Why pray if God has already made up his mind?

[joe370]

And it’s not that I don’t feel comfortbal attributing the cause to God, it’s that God (an omnipotent and omniscient being) cannot possibly be the cause of the universe.

I did not know that proof existed to support your claim?

 

[migueltojose]

belorg and Joe: See attached link.

magisreasonfaith.org/

you can lead a horse to water… belorg, you say that the universe could not possibly have been created by God. Many would say it could not possibly have been created any other way. The odds are far too long. Ridiculouisly improbable. Plus, he said so. What’ve you got? I think Jesus sold him on the idea. He needed a place to hang his hat. And now, thanks to that, we get to live and strive to live virtuously, so we can all hang out together and enjoy the beautiful blue planet, forever.

---

Tune In - to the Holy Spirit; Turn On - to Jesus Christ; Drop Out - of the culture the death…

 

[joe370]

belorg and Joe: See attached link.

magisreasonfaith.org/

you can lead a horse to water… belorg, you say that the universe could not possibly have been created by God. Many would say it could not possibly have been created any other way. The odds are far too long. Ridiculously improbable. Plus, he said so. What’ve you got? I think Jesus sold him on the idea. He needed a place to hang his hat. And now, thanks to that, we get to live and strive to live virtuously, so we can all hang out together and enjoy the beautiful blue planet, forever.

---

Tune In - to the Holy Spirit; Turn On - to Jesus Christ; Drop Out - of the culture the death…

I have watched Father Spitzer on EWTN. Very interesting stuff.

**"Does Contemporary Science Point to an Intelligent Creator?

Does a beginning of our universe imply a creation? What if our universe is part of a multiverse? Does a multiverse have to have a beginning and a creation?

Could the initial conditions and constants of our universe have occurred by pure chance?

What’s more reasonable and responsible, a Creator or a physical universe without a Creator?"
**

 

[JDaniel]

Just mind your own business, JD and let Fr of Jazz and me mind our own.

Funny, I was going to suggest that same thing. So I’ll just watch - along with the others. By the way, I’m finishing up a response to you on that other thread you responded to. Probably be tomorrow though.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Funny, I was going to suggest that same thing. So I’ll just watch - along with the others. By the way, I’m finishing up a response to you on that other thread you responded to. Probably be tomorrow though.

God bless,
jd

Not too long ago, somebody said about me (well, he actually was too much of a coward to actually name me)

JDaniel:

It’s really a tremendous waste of God’s precious work-through-you to engage him even for a moment

And the same person is now “finishing up a response to me.” A little bit of consistency would do you good, JD.

 

[belorg]

I did not know that proof existed to support your claim?

To me, the evidence and the arguments for that claim are convincing.
One of the best arguments for it is actually Craig’s (in)famous Kalam Cosmological Argument.

 

[joe370]

To me, the evidence and the arguments for that claim are convincing.
One of the best arguments for it is actually Craig’s (in)famous Kalam Cosmological Argument.

Why do you believe that God cannot possibly be the cause of the universe?

Foreget about Craig’s (in)famous Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I am asking you.

 

[belorg]

Why do you believe that God cannot possibly be the cause of the universe?

Forget about Craig’s (in)famous Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I am asking you.

Because an eternal omnipotent being cannot create a beginning effect.
That is, if the universe truly had a beginning.
And because an immutable creator of everything persupposes that , logically prior to the whole of reality changing, the whole of reality was immutable, which is a contradiction.
But I am not going into this argument because it’s off topic and because JG wil get frustrated again and start insulting me.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Jelrack, you said
“Could it not then be equally said that God would also foresee the events that might finally break one’s spirit entirely?”

God does know precisely this breaking point. St. Paul says that God does not allow us to be tempted beyond our endurance. If we break, then it is because we did not use the means God has given to us. In this case we are limiting our reference to the evil of sin, for instance, murder, adultery, lieing, stealing, etc.

Your next question was,
" What might explain his inaction at such a time?"

Because God has made the human person with a spirit which allows that person to say “yes” or “no” in response to being inticed to evil. It is not an “inaction” on God’s part, but an “inaction” on the part of the individual to fail to chose what is best for themselves and the society they live it. And so we have criminals in our society and sinners in our world who have made wrong choices. Just as two single people who commit fornication have an unwanted child by their actions which burdens themselves, their community, and wounds the baby in more ways than we can ever know. The action on God’s part is the instruction “to due unto others and you would have them do unto you”, and “to love one another.” It is the failure of taking responsibility for one’s own actions, and laying the blame on others, that make people grow old but not grow up. It is a hallmark of christianity to say “I’m sorry for what I have done” and then try to repair the damage. It isn’t God’s doing, it is our undoing. It is not his “inaction” but our “action”. As Ghandi once said, that if christians were like Jesus, the whole world would be christian.

Your third question was,
“Would not his seeming refusal to provide aide when the lives of one’s children might be at risk be at the very least disconcerting given God’s certain foreknowledge of the event?”

Everyone’s life is at risk all the time. I’ve heard of a meteor hitting a swimming pool in CA and killing people at a party. Boats tipping over, skiers going over clifts, cars colliding, poison water, rattlesnake bites, planes crashing, falling off high ladders, passerbys being shot, dying of overweight, children drowning, trains derailing, mountain slides, coalmining disasters, shark killings, leaking gas, brakes failing, crib deaths, …, …, …, and on and on. This is but a trickle.

What is God suppose to do with his foreknowledge about all this bad stuff? It’s just a sick world we live in and it is only going to be perfect in the world that God promised us in the future for those that love one another and love him. This is the christian point of view not the world’s view. The world is getting sicker because it is not listening to God. The killing of over 1 million innocent lives in the woumbs of mothers every year in the USA. If we say that God does nothing with his foreknowledge, what are we doing about our own foreknowledge of these innocent ones. We are killing them, not God. It is our responsibility to “provide aide when the lives of one’s children might be at risk be at the very least disconcerting given OUR certain foreknwledge of the event?”

When we honestly look around, aren’t we really responsible for what is going on in our own backyard?
God gave us the earth and all that is in it to help us and also to oversee everything as we see in the book of Genesis. If it is not everything we want it to be, then who better get going?

Just a few thoughts.

Thank you for your responses. The specific point of the question was this:

Though it is often claimed that one should trust in God, it does not appear that God does anything specific to be worthy of that trust.

1. God does not appear to protect the innocent against the evil choices of those more powerful. If God were seemingly intent on upholding free-will, why is the free-will choice of the more powerful individual able to override the free-will choice of the weaker without any divine intervention?
2. If one were to pray for the escape of one’s child from a burning building, why does God seemingly allow the child to burn if no firemen arrive on the scene to effect a rescue?
3. If one’s family is supposedly under God’s protection, why might they be able to be swept away by a Tsunami without God apparently taking even the slightest interest?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If God brings into existence a physical world and gives His human creatures free will, then pain and suffering become a natural consequence of that free will. God will not infringe upon mankind’s free-will choices by suppressing the end results of wrong choices. If God were to prevent the effects of wrong choices from taking place, He would have to rule out the existence of human life as we know it from entering His creation: God would have to make human beings on the order of programmed machines, or at the very least, like animals programmed to live off their instincts only, and therefore human beings would cease being human.

Would this suggest that those in Heaven no longer have free will?

Also, why might the free will of one with a gun and evil intent appear to be much stronger than the free will of a young woman with pure intent?

But the Bible is clear that God never designed a plan or commanded the doom of any soul on planet earth; and God also never made becoming a child of His a difficult thing to become, either because of a rebellious heart or a harsh life. The Bible says that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should return to penance”(2 Peter 3:9).

And it’s not as though God made human beings with the possibility of experiencing great sorrow but lacking the fortitude within Himself to accept and face the same kind of human sorrow. God created the rules of life through Christ; and, through Christ, He has gone by them. He has not required humans to experience something such as humiliation, torture, and death that He has not required of Himself.

Christ would never have had to face the uncertainty of his existence or afterlife, nor the potential threat of Hell for misunderstanding life’s rules. As the rule maker, he seemingly would have suffered little more than a novel inconvenience against the backdrop of his eternal contentment.

 

[joe370]

Because an eternal omnipotent being cannot create a beginning effect.
That is, if the universe truly had a beginning.
And because an immutable creator of everything persupposes that , logically prior to the whole of reality changing, the whole of reality was immutable, which is a contradiction.
But I am not going into this argument because it’s off topic and because JG wil get frustrated again and start insulting me.

Essentially, no need for a beginning? Got it.

 

[belorg]

Essentially, no need for a beginning? Got it.

That’s not what I am saying.

 

[JDaniel]

Not too long ago, somebody said about me (well, he actually was too much of a coward to actually name me)

I don’t have a problem standing up to you, belorg. I’ll stand toe to toe with you any day, any time. All I expect is for you to stop the sorcerer game you’re playing on this forum. I am amazed that the mods have let you get away with it for so long. But, it’s not my job, or my business to tell them how to handle theirs.

And the same person is now “finishing up a response to me.” A little bit of consistency would do you good, JD.

Yes. I am. Oh, don’t let your head get to big: it’s more for other readers than for you. I’ll bet that you report back to the others on your sorcerer site, on how you are manhandling those poor Catholics, aren’t you? I told you you were “duck soup.” I surmise everything you do. You can place the onus on me all you want. It doesn’t bother me. I responded to you, way beck when we started a conversation, in good faith. You cannot say that though.

I know you’d love to see me kicked off of CAF, wouldn’t you? I found you out! The “head sorcerer!” What do others think your job is, I wonder? To have a good-faith, serious debate? Not a chance! Your game is to beat Christians any way you can. It’s OK, though. Almost everyone can see through your subterfuge.

I’ve have prepared my “response” to your contentions, but will defer to Fr. of Jazz. I’d like to hear more from him. He is very smart and his view point is very different.

God bless,
jd

 

[shoe]

Would this suggest that those in Heaven no longer have free will?.

I think that human beings will have free will in Heaven. I believe that after their seeing or experiencing the results of all the wrong, free-will choices made on earth, which is to say that having knowledge of the terrible side effects of sin that Adam and Eve lacked before they fell to temptation, human beings in Heaven with their new heavenly, glorified bodies effortlessly will make the right decisions throughout eternity.

Also, why might the free will of one with a gun and evil intent appear to be much stronger than the free will of a young woman with pure intent?

“Blessed are the pure in heart: they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).

Christ would never have had to face the uncertainty of his existence or afterlife, nor the potential threat of Hell for misunderstanding life’s rules. As the rule maker, he seemingly would have suffered little more than a novel inconvenience against the backdrop of his eternal contentment

Alvin Plantinga writes, “As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooly observing the suffering of His creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his son, the second person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. Some theologians claim that God cannot suffer. I believe they are wrong. God’s capacity for suffering, I believe, is proportional to his greatness; it exceeds our capacity for suffering in the same measure as his capacity for knowledge exceeds ours. Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself; and God, the Lord of the universe, was prepared to endure the suffering consequent upon his son’s humiliation and death. He was prepared to accept this suffering in order to overcome sin, and death, and the evils that afflict our world, and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. So we don’t know why God permits evil; we do know, however, that He was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception.”

 

[belorg]

I don’t have a problem standing up to you, belorg. I’ll stand toe to toe with you any day, any time. All I expect is for you to stop the sorcerer game you’re playing on this forum. I am amazed that the mods have let you get away with it for so long. But, it’s not my job, or my business to tell them how to handle theirs.

I am actually amazed that the mods let you get away with all these ad hominem attacks.

Yes. I am. Oh, don’t let your head get to big: it’s more for other readers than for you. I’ll bet that you report back to the others on your sorcerer site, on how you are manhandling those poor Catholics, aren’t you? I told you you were “duck soup.” I surmise everything you do. You can place the onus on me all you want. It doesn’t bother me. I responded to you, way beck when we started a conversation, in good faith. You cannot say that though.

You responded to me, but you didn’t refute any of my arguments. but if it makes you feel better to think that you have done so, be my guest.

I know you’d love to see me kicked off of CAF, wouldn’t you? I found you out! The “head sorcerer!” What do others think your job is, I wonder? To have a good-faith, serious debate? Not a chance! Your game is to beat Christians any way you can. It’s OK, though. Almost everyone can see through your subterfuge.

You are losing it, JD. Keep calm. All this rage and anger isn’t good for your heart.
I would not love to see you or anyone kicked out of CAF. before you lost your mind, I actually thoight you had some serious and chnallenging arguments. Who knows, maybe some time you’ll come to your senses and we can have a serious discussion again.

I’ve have prepared my “response” to your contentions, but will defer to Fr. of Jazz. I’d like to hear more from him. He is very smart and his view point is very different.

God bless,
jd

And , you forget, so far, Fr of Jazz has been courteous in this discussion. He hasn’t felt the need to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.

 

[JDaniel]

I am actually amazed that the mods let you get away with all these ad hominem attacks.

What ad hominem attacks? You have not once denied that you are “Belorg, The Head Sorcerer.” I just looked it up on the internet and, Voilà!, there you were. If you are not the “head sorcerer” then, in all honesty, say so. Nothing too hard here.

You responded to me, but you didn’t refute any of my arguments. but if it makes you feel better to think that you have done so, be my guest.

There’s a big difference between “not refuting” and arguing with someone who refuses to use the English language in the manner it is normally to be used. Besides, go back and look at the large number of times I asked to to state your entire position in one cogent statement, rather than the bits and pieces you preferred to put out to suit the “game.”

You are losing it, JD. Keep calm. All this rage and anger isn’t good for your heart.

What ‘rage’? What ‘anger’? More of the Sorcerer’s game? Trying to get me off-guard? Trying to put a hex on me? It won’t work. God is my protector and He is Infinite in Power. Your Satan can’t get past Him.

I do find it interesting that you (try to) sound “Satan-ish.” “God can’t do this.” “God can’t do that.” Bald assertions that you make that make it sound as if you knew Him.

I would not love to see you or anyone kicked out of CAF. before you lost your mind

Well! An honest statement at last! One that envelopes the game. I won’t lose my mind. However, you will be watched carefully, as I said.

I actually thoight you had some serious and chnallenging arguments. Who knows, maybe some time you’ll come to your senses and we can have a serious discussion again.

All you have to do is say, “jd, no game, let’s do serious discussion.” Six simple words. Let’s see if you do it.

And , you forget, so far, Fr of Jazz has been courteous in this discussion.

If he’s a Priest, he’ll never be discourteous. If he’s a lay person, you never know.

He hasn’t felt the need to resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.

What insults and ad hominems? Show me you are not “Belorg, the Head Sorcerer.” And that does not mean that you would have to “give in.” Use your arguments. Strive, in good faith, to “meaningfully define” the words you use, and those you see used by us Catholics. Then we’ll see.

We’ve been admonished to defend our Faith and to use words. That’s what I am doing.

God bless,
jd

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I think that human beings will have free will in Heaven. I believe that after their seeing or experiencing the results of all the wrong, free-will choices made on earth, which is to say that having knowledge of the terrible side effects of sin that Adam and Eve lacked before they fell to temptation, human beings in Heaven with their new heavenly, glorified bodies effortlessly will make the right decisions throughout eternity.

Would a child who might die in his youth have as much free will as a much more senior individual? If so, how might he have experienced enough of life’s evil to be properly warned against choosing wrongly in Heaven?

Or is it your meaning that individuals in Heaven will all share in the perfect knowledge of what evil and sin have brought about on Earth? If so, why did God not imbue this knowledge into the breast of mankind prior to releasing same on Earth? Was it God’s will to ensure suffering existed for mankind to experience first hand? If so, would not the death of an infant necessarily rob that individual of this experience (bringing one back to the first question)?

“Blessed are the pure in heart: they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8).

In the discussion of free-will, rather than reward/punishment, how is it that one with evil intent might seemingly have a stronger “free-will” than one of pure intent?

To clarify, if the entire purpose of unleashing misery and suffering in the world is an unfortunate necessity in order to provide for free will, why might evil free will seemingly dominate? In fine: why might one of pure intentions and will suffer as equally (or even more greatly) as one of evil intents while at the same time experiencing less free will?

Alvin Plantinga writes, “As the Christian sees things, God does not stand idly by, cooly observing the suffering of His creatures. He enters into and shares our suffering. He endures the anguish of seeing his son, the second person of the Trinity, consigned to the bitterly cruel and shameful death of the cross. Some theologians claim that God cannot suffer. I believe they are wrong. God’s capacity for suffering, I believe, is proportional to his greatness; it exceeds our capacity for suffering in the same measure as his capacity for knowledge exceeds ours. Christ was prepared to endure the agonies of hell itself; and God, the Lord of the universe, was prepared to endure the suffering consequent upon his son’s humiliation and death. He was prepared to accept this suffering in order to overcome sin, and death, and the evils that afflict our world, and to confer on us a life more glorious than we can imagine. So we don’t know why God permits evil; we do know, however, that He was prepared to suffer on our behalf, to accept suffering of which we can form no conception.”

Is this to suggest that God feels empathy? If so, does he feel the pain of those in Hell? If so, how might he be all-powerful and yet also be capable of suffering infinite injury?

 

[joe370]

That’s not what I am saying.

My bad.

 

[PioYapJr]

This question always bothered me too to some extent. I think God already knew that we were going to pray and incorporated those prayers into his plan since the beginning of time.

As to how prayers work, I think that prayers are conduits of grace from God, and the more we pray, the more of God’s power is able to work in the world.

I like your reply WhiteKnights… Allow me to share this link which although written by a Baptist Missionary, seems to me to beautifully illustrate your point:

truthorfiction.com/rumors/h/hotwaterbottle.html

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m back in town . . . with a suggestion.

Lest we get too amorphous and out of focus, let’s pick 3 clearly-formulated proposed contradictions of the many in this discussion and try to settle the 3 first; and then move on.

I don’t have time for this to turn into a philosophy of everything book for every post, and you probably don’t either.

Given that we both reasonable, we should be able to decide when an issue is settled, or something over which reasonable people can disagree before moving on. As I have been doing I will make every effort to acknowledge areas where we can agree or where clarification can resolve the proposed contradiction. I assume you will too.

I would offer this:

In the pursuit of testing the doctrine involved in CCC, #600 for internal coherence/consistency there are two rather clearly proposed contradictions to settle:

(1) The doctrine involved in CCC, #600 involves God in a vicious circle of efficient causes…as you detailed it.
No, I am not moving between two tuypes of causality. God’s intention (A)is an efficient cause for the pray-er (B) (the one who prays) and the pray-ers prayer (C)is an efficient cause for God’s intention.(A) Now the pray-er is causally prior to the prayer and the paryer is causally prior to God’s intention but God’s intention is logically prior to the pray-er.
So we have A -->B → C → A

(2) CCC, #600 entails determinism. Yet the CC rejects determinism. I understand “determinism” as defined and developed in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

(3) I’m not so clear about what #3 might be . . .
–God does not have just one plan.
–it is impossible for an infinite being, God, with an infinite intelligence to foresee future contingents, i.e., free acts of free human beings praying.
–other possibilities for #3 . . . or 1 and 2.

If this works for you, I’ll respond to your previous post under the agreed-upon set of 3 questions to take things from here.