Why doesn't God just not create the bad people to keep them from going to hell

[Aloysium]

. . . If God intervened and “called you”…you still had the freedom to ignore or reject that call.
Or not?

Of course.

Free will isn’t that complicated. To me, off the top of my head, it means choosing what you choose free of coercion or other determining factors.
Now, choosing which brand of toilet paper or tooth paste is not to exercise free will.
What happens in certain situations is that one’s life will actually swing in one direction or another, as a result of the decision one makes. Here, we participate in the creation of our destiny.
In such cases, it is pretty clear, but in life there is also a slippery slope, where it can be years later, having made small decisions in the wrong direction, we find ourselves very far from what is good.

I would agree that God doesn’t intervene to make us choose good or choose evil.

Goodness does come from living a life filled with a hopeful and faithful giving of oneself to what is true and good.

We may be talking about different things.

I suffer from a serious chronic (better than acute, I suppose) illness. I have seen many friends die, some prematurely,
Most people would see it as a curse, but it has been a blessing. Did God intervene to make me ill?
I doubt it, but definitely He has helped me derive meaning from it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t understand where you get that. God created everything, yes.
And He entered it in the person of Jesus, yes.
What does that have to do with over-riding man’s free will.

It doesn’t have anything to do with over-riding free will.

Intervention is not the same as over-riding.

You can intervene in someone’s life by showing them the way. You cannot force them to follow the way.

I think maybe we are not on the same page?

 

[MacQ]

It doesn’t have anything to do with over-riding free will.

Intervention is not the same as over-riding.

You can intervene in someone’s life by showing them the way. You cannot force them to follow the way.

I think maybe we are not on the same page?

We definitely weren’t on the same page, but probably are now.
I took some of your posts to mean that you thought God intervened in our lives in ways that seemed to me to over-ride the notion of free will. I see that is not the case.
Thanks for the clarification.

 

[MacQ]

Of course.

Free will isn’t that complicated. To me, off the top of my head, it means choosing what you choose free of coercion or other determining factors.
Now, choosing which brand of toilet paper or tooth paste is not to exercise free will.
What happens in certain situations is that one’s life will actually swing in one direction or another, as a result of the decision one makes. Here, we participate in the creation of our destiny.
In such cases, it is pretty clear, but in life there is also a slippery slope, where it can be years later, having made small decisions in the wrong direction, we find ourselves very far from what is good.

I would agree that God doesn’t intervene to make us choose good or choose evil.

Goodness does come from living a life filled with a hopeful and faithful giving of oneself to what is true and good.

We may be talking about different things.

I suffer from a serious chronic (better than acute, I suppose) illness. I have seen many friends die, some prematurely,
Most people would see it as a curse, but it has been a blessing. Did God intervene to make me ill?
I doubt it, but definitely He has helped me derive meaning from it.

Well, thanks for the clarification.
I didn’t understand that “intervention enables free will” thing at all.
I reckon it doesn’t have to be “enabled”. We have it.

I see now that you probably actually meant that intervention may influence the choices we make…or enable us to choose rightly…something along those lines.
Regardless of what we face, we must choose.
In the most dire existential circumstance, the choice is turn to God or turn away.
He has helped you derive meaning because you chose to turn to Him (rather than away).

 

[Amandil]

We definitely weren’t on the same page, but probably are now.
I took some of your posts to mean that you thought God intervened in our lives in ways that seemed to me to over-ride the notion of free will. I see that is not the case.
Thanks for the clarification.

We have to remember that God must be the necessary cause of all our contingent causes. If you say that God’s causes are dictated by our decisions then you have humans directing His will, which means that God is limited by our choices. Hence you run into problems involving His omnipotence and absolute nature.

 

[MacQ]

We have to remember that God must be the necessary cause of all our contingent causes. If you say that God’s causes are dictated by our decisions then you have humans directing His will, which means that God is limited by our choices. Hence you run into problems involving His omnipotence and absolute nature.

Who even hinted that “God’s causes are dictated by our decisions”?
What an asinine notion.
.

 

[fred_conty]

We have to remember that God must be the necessary cause of all our contingent causes. If you say that God’s causes are dictated by our decisions then you have humans directing His will, which means that God is limited by our choices. Hence you run into problems involving His omnipotence and absolute nature.

But if God has set his course so that humans can make free will decisions by which he will abide, then God has not lost his control. This dosen’t mean that he must be bound by it since he is the law giver and is not bound by his own law. But if he wills to give control to man in his providential planning, then he could abide by what decisions men make. Free will and God’s control are both satisfied.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[Amandil]

But if God has set his course so that humans can make free will decisions by which he will abide, then God has not lost his control. This dosen’t mean that he must be bound by it since he is the law giver and is not bound by his own law. But if he wills to give control to man in his providential planning, then he could abide by what decisions men make. Free will and God’s control are both satisfied.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

Just to be clear, because I’m not sure if we’re on the same page, God is the cause of our willing.

The free choices we make we make because they abide with His will, not because He waits for us to choose in order for His will to be met.

The notion of cause as many of the atheists have been taught and are using it as is begging the question.

We have to be sure that we don’t fall into the same error.

 

[Bradski]

The free choices we make we make because they abide with His will, not because He waits for us to choose in order for His will to be met.

Can you re-word that? I’m not sure if it’s entirely clear to me.

 

[tonyrey]

I guess that would go double for a god who is supposedly actively involved and picks and chooses who he will or will not help. Take a serious look at the injustice in this world…

God helps everyone without broadcasting the fact. If He did we wouldn’t be free to choose what to believe and how to live. An incessant spate of miracles would make us realise we are constantly being observed…

Suffering in this world is either part of the natural cycle or human folly, not an intervening god.

God doesn’t cause suffering.

The good things we see in this world are also not handed down by an intervening god.They are either the result of humans using their intelligence for the common good or a natural occurrence. That is the Deist view.

Man and nature are created by God. They didn’t appear out of the blue for no reason! **

Chance cannot produce intelligence.**

Obviously, it is not what you believe. But God’s apparent detachment doesn’t bother me.

Your apparent detachment bothers you to the extent that you reject a credible Creator and opt for an impersonal, indifferent and inefficient Force that imposes no moral obligations! It amounts to a “get out of jail free” card…

 

[Bradski]

Chance cannot produce intelligence.

In my experience, it seems to manage stupidity perfectly well.

 

[Amandil]

Can you re-word that? I’m not sure if it’s entirely clear to me.

God is the necessary primary cause. All other causes are contingent causes.

God, or God’s will, is the necessary and primary cause of our free willing. Our free willing are contingent causes.

God is more in us than we are in ourselves, and thus causes our wills to move both to the natural and the voluntary. But his causing does not negate the freedom that we possess in the act of willing.

Thus whatever we do, whatever we freely choose, we do according to His will.

“And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their actions from being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them, for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.”

You will then say that God chooses for man and that all choices then are the result of God and not man.

God’s willing in man is “grace”, not an irresistible power. It is a help to man to compel him to freely choose the good natural to him according to God’s will, but in no way negates the freedom of man.

 

[tonyrey]

Chance cannot produce intelligence.

Good heavens, Brad, I didn’t realise you’re so ancient…

 

[MacQ]

God is the necessary primary cause. All other causes are contingent causes.

God, or God’s will, is the necessary and primary cause of our free willing. Our free willing are contingent causes.

God is more in us than we are in ourselves, and thus causes our wills to move both to the natural and the voluntary. But his causing does not negate the freedom that we possess in the act of willing.

Thus whatever we do, whatever we freely choose, we do according to His will.

“And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their actions from being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them, for He operates in each thing according to its own nature.”

You will then say that God chooses for man and that all choices then are the result of God and not man.

God’s willing in man is “grace”, not an irresistible power. It is a help to man to compel him to freely choose the good natural to him according to God’s will, but in no way negates the freedom of man.

Seems to me that if indeed “whatever we do, we do according to His will”, then it is not our will (free will) at all…no matter how you parse “contingent” or “necessary” causes.

Your other thought…that He endows us with some sort of grace to compel us in the right direction…that may make sense.

 

[Amandil]

Seems to me that if indeed “whatever we do, we do according to His will”, then it is not our will (free will) at all…no matter how you parse “contingent” or “necessary” causes.

Your other thought…that He endows us with some sort of grace to compel us in the right direction…that may make sense.

It’s not “parsing” anything. It’s establishing clear distinctions between Creator and His creatures.

Such clear distinctions are sorely lacking in common discourse.

 

[Oreoracle]

This reminds me of the “God Created Evil” thread. Semantical games incoming!

God is the necessary primary cause. All other causes are contingent causes.

God, or God’s will, is the necessary and primary cause of our free willing. Our free willing are contingent causes.

Alright, so I need to make sure we’re on the same page here: Do you mean contingent in the modal sense or contingent in the metaphysical I-can-use-terms-however-I-want sense?

To be clear, to say that X is contingent in the modal sense is to say that X is possible and its negation is possible. Thus, to say that free willing is contingent and that I freely chose to eat bacon this morning implies there is a possible world in which I didn’t. Perhaps I ate eggs in that world instead.

 

[Amandil]

This reminds me of the “God Created Evil” thread. Semantical games incoming!

Alright, so I need to make sure we’re on the same page here: Do you mean contingent in the modal sense or contingent in the metaphysical I-can-use-terms-however-I-want sense?

To be clear, to say that X is contingent in the modal sense is to say that X is possible and its negation is possible. Thus, to say that free willing is contingent and that I freely chose to eat bacon this morning implies there is a possible world in which I didn’t. Perhaps I ate eggs in that world instead.

You may not have an issue with committing the modal fallacy, I on the other hand…

 

[Oreoracle]

You may not have an issue with committing the modal fallacy, I on the other hand…

The modal fallacy is the assertion that because something is true, it is necessarily true. All I did was give you the definition of “contingent”. I didn’t even assert that our choices are contingencies, as that was your assertion.

This is a bit bewildering, really. It’s as if I defined what a female is and been called a sexist for doing so.

 

[Tom_Baum]

1. How does a universe “take care of itself”?
2. And how was it “revealed” to you that God is not actively interfering with it?

These two questions were not directed to me but I would like to comment on them…

A universe can “take care of itself” by following the “scientific laws” that God built into the universe that God created.

As far as, “how was it “revealed” to you that God is not actively interfering with it?”, I would say that if it was revealed at all than God was “actively interfering with it”, your words.

However, I don’t look at it as “interferring” but “involved”.

 

[Tom_Baum]

I think many people want a God who is better than them. The Deist God does not qualify.

I, personally, want a God Who Is better than me, to say the least much better, more merciful, more forgiving, justice that is not just "blood-sucking revenge, these merely scratch the surface, so to speak.

Seems to me that many people’s “conception” of God is anything but better.