Why pray if God has already made up his mind?

[Fr_of_Jazz]

They possess a logical priority to God’s overall intention because God’s overall intention is singular. It is singular and causally depends on future contingents, which in turn, are causlayy dependent on Him. that is a logiocal contradiction.

You’re moving indiscriminately between types of causality.

So let’s sort out the causes regarding your proposed contradiction. God’s one plan from all eternity seeing all of time at once includes by His choice answers to future contingent pray-ers’ prayers (final causality within) who in turn are causally dependent (efficient causality) on Him for existence.

OK, well there are at least 3 ways this can be contradictory.
(1) If one confuse types of causes. I.e., the real effect coming before the efficient cause of that effect. RC doctrine doesn’t do so.

In Aristotle’s and Thomas’ terminology early on you were simply noting that a final cause here (goal to make or do) is logically prior in the mind of the maker to the effect (what is made or done). No possible contradiction is involved.

(2) If one holds that God made every event to be a necessary event.
Then, to hold that a person freely prayed would be one contradiction; and that this free prayer exercised some independent impact on God’s pre-formed deterministic plan would be another.

The fact is RCism rejects determinism: it does not hold that God made every event to be a necessary event. It holds that we are free agents.

(3) If one holds that God’s creative intention did not include within it all along the choice to answer pray-ers’ free prayers. RCism does not hold this either.

RE prayers and God’s singular intent…
A future contingent (a person praying, the subject of our discussion) is only one event that is within God’s plan: it alone is not the reason why God chose to create the entire universe and direct it to its ultimate goal. Even the sum of all pray-er’s prayers doesn’t constitute the entire reason why God chose to create the entire universe and direct it to its ultimate goal. Further, minimally the intention to bring them and all things in to existence would be logically prior within God’s overall plan to the free prayers of some. So pray-ers’ prayers in a certain way exercise a logical priority within God’s overall intention, but do not exercise a logical priority to it.

Let me put it in another way: If I don’t pray, God’s overall intention is different from if I do pray. That’s what your csnema entails.

As stated, this poses no problem whatsoever. It goes like this. On the hypothetical that one didn’t pray (when he actually did), God’s plan on that hypothetical would be hypothetically different than it actually is, given that he did pray. So? Final causality within God’s overall plan–what’s the problem?

His plan is empty at one stage and full at another stage. You that’s a change in plan.

You’re just repeating yourself and not at all addressing my rebuttal that you’re violating the Principle of Excluded Middle–a being either is or is not. There either is or is not a plan.

Also, you seem to be saying God has a preexisting empty plan “bin” that He then fills with a plan He just came up with. Ergo, a change in the plan bin. Ergo, a change in the plan.

But, the plan bin and the plan are not the same thing. Your statement talks about the plan. The plan either exists or it doesn’t. There is no prior empty plan bin that is then filled when it comes to God. There simply is the plan versus not a plan.

That’s a temporal concept. That’s not what I am talking about.

How can eternity be a temporal concept?

Secondly, that God’s existence and primary causality are outside of time (all of which He creates and sees in a single vision) is central to this theme in RC doctrine. You need to factor it in in your effort to find a contradiction here. Dismissing it out of hand is sloppy thinking or a dodge.

Third, if one is talking about final causality (and doesn’t confuse it with efficient causality) there is no contradiction because God is outside of time, infinitely intelligent, sees all future contingent prayers of free pray-ers at once and includes them by choice in His plan which is not deterministic. The single cognitive act of God involving His plan from all eternity has already included the answers to every pray-er’s prayer in time.

I hae shown you way it is not only problematic, but lethal. Irt leads to a genuine contradiction.
. . . .
Which is exactly why it leads to a contradiction.It has been icaused by the very thing that it causes.

Yes, if you confuse causes, are a determinist, or hold God didn’t choose to answer prayer all along.

That’s, again, a temporal concept. Logically, God’s plan is caused by future contingents which are by definition (since they are contigents) caused by God’s plan. That means that, had God caused different future contingents, his eternal plan would have been different and so the different contingents would have caused different contingents. IOW if God had caused different results, then those results would have caused God to cause different results. Can a contradcition be made any clearer?

What is a temporal concept? That God is outside of time??? Which he made? That God sees all of time at once by an infinite intelligence from all eternity which is timeless???

The causes have already been sorted out above and the assertions in your middle 2 sentences covered.

 

[belorg]

You’re moving indiscriminately between types of causality.

So let’s sort out the causes regarding your proposed contradiction. God’s one plan from all eternity seeing all of time at once includes by His choice answers to future contingent pray-ers’ prayers (final causality within) who in turn are causally dependent (efficient causality) on Him for existence.

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

OK, well there are at least 3 ways this can be contradictory.
(1) If one confuse types of causes. I.e., the real effect coming before the efficient cause of that effect. RC doctrine doesn’t do so.

As I have explained above, upon closer look it does.

In Aristotle’s and Thomas’ terminology early on you were simply noting that a final cause here (goal to make or do) is logically prior in the mind of the maker to the effect (what is made or done). No possible contradiction is involved.

This is simply a straw man of my schema.

(2) If one holds that God made every event to be a necessary event.
Then, to hold that a person freely prayed would be one contradiction; and that this free prayer exercised some independent impact on God’s pre-formed deterministic plan would be another.

I do not necessarily hold to that position, but the RC position logically entails it.

The fact is RCism rejects determinism: it does not hold that God made every event to be a necessary event. It holds that we are free agents.

I know the RC rejects determinism. But the fact is, your position contradicts this.

(3) If one holds that God’s creative intention did not include within it all along the choice to answer pray-ers’ free prayers. RCism does not hold this either.

If God’s creative intention did not inckude within it the choice to answer prayers, you might actually get away with this, but you would run into lots of other problems.

A future contingent (a person praying, the subject of our discussion) is only one event that is within God’s plan: it alone is not the reason why God chose to create the entire universe and direct it to its ultimate goal.

I agree with that, but it makes no diference.

Even the sum of all pray-er’s prayers doesn’t constitute the entire reason why God chose to create the entire universe and direct it to its ultimate goal.

same as above

Further, minimally the intention to bring them and all things in to existence would be logically prior within God’s overall plan to the free prayers of some.

There is no disticntion bteween ‘within’ a plan and ‘to’ a plan. God’s plan is singular.

So pray-ers’ prayers in a certain way exercise a logical priority within God’s overall intention, but do not exercise a logical priority to it.

Yes they do. You are the one claiming that God’s overall plan is singular.

As stated, this poses no problem whatsoever. It goes like this. On the hypothetical that one didn’t pray (when he actually did), God’s plan on that hypothetical would be hypothetically different than it actually is, given that he did pray. So? Final causality within God’s overall plan–what’s the problem?

The problem is that God would alter his plan according to whethert X prays or not. But God cannot alter His plan.

You’re just repeating yourself and not at all addressing my rebuttal that you’re violating the Principle of Excluded Middle–a being either is or is not. There either is or is not a plan.
Also, you seem to be saying God has a preexisting empty plan “bin” that He then fills with a plan He just came up with. Ergo, a change in the plan bin. Ergo, a change in the plan.
But, the plan bin and the plan are not the same thing. Your statement talks about the plan. The plan either exists or it doesn’t. There is no prior empty plan bin that is then filled when it comes to God. There simply is the plan versus not a plan.

That’s your interpretation. But God cannot be ‘without plan’.

How can eternity be a temporal concept?

What I mean is: in God’s eternal state nothing is temporally distiguishanle, but there are logical distinctions. So there is ‘before’ and 'after 'in a logical sense.

Secondly, that God’s existence and primary causality are outside of time (all of which He creates and sees in a single vision) is central to this theme in RC doctrine. You need to factor it in in your effort to find a contradiction here. Dismissing it out of hand is sloppy thinking or a dodge.

Since I am not disputing this here, I do not see where I ‘dismiss’ it. I accept it FTSOTA.

Third, if one is talking about final causality (and doesn’t confuse it with efficient causality)

Asd I said, I am not.

Yes, if you confuse causes, are a determinist, or hold God didn’t choose to answer prayer all along.

I am not a determinist, but your position entails determinism, I don’t confuse causes and I accept FTSOTA that God chose to answer prayer.

What is a temporal concept? That God is outside of time??? Which he made? That God sees all of time at once by an infinite intelligence from all eternity which is timeless???

That God sees all moments may be true in a temporal sense, but it is NOT true in a logcal sense. Logically one is caused by the other.

The causes have already been sorted out above and the assertions in your middle 2 sentences covered.

No they haven’t.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

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

Alright, here’s why I think you actually are still not distinguishing different types of causality. Short answer: a motivation or goal is not an efficient cause, it is a final cause.

efficient cause - that which by its activity or exercise of power produces existence or change in another : the agent
final cause - that for the sake of which the effect, or result of an action, is produced : motive, goal.

An illustration.

Say your wife asks you to do something for her in your work day (buy a gallon of milk) and you agree, deciding to get it on your way home which in fact you do. Her request is not the efficient cause of the milk getting home. You are the efficient cause (agent) of the gallon of milk showing up in the house. Her request is the motive/goal or final cause behind your doing so. Fulfilling her request to bring the milk home existed in your mind as a goal before (was logically prior to) the real event of your bringing it through the door.

So to build on your schema, God’s unified act of creation-providence-governance (A) is the efficient cause of the pray-er’s existence (B), and the pray-er’s free prayer (C)–foreseen from all eternity, outside of time, by God’s infinite intelligence–is a motivating (final) cause for God’s answer (D) both of which (i.e., C & D) are already included in God’s overall plan in creation-providence-governance (A).

[A including (C •••> D)] –> **

A is the efficient cause of B and D; C issuing in God’s planned response D, is the final cause of (D) which may = C or not, depending on God’s choice.

There is no vicious circle of efficient causes.

Furthermore, back to the illustration, your wife’s particular request is not logically prior to your intention to go to work at your job that day (it is not the final cause of your going to work that day): it is within your overall intention. Still your overall intention, by your consent to marry and be responsible for a family does involve the choice, among others, to answer her individual requests for the basics.

Also God’s unified act of creation-providence-governance was done for the sake a broad set of goals included among which are the general choice to answer pray-ers’ prayers and the particular answers to them.

OK, well there are at least 3 ways this can be contradictory.
(1) If one confuse types of causes. I.e., the real effect coming before the efficient cause of that effect. RC doctrine doesn’t do so.

As I have explained above, upon closer look it does.

I think a goal or motive is clearly not an efficient cause, but a final cause. This seems to be the crux of the matter regarding why there appears to be the contradiction to you, when, as I argue, there is none.

In Aristotle’s and Thomas’ terminology early on you were simply noting that a final cause here (goal to make or do) is logically prior in the mind of the maker to the effect (what is made or done). No possible contradiction is involved.

This is simply a straw man of my schema.

No attempt at diversion or a caricature of your position here. As in my analysis above, I think it is a crucial truth for this issue.

I do not necessarily hold to that position, but the RC position logically entails it.

Not so. God, as creator, necessarily made every event, but that does not entail making every event a necessary event. In creating free agents he also necessarily made free events. It is these free events (pray-ers’ prayers) that in His infinite knowledge He foresees and has already included in His plan.

I know the RC rejects determinism. But the fact is, your position contradicts this.

I do not hold that God created only necessary events nor does CCC #600 require this.

I agree with that, but it makes no diference.
. . . .
same as above
. . . .
There is no disticntion bteween ‘within’ a plan and ‘to’ a plan. God’s plan is singular.

This could just be semantics then, given what you agreed to above. Here’s my point. You said “In your view, God’s intention is at least partially caused by the ‘futiure contingents’. So the future contingents exist logically prior to God’s intention.” The problem I see with this statement is that it suggests that the answers to prayers (addressing future contingent prayers) are the reason God formed an intention to create in the first place. As if there are first future contingents and then God decides to formulate His creative intent around them. Rather God’s intent is to create according to His plan for a broad set of goals included among which is the general choice to answer pray-ers’ prayers plus the particular answers to prayers. Logical priority of one goal over another within the broad set of goals in God’s plan is unproblematic.

There are two ways in which God’s plan is singular. (1) As I‘ve said, creation-providence-governance are not separate in God: they are one comprehensive cognitive and volitional act; (2) God has only one plan. His one plan has already foreseen and included all future contingents, i.e., free pray-ers’ prayers and their answers.

God cannot be ‘without plan’.

This much is certainly true.

The problem is that God would alter his plan according to whethert X prays or not. But God cannot alter His plan.

But His actual plan already includes all free pray-ers’ prayers and responses to them. Hypotheticals are fine for thought experiments, but in actuality God knows all future contingents already and they are already included in His one actual plan.

What I mean is: in God’s eternal state nothing is temporally distiguishanle, but there are logical distinctions. So there is ‘before’ and 'after 'in a logical sense.

Agreed, we humans can discern logical relationships (priority, posteriority, etc.) in God’s plan.

Secondly, that God’s existence and primary causality are outside of time (all of which He creates and sees in a single vision) is central to this theme in RC doctrine. You need to factor it in in your effort to find a contradiction here. Dismissing it out of hand is sloppy thinking or a dodge.

Since I am not disputing this here, I do not see where I ‘dismiss’ it. I accept it FTSOTA.

OK. [FTSOTA = for the sake of (the) argument?]

I am not a determinist, but your position entails determinism, I don’t confuse causes and I accept FTSOTA that God chose to answer prayer.

Fair enough. I’m not a determinist either. Nor does my position entail determinism: God did not create only necessary events.
For the reasons presented above, as of yet, I still think you are confusing causes.

That God sees all moments may be true in a temporal sense, but it is NOT true in a logcal sense. Logically one is caused by the other.

I would phrase it somewhat differently, but, again, I think we’re on the same page here: we humans can discern logical relationships (priority, posteriority, etc.) in God’s plan.**

 

[joe370]

belorg

Which means that all these ‘future contingents’ are logically prior to God’s act, which leads to a huge contradiction because God is supposed to be the cause of these future contingents but a cause cannot be logically posterior to its effect.

Does everything require a cause, or just everything with the exception of the universe? This has nothing to do with your response to the other poster.

 

[belorg]

Alright, here’s why I think you actually are still not distinguishing different types of causality. Short answer: a motivation or goal is not an efficient cause, it is a final cause.

No it is not, not in the sense it is used here.

efficient cause - that which by its activity or exercise of power produces existence or change in another : the agent
final cause - that for the sake of which the effect, or result of an action, is produced : motive, goal.

I know this.

So to build on your schema, God’s unified act of creation-providence-governance (A) is the efficient cause of the pray-er’s existence (B), and the pray-er’s free prayer (C)–foreseen from all eternity, outside of time, by God’s infinite intelligence–is a motivating (final) cause for God’s answer (D) both of which (i.e., C & D) are already included in God’s overall plan in creation-providence-governance (A).

No that’s not true the pry-er’s free pray is an efficient cause for God’s answer, since it was already included in God’s plan what excatly the answer to that prayer will be/is. God knows that if X prays for rain, He will make it rain. Therefore IF X prays for rain then God will make it rain.
And ‘X will pray for rain’ is also already present in God’s plan. The question is: what caused God to know that X will pray for rain. In your schema, it is X’ choice that caused God to know that X will pray for rain. But ‘X will prey for tain’ was alreday in God’s plan logically prior to X actually praying for tain.

A is the efficient cause of B and D; C issuing in God’s planned response D, is the final cause of (D) which may = C or not, depending on God’s choice.

No it is not equal to C or not, because God does not choose. His plan already included both the pray-ers prayer and His own answer. There is no choice anywhere.

There is no vicious circle of efficient causes.

Furthermore, back to the illustration, your wife’s particular request is not logically prior to your intention to go to work at your job that day (it is not the final cause of your going to work that day): it is within your overall intention. Still your overall intention, by your consent to marry and be responsible for a family does involve the choice, among others, to answer her individual requests for the basics.

That is true in a human intention, but, as you point out, God’s intention is singular. There is no ‘overall’ intention by God and some more detailed intention.

Also God’s unified act of creation-providence-governance was done for the sake a broad set of goals included among which are the general choice to answer pray-ers’ prayers and the particular answers to them.

No, because that broad set of goals does not included a particular answer to one paryicult prayer. But in order for His plan to be imutanle, it must include this.

I think a goal or motive is clearly not an efficient cause, but a final cause. This seems to be the crux of the matter regarding why there appears to be the contradiction to you, when, as I argue, there is none.

A goal in thuis case is a sufficient cause.

Not so. God, as creator, necessarily made every event, but that does not entail making every event a necessary event. In creating free agents he also necessarily made free events. It is these free events (pray-ers’ prayers) that in His infinite knowledge He foresees and has already included in His plan.

It is impossible to foresee free events. If an event is true before it happens, it is not a libertarian free event.
In order for it to be possible that X does not pray for rain, the staement ‘X will pray for rain’ cannot be true before the fact. A future libertarian free choice is not true at this moment.
That’s one of the reasons your schema fails.

I do not hold that God created only necessary events nor does CCC #600 require this.

Determinedevents are not necessary true events. But they are true if the determining factors are in place.
God can only see future truths, and if the future is eternally true , which your position requires, there is no such thing as liberatrian free will…

This could just be semantics then, given what you agreed to above. Here’s my point. You said “In your view, God’s intention is at least partially caused by the ‘futiure contingents’. So the future contingents exist logically prior to God’s intention.” The problem I see with this statement is that it suggests that the answers to prayers (addressing future contingent prayers) are the reason God formed an intention to create in the first place.

There is, by your own definition, no disticntion between an intention to create and a intention to create rain when X prays for it. If there were, God’s intention would not be singular.

As if there are first future contingents and then God decides to formulate His creative intent around them. Rather God’s intent is to create according to His plan for a broad set of goals included among which is the general choice to answer pray-ers’ prayers plus the particular answers to prayers. Logical priority of one goal over another within the broad set of goals in God’s plan is unproblematic.

It is if one is dependent on the outcome of the cause.

There are two ways in which God’s plan is singular. (1) As I‘ve said, creation-providence-governance are not separate in God: they are one comprehensive cognitive and volitional act; (2) God has only one plan. His one plan has already foreseen and included all future contingents, i.e., free pray-ers’ prayers and their answers.

That is impossible, since the truth of fiuture contingencies does not exist prior to their occurrnece.

But His actual plan already includes all free pray-ers’ prayers and responses to them. Hypotheticals are fine for thought experiments, but in actuality God knows all future contingents already and they are already included in His one actual plan.

They cause His plan to be such or such. That mean that God’s intention to create human beings is His plan A and, depending on whether/how they pray, there is plan B. That means that, contraliy to what you claim, God’s plan is not singular. God’s plan can be singular if all ‘future contigencies’ are determined, but since you deny that, His plan is not singular.

Agreed, we humans can discern logical relationships (priority, posteriority, etc.) in God’s plan.

Then there are logical relationshops in God’s plan.

OK. [FTSOTA = for the sake of (the) argument?]

Yes.

Fair enough. I’m not a determinist either. Nor does my position entail determinism: God did not create only necessary events.
For the reasons presented above, as of yet, I still think you are confusing causes.

Determinism does not entail creating necessary events. IIt entails that all event follow inevitably from the first event. Which is exactly what is the case in God’s immutable singular plan: everything folows from God’s plan, but, since God’s plan could be different, no event is necessary.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

No that’s not true the pry-er’s free pray is an efficient cause for God’s answer, since it was already included in God’s plan what excatly the answer to that prayer will be/is. God knows that if X prays for rain, He will make it rain. Therefore IF X prays for rain then God will make it rain.

It’s no secret that God does not answer every prayer as one asks. I already made it clear that in RCD God is free to create, free to choose answer pray-ers’ prayers in general, and free to answer particular prayers as He chooses. A request to a free agent is always a final cause.

True, God already knows what the answer will be, but the answer is what God freely chooses it to be; and D does not always = C. A prayer is not like a scientific law in relation to God. If you blow hydrogen gas over platinum mesh under standard conditions, the hydrogen will ignite. Once you provide those antecedents, the event is determined, necessary. Prayer is not like this.

• And ‘X will pray for rain’ is also already present in God’s plan. True, as foreseen and included free act.
• The question is: what caused God to know that X will pray for rain. In your schema, it is X’ choice that caused God to know that X will pray for rain. True
• But ‘X will prey for tain’ was alreday in God’s plan logically prior to X actually praying for tain. True

But, God’s free response, which may or may not grant X’s prayer as asked, is not necessitated by X’s prayer for two reasons. (1) God can answer particular prayers however He freely chooses. (2) God’s choice to answer prayer in general when He created was free.

Therefore (1) my particular prayer does not make God to answer it as asked out of necessity; and (2) the fact that He will somehow (in general) respond to my prayer is something He freely choose to do.

A motive or goal for a free agent is a final cause. [agreed upon definition]
Prayer requests provide God (a free agent) with a motive or goal. [evidence in RCD provided above]
Therefore, prayer requests are a final cause.

It is impossible to foresee free events. If an event is true before it happens, it is not a libertarian free event.
In order for it to be possible that X does not pray for rain, the staement ‘X will pray for rain’ cannot be true before the fact. A future libertarian free choice is not true at this moment.
That’s one of the reasons your schema fails.
. . . .
Determinedevents are not necessary true events. But they are true if the determining factors are in place.
God can only see future truths, and if the future is eternally true , which your position requires, there is no such thing as liberatrian free will…

There are two reasons why your objection regarding free foreseen future events is not necessitated. Bear with me.

(1) (a) “Foresee” in itself does not denote necessitation. The best dictionaries do not make this claim. I can foresee many things, some quite certainly, but that does not make them happen. I can foresee a defender coming behind a point guard to steal the ball and sure enough it happens. I did not necessitate it.
(b) For God to create free agents and being infinitely (unlimitedly) intelligent to foresee their acts does not denote forcing them necessarily to happen or predetermined them to happen. In and of itself “foresee” does not entail necessitate. Nor does RCD view it that way.

So if you assert “foresee” entails necessitation, you need to prove this. If you do not, your objection will not stand.

(2) Human freedom has an inner first-person ontology: we know it fundamentally autobiographically as within ourselves, not as an object external to ourselves and our mind like a rock. And we connect other people’s statements about it with our own to make sense of theirs. It is ultimately arrived at not by observations of objects (third person) in the external world, but by reflection on and analysis of our inner cognitive and volitional experience. The first-person data re freedom is all we have natural experiential access to; and it is the foundation of our definition of freedom.

RCD presumes this first-person ontology of freedom, addresses it, and tells us something more about a broader context into which it as it is fits, God and His plan. The conviction that an infinite intelligence foresees free choices in no way threatens the fundamental first-person experiential data grounding our awareness of human freedom.

So let’s look at your objection: “In order for it to be possible that X does not pray for rain, the staement ‘X will pray for rain’ cannot be true before the fact. A future libertarian free choice is not true at this moment.”

What in God’s foreknowledge (His simply knowing that X will do Y) in any way alters the fundamental first-person experiential data grounding our awareness and definition of human freedom? Absolutely nothing.

You need to show how God’s foreknowledge (unknown to me) in any way impedes the first person data involved in the exercise of human freedom? If you can’t show this, your objection will not stand.

Furthermore in RCD there is no claim of a deterministic chain

There are two ways in which God’s plan is singular. (1) As I‘ve said, creation-providence-governance are not separate in God: they are one comprehensive cognitive and volitional act; (2) God has only one plan. His one plan has already foreseen and included all future contingents, i.e., free pray-ers’ prayers and their answers.

That is impossible, since the truth of fiuture contingencies does not exist prior to their occurrnece.

Not so, re RCD. The conviction is that all (created) things exist between two intellects: the mind of God and the mind of man. And there is truth with respect to either one but in different ways: When the mind of man knows them as they are, there is truth in the human mind; and fact that they conform to the divine creative intent is truth in relation to the divine intellect.

So the truth of future contingents exists in the divine intellect logically prior to their actual existence in creation as a final cause. And so the truth of future contingents can exist prior to the occurrence.

I’ve repeated several times that RCD asserts that God is infinitely intelligent, sees all of time at once because He is outside of time; that is, He foresees all that will happen (to us “the future”), and has already included it and His free response in His plan.

Now you, as an atheist, may say it is false. That’s your free choice, and I respect it your freedom. But that’s different than saying that RCD here is internally inconsistent.

They cause His plan to be such or such. That mean that God’s intention to create human beings is His plan A and, depending on whether/how they pray, there is plan B. That means that, contraliy to what you claim, God’s plan is not singular. God’s plan can be singular if all ‘future contigencies’ are determined, but since you deny that, His plan is not singular.

• “They cause His plan to be such or such.”
Pray-ers’ prayers are final causes.
• “That mean that God’s intention to create human beings is His plan A and, depending on whether/how they pray, there is plan B.”
As I’ve said before in RCD it has always held that God is infinitely intelligent, sees all of time at once because He is outside of time; that is He foresees all that will (to us future) happen: His infinite knowledge is intuitive.
Therefore we have both agreed that there is a logical priority A over B, not a temporal priority. Further B is not the only goal or motive factored into (included in) God’s plan: minimally there are other choices of free created agents to say nothing of God’s other goals. B operates within a broader set of goals.

All events including free events, among which are prayers giving God a subset of goals and motives, are foreseen at once from all eternity and included (i.e., foreseen along with planned responses) in His one plan.

If by “not singular” you mean there are multiple goals, RCD agrees.
If by “not singular” you mean there are logical priorities discernible in it according to our thinking, RCD agrees.
If by “not singular” you mean, other than the plan God actually has, there is at least one other plan God could have had based hypothetically on at least one different choice a free human agent could have made (but actually didn’t), RCD would have no problem with that.

“Singular” in RCD is as I have defined it above.

Determinism does not entail creating necessary events. IIt entails that all event follow inevitably from the first event.

Which would mean that every event is a necessary event, except perhaps the first, but then that would mean God did create every event to be a necessary event which we dispute given the evident fact of human freedom and the presence of that conviction in RCD and the reasons I gave above. So determinism for a RC would mean that God did create only necessary events.

Furthermore, being outside of time God’s involvement with creation is all through time. RCD is not deistic.

Which is exactly what is the case in God’s immutable singular plan: everything folows from God’s plan, but, since God’s plan could be different, no event is necessary.

Not so in RCD. True, creation as a whole is contingent: it depends on a Creator. God can create necessary events and He can create free agents performing free acts. There are plenty of necessary events too. I supplied one example out of innumerable ones, hydrogen and platinum.

Away until next Sat. No Internet. Will respon when back. Apologies.

 

[migueltojose]

We think of time sequentially (tick, tick, tick…) since that is all we’ve ever known but the Father Son and Holy Spirit, angels and Saints exist in what is referred to by the Church as the “Eternal Present”. On the one hand, God has already made up his mind, on the other hand, God’s mind is beyond our capacity to comprehend. Along with it, time, cause and effect, etc. It is the age old question of destiny versus free will. The answer is both, and the explanation is a mystery. All we can or should do is remember what Jesus said and I paraphrase… pray unceasingly as if your life depended on it because it does…

 

[belorg]

It’s no secret that God does not answer every prayer as one asks. I already made it clear that in RCD God is free to create, free to choose answer pray-ers’ prayers in general, and free to answer particular prayers as He chooses. A request to a free agent is always a final cause.

A prayer is not like a scientific law in relation to God. If you blow hydrogen gas over platinum mesh under standard conditions, the hydrogen will ignite. Once you provide those antecedents, the event is determined, necessary. Prayer is not like this.

Yes it is. Once I provide that antecendent (Praying for rain) the result is determined. I do not know the result but it what God has planned it to be.

But, God’s free response, which may or may not grant X’s prayer as asked, is not necessitated by X’s prayer for two reasons. (1) God can answer particular prayers however He freely chooses. (2) God’s choice to answer prayer in general when He created was free.

God cannot answer particular prayers however He freely chooses because His answer is already present in His plan. And it was present there causally prior to the particular prayer.

Therefore (1) my particular prayer does not make God to answer it as asked out of necessity; and (2) the fact that He will somehow (in general) respond to my prayer is something He freely choose to do.

There is no need for a paryer to male God answer it as asked. The paryer makes God asnwer it as planned by God

There are two reasons why your objection regarding free foreseen future events is not necessitated. Bear with me.

(1) (a) “Foresee” in itself does not denote necessitation. The best dictionaries do not make this claim. I can foresee many things, some quite certainly, but that does not make them happen. I can foresee a defender coming behind a point guard to steal the ball and sure enough it happens. I did not necessitate it.
(b) For God to create free agents and being infinitely (unlimitedly) intelligent to foresee their acts does not denote forcing them necessarily to happen or predetermined them to happen. In and of itself “foresee” does not entail necessitate. Nor does RCD view it that way.

So if you assert “foresee” entails necessitation, you need to prove this. If you do not, your objection will not stand.

Since I never claimed foreknowledge makes something happen, therefore your reply here is irrelevant.

quote Human freedom has an inner first-person ontology: we know it fundamentally autobiographically as within ourselves, not as an object external to ourselves and our mind like a rock. And we connect other people’s statements about it with our own to make sense of theirs. It is ultimately arrived at not by observations of objects (third person) in the external world, but by reflection on and analysis of our inner cognitive and volitional experience. The first-person data re freedom is all we have natural experiential access to; and it is the foundation of our definition of freedom.

RCD presumes this first-person ontology of freedom, addresses it, and tells us something more about a broader context into which it as it is fits, God and His plan. The conviction that an infinite intelligence foresees

free choices in no way threatens the fundamental first-person experiential data grounding our awareness of human freedom.

Since I never claimed forekowledge makes first person experiental data impossible, thuis reply is also irrelevant.

So let’s look at your objection: “In order for it to be possible that X does not pray for rain, the statement ‘X will pray for rain’ cannot be true before the fact. A future libertarian free choice is not true at this moment.”

What in God’s foreknowledge (His simply knowing that X will do Y) in any way alters the fundamental first-person experiential data grounding our awareness and definition of human freedom? Absolutely nothing.

That’s correct, but irrelevant. I have never claimed that foreknowledge alters anything.
Rather, foreknowledge (= knowledge of future truths) is only possible if there are future truths. But if ‘I will pray fro rain tomorrow’ is true today, then I cannot not pray for rain tomorrow, hence I do not have the libertarian free will to pray or not to pray.

You need to show how God’s foreknowledge (unknown to me) in any way impedes the first person data involved in the exercise of human freedom? If you can’t show this, your objection will not stand.

I do not have to show any of this.

Furthermore in RCD there is no claim of a deterministic chain

This deterministic chain is entailed by the RCD doctrine of pereftc divine foreknowledge.

So the truth of future contingents exists in the divine intellect logically prior to their actual existence in creation as a final cause. And so the truth of future contingents can

exist prior to the occurrence.

Then these contingents cannot be the result of a LFW choice.

I’ve repeated several times that RCD asserts that God is infinitely intelligent, sees all of time at once because He is outside of time; that is, He foresees all that will happen (to us “the future”), and has already included it and His free response in His plan.

Now you, as an atheist, may say it is false. That’s your free choice, and I respect it your freedom. But that’s different than saying that RCD here is internally inconsistent.

I have shown you why RCD is internally inconsistent here.

• “They cause His plan to be such or such.”
Pray-ers’ prayers are final causes.
• “That mean that God’s intention to create human beings is His plan A and, depending on whether/how they pray, there is plan B.”
As I’ve said before in RCD it has always held that God is infinitely intelligent, sees all of time at once because He is outside of time; that is He foresees all that will (to us future) happen: His infinite knowledge is intuitive.
Therefore we have both agreed that there is a logical priority A over B, not a temporal priority. Further B is not the only goal or motive factored into (included in) God’s plan: minimally there are other choices of free created agents to say nothing of God’s other goals. B operates within

a broader set of goals.

There is no “operating within” in a singular intention.

All events including free events, among which are prayers giving God a subset of goals and motives, are foreseen at once from all eternity and included (i.e., foreseen along with planned responses) in His one plan.

Which would mean that every event is a necessary event, except perhaps the first, but then that would mean God did create every event to be a necessary event which we dispute given the evident fact of human freedom and the presence of that conviction in RCD and the reasons I gave above. So determinism for a RC would

mean that God did create only necessary events.

No it does not.

Furthermore, being outside of time God’s involvement with creation is all through time. RCD is not deistic.

That is false, but irrelevant for this discussion.

[/quote]

 

[belorg]

Does everything require a cause, or just everything with the exception of the universe? This has nothing to do with your response to the other poster.

I do not think everything requires a cause.

 

[joe370]

I do not think everything requires a cause.

So, you believe that something caused (created) the universe, but don’t feel confrortable attibuting that cause to God?

 

[triumphguy]

I have a friend that is finally coming back to his faith, but has questions.
He trusts, but still would like to see what answers are out there to consider.

“why do we pray if god has already made up his mind…does prayer help? can we actually change god’s mind?”

Please help me with discussion points to bring up to him.
Thank you!

michel

Prayer doesn’t change God’s will, it changes your will.

 

[JDaniel]

Yes it is. Once I provide that antecendent (Praying for rain) the result is determined. I do not know the result but it what God has planned it to be.

God cannot answer particular prayers however He freely chooses because His answer is already present in His plan. And it was present there causally prior to the particular prayer.

There is no need for a paryer to male God answer it as asked. The paryer makes God asnwer it as planned by God

(1) (a) “Foresee” in itself does not denote necessitation. The best dictionaries do not make this claim. I can foresee many things, some quite certainly, but that does not make them happen. I can foresee a defender coming behind a point guard to steal the ball and sure enough it happens. I did not necessitate it.
(b) For God to create free agents and being infinitely (unlimitedly) intelligent to foresee their acts does not denote forcing them necessarily to happen or predetermined them to happen. In and of itself “foresee” does not entail necessitate. Nor does RCD view it that way.

Since I never claimed foreknowledge makes something happen, therefore your reply here is irrelevant.

Since I never claimed forekowledge makes first person experiental data impossible, this reply is also irrelevant.

That’s correct, but irrelevant. I have never claimed that foreknowledge alters anything.
Rather, foreknowledge (= knowledge of future truths) is only possible if there are future truths. But if ‘I will pray fro rain tomorrow’ is true today, then I cannot not pray for rain tomorrow, hence I do not have the libertarian free will to pray or not to pray.

I do not have to show any of this.

This deterministic chain is entailed by the RCD doctrine of pereftc divine foreknowledge.

Then these contingents cannot be the result of a LFW choice.

I have shown you why RCD is internally inconsistent here.

There is no “operating within” in a singular intention.

All events including free events, among which are prayers giving God a subset of goals and motives, are foreseen at once from all eternity and included (i.e., foreseen along with planned responses) in His one plan.

No it does not.

That is false, but irrelevant for this discussion

Fr of Jazz:

Your opponent: let me start by saying that your opponent is a clever fellow with intermediate capabilities: you could even say that he’s deceptively clever. He relies on a language logic, or should I say dis-logic, that renders it nothing much like what most of us use in our daily lives, or, perhaps, his is just an absence of language-logic. He alters the real meanings of words and word-groups right to the edge. But, you don’t want to call him out on it. For, if you do, he’ll point to you and yell ”uncharitable!” I’ve been through it before with him.

For example, I take the argument to a point where I know he still understands the meaning of the words and goups of words we’re using, then, he ducks away from any acknowledgement. For example, the main point of the current argument is, if God is all of reality at t-1, then he is all of reality at t-2 - except that at t-2 Reality has changed – because at t-2 a universe has been added. Then he contends that ‘change’ actually took place, therefore, either God is not Immutable or he is not outside of ‘time’. And, further, thereby rendering all of Aquinas’ arguments moot. To keep from losing his grip on the argument he will roll out some new thing that he calls, ‘ontological time’. Then roll back and conflate that with what the world of ordinary citizens means by ‘time’.

Your opponent is merely “argumentative for the sake of argument.” It’s not the Truth he cares about, he knows what the Truth is, he’s in it for the thrill of the ‘game’.

Your opponent is a very high-placed Sorcerer on the internet game called TibiaRing (And maybe some others as well.). I don’t play it: I have no interest in it, so there can be a very thin shard of doubt. Of course, I can’t be sure your opponent plays in there, but, his choice of handle and style of argument seems to betray it.

It’s really a tremendous waste of God’s precious work-through-you to engage him even for a moment, much less any more significant dialogue. It is my fervent opinion that the timid of belief should steer as far clear of him as possible.

No doubt he’ll report me as “uncharitable.” But, I’ll take my chances with the moderators. They can google his handle as easily as I. Your opponent is quite happy to be a top Sorcerer doing what he is doing on Catholic Answers.

God bless Fr of Jazz,
jd

 

[belorg]

So, you believe that something caused (created) the universe, but don’t feel confrortable attibuting that cause to God?

How does that follow from what I said?

I think it’s verty probable that some things are uncaused, but, as yet, I do not kbnow exctly which things.

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.

 

[belorg]

Fr of Jazz:

Your opponent: let me start by saying that your opponent is a clever fellow with intermediate capabilities: you could even say that he’s deceptively clever. He relies on a language logic, or should I say dis-logic, that renders it nothing much like what most of us use in our daily lives, or, perhaps, his is just an absence of language-logic. He alters the real meanings of words and word-groups right to the edge. But, you don’t want to call him out on it. For, if you do, he’ll point to you and yell ”uncharitable!” I’ve been through it before with him.

For example, I take the argument to a point where I know he still understands the meaning of the words and goups of words we’re using, then, he ducks away from any acknowledgement. For example, the main point of the current argument is, if God is all of reality at t-1, then he is all of reality at t-2 - except that at t-2 Reality has changed – because at t-2 a universe has been added. Then he contends that ‘change’ actually took place, therefore, either God is not Immutable or he is not outside of ‘time’. And, further, thereby rendering all of Aquinas’ arguments moot. To keep from losing his grip on the argument he will roll out some new thing that he calls, ‘ontological time’. Then roll back and conflate that with what the world of ordinary citizens means by ‘time’.

Your opponent is merely “argumentative for the sake of argument.” It’s not the Truth he cares about, he knows what the Truth is, he’s in it for the thrill of the ‘game’.

Your opponent is a very high-placed Sorcerer on the internet game called TibiaRing (And maybe some others as well.). I don’t play it: I have no interest in it, so there can be a very thin shard of doubt. Of course, I can’t be sure your opponent plays in there, but, his choice of handle and style of argument seems to betray it.

It’s really a tremendous waste of God’s precious work-through-you to engage him even for a moment, much less any more significant dialogue. It is my fervent opinion that the timid of belief should steer as far clear of him as possible.

No doubt he’ll report me as “uncharitable.” But, I’ll take my chances with the moderators. They can google his handle as easily as I. Your opponent is quite happy to be a top Sorcerer doing what he is doing on Catholic Answers.

God bless Fr of Jazz,
jd

Uncharitable? No, JD, it’s just sad that, when you realize you are incapable of refuting my arguments, you feel you have to start attacking me personally. But I don’t really mind that. What I do mind, however, is you interfering in a substantial discussion in which Fr of Jazz, unlike you, is still willing to address my arguments.
Who knows, maybe Fr of Jazz can even refute them, in which case, only God’s precious work-through-you was wasted.

 

[joe370]

How does that follow from what I said?

I think it’s verty probable that some things are uncaused, but, as yet, I do not kbnow exctly which things.

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.

What caused the universe. Forget all the uncaused…cuased stuff…

 

[belorg]

What caused the universe. Forget all the uncaused…cuased stuff…

If you want my opinion on it: the universe as we know it (AKA as space-time) was ‘caused’ by a previous state of the universe, which was a kind of quantum vacuum. And this ‘quantum vacuum’ was uncaused and eternal.

 

[JDaniel]

Uncharitable? No, JD, it’s just sad that, when you realize you are incapable of refuting my arguments, you feel you have to start attacking me personally. But I don’t really mind that. What I do mind, however, is you interfering in a substantial discussion in which Fr of Jazz, unlike you, is still willing to address my arguments.
Who knows, maybe Fr of Jazz can even refute them, in which case, only God’s precious work-through-you was wasted.

belorg:

There, there, no crying. “Attacking ‘you’ personally?” Did I name you? Or, does the shoe just happen to fit? By the way, how’s the Sorcery business these days? A ‘head sorcerer.’ Wow! I wonder what one has to do to earn that singular recognition?

You’re duck soup. You have been completely refuted by me and others over the past months. The problem is, you’re the only person on these fora who refuses to speak English. But, of course, it’s part of the sorcery ‘game’. It’s nothing more than that.

Sooner or later, you’ll come to realize that you have little or no real “power” on a Catholic forum, then, perhaps you’ll move on to a sorcerers’ forum as an advocate for Catholicism! Wouldn’t that be something to see? Anyway, changing a sorcerer is “hard” work - while you simply play. Really, anyone can do what you do. All you are doing is arbitrarily mis-attributing the meanings of words, and word groupings, changing them into a form of nonsense, no matter how nonsensical. Then, just be blind to any and all sensible meanings.

See here? I am not “playing,” I am serious. So that leaves what I say vulnerable to your ‘game’ tactics. It’s a game we used to play as kids. But, the strange thing is that, as kids, we had a ‘stopping point’ where we became serious once again. Besides, we maintained a certain deference towards other kids, and simply moved on to something else without having to be told.

Anyway, let’s just see how you treat the members between now and then.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

belorg:

There, there, no crying. “Attacking ‘you’ personally?” Did I name you? Or, does the shoe just happen to fit? By the way, how’s the Sorcery business these days? A ‘head sorcerer.’ Wow! I wonder what one has to do to earn that singular recognition?

You’re duck soup. You have been completely refuted by me and others over the past months. The problem is, you’re the only person on these fora who refuses to speak English. But, of course, it’s part of the sorcery ‘game’. It’s nothing more than that.

Sooner or later, you’ll come to realize that you have little or no real “power” on a Catholic forum, then, perhaps you’ll move on to a sorcerers’ forum as an advocate for Catholicism! Wouldn’t that be something to see? Anyway, changing a sorcerer is “hard” work - while you simply play. Really, anyone can do what you do. All you are doing is arbitrarily mis-attributing the meanings of words, and word groupings, changing them into a form of nonsense, no matter how nonsensical. Then, just be blind to any and all sensible meanings.

See here? I am not “playing,” I am serious. So that leaves what I say vulnerable to your ‘game’ tactics. It’s a game we used to play as kids. But, the strange thing is that, as kids, we had a ‘stopping point’ where we became serious once again. Besides, we maintained a certain deference towards other kids, and simply moved on to something else without having to be told.

Anyway, let’s just see how you treat the members between now and then.

God bless,
jd

It’s really sad what sheer frustration can do to you, JD.
Anyway, I am not discussing these issue with you, I am discussing them with Fr of Jazz, who can hopefully make up his own mind on whether to listen to your ranting or to continu an interesting discussion with me.

BTW can you link me to a post in which you ‘completely refuted’ my argument? I musrt have missed that among the pages of irrelevant word salad from you that I nevertheless patiently read out of respect for you.

 

[JDaniel]

It’s really sad what sheer frustration can do to you, JD.
Anyway, I am not discussing these issue with you, I am discussing them with Fr of Jazz, who can hopefully make up his own mind on whether to listen to your ranting or to continu an interesting discussion with me.

BTW can you link me to a post in which you ‘completely refuted’ my argument? I musrt have missed that among the pages of irrelevant word salad from you that I nevertheless patiently read out of respect for you.

Belorg:

Why? You wouldn’t bother discerning it in English. (Still pursuing the Win, aren’t you?) I don’t control Fr. of Jazz; he can more than adequately think and decide for himself. I admire his near limitless patience with you.

I’d like you to discontinue your “game” on CAF. That’s what I’d like. And, that’s what’s really sad. I find your game to be the epitome of unspeakability and discourtesy.

Part of your game is your purposely massacred words. Isn’t the purpose of that to disarm your opponents. It makes them think that you are awfully young, handicapped, or emotionally needy. Right?

I am not going to go back through all of those posts. You, of course, can, if you wish.

But, I’d be more than happy to briefly reiterate my position. I have no adversity to doing that. Would you like that?

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Why? You wouldn’t bother discerning it in English. (Still pursuing the Win, aren’t you?) I don’t control Fr. of Jazz; he can more than adequately think and decide for himself. I admire his near limitless patience with you.

I’d like you to discontinue your “game” on CAF. That’s what I’d like. And, that’s what’s really sad. I find your game to be the epitome of unspeakability and discourtesy.

Part of your game is your purposely massacred words. Isn’t the purpose of that to disarm your opponents. It makes them think that you are awfully young, handicapped, or emotionally needy. Right?

I am not going to go back through all of those posts. You, of course, can, if you wish.

But, I’d be more than happy to briefly reiterate my position. I have no adversity to doing that. Would you like that?

God bless,
jd

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