were arguments, they would be irrelevant.

 

[empther]

belorg’s post number 2

Originally Posted by Ion
God is almighty and He could have created the universe and us any way He wanted…
Is there some special meaning for us, resulting from the way the creation was done?

**Since God is a necessary being , He could not have wanted anything else. :bigyikes: **

Belorg’s post 42

Aquinas rejects the objections without much argument. Seems more like an assertion to me.
Anyway,** none of these six replies see post 32 ] adresses my objection :bigyikes: **, so even if they were arguments, they would be irrelevant.

From post 32

Objection 1. It seems that whatever God wills He wills necessarily. For everything eternal is necessary. But whatever God wills, He wills from eternity, for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.

Reply to Objection 1. From the fact that God wills from eternity whatever He wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by supposition.
supposition: something that is supposed; assumption; hypothesis. i.e., not absolutely necessary to exist ]
From the 'I answer": Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change. ]

Aquinas’ “Objection 1” is the same thing as your objection. The other five objection/reply combos similarly say that God has free choice in what he wills and does.

( Did you miss me? )

 

[belorg]

belorg’s post number 2

Belorg’s post 42

From post 32

Aquinas’ “Objection 1” is the same thing as your objection. The other five objection/reply combos similarly say that God has free choice in what he wills and does.

Objection 1. It seems that whatever God wills He wills necessarily. For everything eternal is necessary. But whatever God wills, He wills** from eternity**, for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.

Could you be so kind as to show me where in this thread I made the objection that since God is eternal, he cannot change his will?

So, objection 1 is not the same as my objection.

But, a nice try, I’l give you that :thumbsup:µ

 

[empther]

Could you be so kind as to show me where in this thread I made the objection that since God is eternal, he cannot change his will?

So, objection 1 is not the same as my objection.

Pretty lame, but atheist arguments always are.

You said if God is necessary whatever he wills is necessary,
but if God is necessary he is eternal, for necessity means he cannot change and even coming into being is change.
Furthermore, Aquinas’ “Objection 1” says, *But whatever God wills, He wills from eternity, for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.

• which ties in the idea of an eternal/necessary being immutable and therefrom reaches your erroneous conclusion which implies no choice.

So it’s the same.

Aquinas did not write a parallel section using a different word, necessary instead of eternal, because it’s obvious to anybody that it’s the same result, and the thesaurus will have synonyms which would require more sections, the number varying with each language, and it becomes ridiculous.

 

[belorg]

Pretty lame, but atheist arguments always are.

You said if God is necessary whatever he wills is necessary,
but if God is necessary he is eternal, for necessity means he cannot change and even coming into being is change.
Furthermore, Aquinas’ “Objection 1” says, *But whatever God wills, He wills from eternity, for otherwise His will would be mutable. Therefore whatever He wills, He wills necessarily.

• which ties in the idea of an eternal/necessary being immutable and therefrom reaches your erroneous conclusion which implies no choice.

So it’s the same.

Aquinas did not write a parallel section using a different word, necessary instead of eternal, because it’s obvious to anybody that it’s the same result, and the thesaurus will have synonyms which would require more sections, the number varying with each language, and it becomes ridiculous.

Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion.

 

[empther]

Since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about, I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion.

Pretty lame. You never give a thorough analysis of anything.

Now it’s time to go to one of the atheist forums and pick up another idea for starting another God-bashing thread.

 

[belorg]

Pretty lame. You never give a thorough analysis of anything.

Now it’s time to go to one of the atheist forums and pick up another idea for starting another God-bashing thread.

We all know how thoroughly you analyse things:clapping::tiphat::banghead:

 

[DanAl]

God is almighty and He could have created the universe and us any way He wanted…
Is there some special meaning for us, resulting from the way the creation was done?

well, if the absolute primacy theory of Christ is right that would mean that the incarnation was foreordained by God prior to the creation of the world. It would mean that creation was set up to serve that end; God’s incarnation. … Perhaps it could mean God was privileging us in sharing his human nature, for example.

By the way the this is not a fringe idea. It has been defended by Duns Scotus, Francis Suarez, has gained momentum in the last century in the catholic church, and several doctors of the church have defended it.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

We are created in the image of God, can God create anything greater?

We are asked to pray to God our Father.

Can God love all his children as he loves himself, is there any greater reason to create children in his own image?

God has given us the greatest commandment, with the freedom to return God’s love for us.

God loves everyone as he loves himself, we are given the second commandment to love all our neighbours as we love ourselves, in the same way as God loves, what greater purpose can there be?