Why we are left alone with Devils?

[Vera_Ljuba]

No they were created good. But God gave them free will to choose. If God created them good, right there was what God wanted. But God loved them enough to give them the free will to remain good and obey him, or sin and disobey him.

Who ever denied that God did not permit sin? Surely not Catholic Teaching. What good would it do for God to give someone free will and then refuse to let them us it? That is what would be irrational.

It is against the word of God to claim that God approves sin, and it is also wrong. God gave us free will to do as we want. It was not with his approval, it was with his disapproval.

If I do not approve of my Son using drugs but he uses his own free will and goes against my will and uses them, then it was part of my master plan for him to use drugs?? Come on!

Oh well. Let’s try it again. I am not going to talk about “God”, because what I am going to say might be considered uncharitable if applied to God. Instead I will talk about some unspecified, faceless creator.

So let’s talk about a creator, who wishes to create someone or something. The creator has a plan for his creation. He can set up the creation with a limited freedom, so the created being can do many things, but is not allowed to do things which go against the basic plan for the creation. Or he can give more freedom, and in this case the created beings are given the ability to harm or destroy the basic plan for the creation.

Let’s put some actual “meat” on this hypothetical creation. Let it be a sapient or intelligent self-driving car. This is not science fiction, such cars already exist. The designer can impose limits on the cars thereby preventing them from veering off the road into the ditch or driving too fast. Or he can choose a different rule-set and allow the cars to be “free” to choose the trajectory, even if they drive over a cliff?

What would you call this second type of designer? Irresponsible, idiotic, malicious? Would you ever choose a car which was designed by such a creator?

Summary: if a designer allows too much freedom to his creation, which allows the creation do actions that the designer does not approve of, then this creator is either an idiot, or malicious. Since I would not want to use these adjectives for describing God, I chose an unspecified “creator”.

You guys have this misconception about “free will”. It is not a binary concept, saying that you either have an unlimited, unbridled freedom to do whatever you want or you are a “robot”. What nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. To have more limitation which would prevent people to torture or rape would be sign of “caring”.

There is another observation about your concept. Generally, you do not make this parent-child allegory to describe God-human relationship. You like to say that God is so vastly superior that this comparison is simply inapplicable. But then you use the parent vs. ADULT child comparison as if it were acceptable. It is NOT. If you wish to use such a comparison, make it a parent vs. TODDLER. And then ask yourself, which LOVING parent would allow a toddler to play with a loaded gun?

Could you also explain to me how someone not approving of something, but lets them do it anyway against their wishes, is approving it?

That should be obvious. It is implicit approval. If the creator allows the creation to go “out of bounds” then he either approves of this act, or is indifferent to it.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Oh well. Let’s try it again. I am not going to talk about “God”, because what I am going to say might be considered uncharitable if applied to God. Instead I will talk about some unspecified, faceless creator.

So let’s talk about a creator, who wishes to create someone or something. The creator has a plan for his creation. He can set up the creation with a limited freedom, so the created being can do many things, but is not allowed to do things which go against the basic plan for the creation. Or he can give more freedom, and in this case the created beings are given the ability to harm or destroy the basic plan for the creation.

Let’s put some actual “meat” on this hypothetical creation. Let it be a sapient or intelligent self-driving car. This is not science fiction, such cars already exist. The designer can impose limits on the cars thereby preventing them from veering off the road into the ditch or driving too fast. Or he can choose a different rule-set and allow the cars to be “free” to choose the trajectory, even if they drive over a cliff?

What would you call this second type of designer? Irresponsible, idiotic, malicious? Would you ever choose a car which was designed by such a creator?

Summary: if a designer allows too much freedom to his creation, which allows the creation do actions that the designer does not approve of, then this creator is either an idiot, or malicious. Since I would not want to use these adjectives for describing God, I chose an unspecified “creator”.

You guys have this misconception about “free will”. It is not a binary concept, saying that you either have an unlimited, unbridled freedom to do whatever you want or you are a “robot”. What nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. To have more limitation which would prevent people to torture or rape would be sign of “caring”.

There is another observation about your concept. Generally, you do not make this parent-child allegory to describe God-human relationship. You like to say that God is so vastly superior that this comparison is simply inapplicable. But then you use the parent vs. ADULT child comparison as if it were acceptable. It is NOT. If you wish to use such a comparison, make it a parent vs. TODDLER. And then ask yourself, which LOVING parent would allow a toddler to play with a loaded gun?

That should be obvious. It is implicit approval. If the creator allows the creation to go “out of bounds” then he either approves of this act, or is indifferent to it.

Oh yea of little faith. Feel free to discuss false Gods. One wonders why you enjoy expounding your philosophic views on catholic site. What keeps drawing you back?

Could it be you are co-operating in God’s grand design by being here?

 

[Vico]

I mean why they should be free to do what they are doing. They are more powerful than us and they could misguide us. What is the purpose for setting them free?

Catechism
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.” 275
275 Rom 8:28.

 

[STT]

Catechism
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him.” 275
275 Rom 8:28.

That doesn’t answer my question.

 

[Vico]

That doesn’t answer my question.

So you did not see this? " It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him”".

 

[STT]

So you did not see this? " It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but “we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him”".

This is contradictory assertion, the second part contradicts the first part. How that could be a mystery if you know it?

 

[Vico]

This is contradictory assertion, the second part contradicts the first part. How that could be a mystery if you know it?

Known: “that in everything God works for good with those who love him”.
Mystery: “that providence should permit diabolical activity”.

Mystery is from Greek mystḗrion: is not something unknowable but what can only be known through revelation, i.e. because God reveals it.

 

[rinnie]

Oh well. Let’s try it again. I am not going to talk about “God”, because what I am going to say might be considered uncharitable if applied to God. Instead I will talk about some unspecified, faceless creator.

So let’s talk about a creator, who wishes to create someone or something. The creator has a plan for his creation. He can set up the creation with a limited freedom, so the created being can do many things, but is not allowed to do things which go against the basic plan for the creation. Or he can give more freedom, and in this case the created beings are given the ability to harm or destroy the basic plan for the creation.

Let’s put some actual “meat” on this hypothetical creation. Let it be a sapient or intelligent self-driving car. This is not science fiction, such cars already exist. The designer can impose limits on the cars thereby preventing them from veering off the road into the ditch or driving too fast. Or he can choose a different rule-set and allow the cars to be “free” to choose the trajectory, even if they drive over a cliff?

What would you call this second type of designer? Irresponsible, idiotic, malicious? Would you ever choose a car which was designed by such a creator?

Summary: if a designer allows too much freedom to his creation, which allows the creation do actions that the designer does not approve of, then this creator is either an idiot, or malicious. Since I would not want to use these adjectives for describing God, I chose an unspecified “creator”.

You guys have this misconception about “free will”. It is not a binary concept, saying that you either have an unlimited, unbridled freedom to do whatever you want or you are a “robot”. What nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. To have more limitation which would prevent people to torture or rape would be sign of “caring”.

There is another observation about your concept. Generally, you do not make this parent-child allegory to describe God-human relationship. You like to say that God is so vastly superior that this comparison is simply inapplicable. But then you use the parent vs. ADULT child comparison as if it were acceptable. It is NOT. If you wish to use such a comparison, make it a parent vs. TODDLER. And then ask yourself, which LOVING parent would allow a toddler to play with a loaded gun?

That should be obvious. It is implicit approval. If the creator allows the creation to go “out of bounds” then he either approves of this act, or is indifferent to it.

Or of course you could be wrong on both points and the creator has such a mind, that is Divine of course that the creator could not even begin to understand, until and if the creator explained. I will stick with the answer, it makes sense, because it is truth.

By the way God did not give us LIMITED free will, he gave us TOTAL free will, If it was limited it would not be FREE WILL at all. But God does not tell us what to think, he gives us total freedom over our thoughts. That is why if a person sins, they can sin in their mind as well as mind and body.

I always wondered if the reason people do not accept Christ for whatever reason could be because he is so far out of their league that they could never compare, even in the smallest way. You think they were learn after all this time and submit to him, you would think what human free will has done to this world without the grace of God would be enough.

 

[punisherthunder]

I am curious. I never heard of a rational, skeptical atheist be bothered by the devil or a demon. Did some exorcist ever find an atheist being “possessed” by some demon? And if so, how did this possession manifest itself? Looks like the best “defense” against demons is the lack of belief.

I think that demons consider atheists “irrevocably damned” and thus not worth the hassle.

 

[rinnie]

Oh well. Let’s try it again. I am not going to talk about “God”, because what I am going to say might be considered uncharitable if applied to God. Instead I will talk about some unspecified, faceless creator.

So let’s talk about a creator, who wishes to create someone or something. The creator has a plan for his creation. He can set up the creation with a limited freedom, so the created being can do many things, but is not allowed to do things which go against the basic plan for the creation. Or he can give more freedom, and in this case the created beings are given the ability to harm or destroy the basic plan for the creation.

Let’s put some actual “meat” on this hypothetical creation. Let it be a sapient or intelligent self-driving car. This is not science fiction, such cars already exist. The designer can impose limits on the cars thereby preventing them from veering off the road into the ditch or driving too fast. Or he can choose a different rule-set and allow the cars to be “free” to choose the trajectory, even if they drive over a cliff?

What would you call this second type of designer? Irresponsible, idiotic, malicious? Would you ever choose a car which was designed by such a creator?

Summary: if a designer allows too much freedom to his creation, which allows the creation do actions that the designer does not approve of, then this creator is either an idiot, or malicious. Since I would not want to use these adjectives for describing God, I chose an unspecified “creator”.

You guys have this misconception about “free will”. It is not a binary concept, saying that you either have an unlimited, unbridled freedom to do whatever you want or you are a “robot”. What nonsense. Our freedom is always limited. To have more limitation which would prevent people to torture or rape would be sign of “caring”.

There is another observation about your concept. Generally, you do not make this parent-child allegory to describe God-human relationship. You like to say that God is so vastly superior that this comparison is simply inapplicable. But then you use the parent vs. ADULT child comparison as if it were acceptable. It is NOT. If you wish to use such a comparison, make it a parent vs. TODDLER. And then ask yourself, which LOVING parent would allow a toddler to play with a loaded gun?

That should be obvious. It is implicit approval. If the creator allows the creation to go “out of bounds” then he either approves of this act, or is indifferent to it.

Okay then if that person who invented that car (and yes there are here now) invents that car to do as you claimed only good, but that car for some reason malfunctions then of course you are saying either the creator allows the car to go out of bounds, or approved of the act or is completely indifferent to it correct?

 

[rinnie]

I think that demons consider atheists “irrevocably damned” and thus not worth the hassle.

Or could it be what is their mission? The demons main purpose no matter what is to get that person away from God. The demon will do anything to do so. As with everything else in this world if there is no one to blame, or no one will accept blame lets blame God.

But the closer you are to God, the more the demons will try to come after you.

They do not want you but they will promise you anything, and usually give it to you, never underestimate their power, but then once you get it, they destroy you with it, and laugh at you and leave you alone in your destruction.

Then it is only God with his great mercy who picks up the pieces, and builds you up again, of course unless you reject him (which the demons will tell you he rejects you, another great lie) then you stay destroyed locked up in your own misery.

 

[rinnie]

Or of course you could be wrong on both points and the creator has such a mind, that is Divine of course that the creator could not even begin to understand, until and if the creator explained. I will stick with the answer, it makes sense, because it is truth.

By the way God did not give us LIMITED free will, he gave us TOTAL free will, If it was limited it would not be FREE WILL at all. But God does not tell us what to think, he gives us total freedom over our thoughts. That is why if a person sins, they can sin in their mind as well as mind and body.

I always wondered if the reason people do not accept Christ for whatever reason could be because he is so far out of their league that they could never compare, even in the smallest way. You think they were learn after all this time and submit to him, you would think what human free will has done to this world without the grace of God would be enough.

First paragraph, meant to say this is Divine of course the CREATION could not even begin to understand. My bad

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

By the way God did not give us LIMITED free will, he gave us TOTAL free will, If it was limited it would not be FREE WILL at all. But God does not tell us what to think, he gives us total freedom over our thoughts. That is why if a person sins, they can sin in their mind as well as mind and body.

You did not pay attention. I said “limited freedom”, not “limited free will”. Our thoughts are impotent and irrelevant unless we can act on them. Of course there are different “schools” about free will. One of them (the libertarian school) says that “free will involves the ability to act on that will”, while another one says that “being able to ‘will’ something is sufficient, even if you are unable to carry out your desired action”.

I don’t know which line of thought you subscribe to. But no rational creator allows its creation to destroy the basic working of his creation - if he can avoid it.

Okay then if that person who invented that car (and yes there are here now) invents that car to do as you claimed only good, but that car for some reason malfunctions then of course you are saying either the creator allows the car to go out of bounds, or approved of the act or is completely indifferent to it correct?

This is where the analogy breaks down. A human creator does not have the perfect omniscience and omnipotence - that God is supposed to have. So the human creator is not “guilty” for the unforeseen malfunction of his creation. But he is guilty of the foreseeable breakdowns if he does not everything in his power to prevent them.

By the way, I am not surprised that you neglected to respond to the God-human vs. parent-toddler analogy. No one ever does… And also the fact that “allowing” some undesired outcome - which you could prevent, does make an “implicit approval”.

 

[rinnie]

You did not pay attention. I said “limited freedom”, not “limited free will”. Our thoughts are impotent and irrelevant unless we can act on them. Of course there are different “schools” about free will. One of them (the libertarian school) says that “free will involves the ability to act on that will”, while another one says that “being able to ‘will’ something is sufficient, even if you are unable to carry out your desired action”.

I don’t know which line of thought you subscribe to. But no rational creator allows its creation to destroy the basic working of his creation - if he can avoid it.

This is where the analogy breaks down. A human creator does not have the perfect omniscience and omnipotence - that God is supposed to have. So the human creator is not “guilty” for the unforeseen malfunction of his creation. But he is guilty of the foreseeable breakdowns if he does not everything in his power to prevent them.

By the way, I am not surprised that you neglected to respond to the God-human vs. parent-toddler analogy. No one ever does… And also the fact that “allowing” some undesired outcome - which you could prevent, does make an “implicit approval”.

And that is where your problem comes into play. A human being is not a machine. A machine does not have free will to obey or disobey. A machine does not have a human mind to choose.

So what you refuse to see is this. How can the Creator God be responsible for a Human being its creation, if it gives its creation the ability to do as it chooses. And how can it give the Human the ability to choose to destroy itself,or not without taking the free will away?

You cannot compare a Human Being to a Machine, anymore then you can compare a human Mind to the Divine. It cannot be done.

please explain how you feel you can do this?

And for the sake of arguing, how can a parent raise a child, and then give that child free will at a decent age of reason to pick and choose who they want to marry, etc? Even if the parent knows this is not the road that he would pick for this Child? Because is that not you want God to do. Run the life of the Human it created. Give it no free will, because it can do only what you want. correct?

So my big question is this, Why create Human Beings, if they are robots? Why not just invent machines. What is the purpose of this world? Why be here? What would be the purpose? Why give a person a mind, if you are going to think for that person?

Please explain to me the purpose.

 

[Clevus]

I have encounter to Devils and I found them very strong. They could manipulate our thoughts and feelings. They could even control our mind if they wish! So I was wondering that why God left us alone with Devils? What is the purpose?

He would not leave us in a hopeless position. Our control functions still work and we can stop temptations and hold them up to our scrutiny. The devil can’t stop that. These faculties are honed to perfection by our willingness to remain loyal and try our best. Even our failures are not a write off for us since we have Christ’s graces to restore out state.

The devil can as you say make us do things and take control from us in various states of consciousness, but that is no real gain for him and amounts to zilch in his mounting a case against us. They lack the motive and intent.

So we have everything here in exile to protect us from real punishment and death.

Not to worry.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

And that is where your problem comes into play. A human being is not a machine. A machine does not have free will to obey or disobey. A machine does not have a human mind to choose.

Who says that only a “human mind” can choose? Any well designed computer program can choose - between the allowed parameters. As the example of the self-driving car shows, the car can choose between a range of speeds for any road surface and traffic condition, but it is prevented from choosing outside those limits. And that is what a responsible designer would do. Allow some choices, and prevent others.

So what you refuse to see is this. How can the Creator God be responsible for a Human being its creation, if it gives its creation the ability to do as it chooses. And how can it give the Human the ability to choose to destroy itself,or not without taking the free will away?

Our freedom to choose is very limited. It does not need to be taken completely away, it just needs to be limited a little more - and only in certain scenarios.

And for the sake of arguing, how can a parent raise a child, and then give that child free will at a decent age of reason to pick and choose who they want to marry, etc?

The human parents do not have the necessary power or foresight to influence their children beyond a certain age. And no one can be held responsible for something that they are unable to do. The parent has full responsibility for their toddlers behavior. And again you attempt to extend that analogy into a territory where it does not apply.

So my big question is this, Why create Human Beings, if they are robots? Why not just invent machines. What is the purpose of this world? Why be here? What would be the purpose? Why give a person a mind, if you are going to think for that person?

Please explain to me the purpose.

You still don’t understand. Limited freedom to act is not the same as fully predetermined behavior. If we judge based upon the observed world, then it has no purpose. As for the designer of the “smart cars”, they have a very well conceived purpose - to allow transportation and eliminate (or minimize) the chance of accidents.

 

[rinnie]

Who says that only a “human mind” can choose? Any well designed computer program can choose - between the allowed parameters. As the example of the self-driving car shows, the car can choose between a range of speeds for any road surface and traffic condition, but it is prevented from choosing outside those limits. And that is what a responsible designer would do. Allow some choices, and prevent others.

Our freedom to choose is very limited. It does not need to be taken completely away, it just needs to be limited a little more - and only in certain scenarios.

The human parents do not have the necessary power or foresight to influence their children beyond a certain age. And no one can be held responsible for something that they are unable to do. The parent has full responsibility for their toddlers behavior. And again you attempt to extend that analogy into a territory where it does not apply.

You still don’t understand. Limited freedom to act is not the same as fully predetermined behavior. If we judge based upon the observed world, then it has no purpose. As for the designer of the “smart cars”, they have a very well conceived purpose - to allow transportation and eliminate (or minimize) the chance of accidents.

1730 CCC God creaated man a rational being conferring on him the dignity of a person who can INITIATE and CONTROL his own actions. God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel so the he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him.

Man is rational and therefore like God, he is created with free will and is master over his acts.

Now where is LIMITED free will mentioned here? And if we were created like God either God has limited free will, and scripture tells us Nothing is impossible for God, so I think that could throw out LIMITING him to what he chooses to do, or we are born with free will and have control over our actions. There is no limitations stated here.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

As an act of politeness, I answer for the last time. Since you are unable / unwilling to understand what I was saying, I decided not to waste more time on your posts. Best wishes.