Why would God create if destined for hell?

[quaestio]

jmcrae, thanks for all of your quick replies, this is an exciting exchange!

But, God isn’t actually a seer. He actually can’t “beforehand” (speaking as if there were a “before”) know that creating Smith is a bad idea. All He can do is actually create Smith, and see what transpires.

When you say all God can do is create Smith and “see what transpires,” you imply that God is very much in control of bringing Smith into being, but has to “watch” the historical aftermath of bringing Smith into being.

Is that in fact what you mean to say?

 

[jmcrae]

When you say all God can do is create Smith and “see what transpires,” you imply that God is very much in control of bringing Smith into being, but has to “watch” the historical aftermath of bringing Smith into being.

Is that in fact what you mean to say?

Yes. Smith has total free will. His choices are fully his own. God does not “force” him into any direction.

Now, there is a wild card that can come into play - prayer. If someone sees the direction that Smith is going in, or if Smith himself senses the danger ahead, then he or they can pray, and in that case, God finds a way to intervene miraculously - maybe at that moment, or maybe at some later moment (which is all the same to God) - but this, too, is directed by human free will.

God never forces anyone on to a particular path -neither the path to Heaven, nor the path to Hell. But, if asked to in prayer, God may well give a gentle nudge in the right direction.

 

[quaestio]

Yes. Smith has total free will. His choices are fully his own. God does not “force” him into any direction.

If all God can do is actually create Smith and see what transpires, as you say above, that does indeed afford free will to Smith, but it seems to come at the cost of introducing temporality into God.

On your account, it seems like there is one act where God creates Smith and a second act where God gains knowledge of the historical aftermath of creating Smith.

I gather your response will be that these are two “eternal” acts, i.e. eternally simultaneous, but I can’t help thinking that by admitting more than one act you are introducing “sequence” into God, or at least more than one “state.” That is, there is one state where God does not know the historical aftermath and another state where God does know the historical aftermath.

 

[jmcrae]

If all God can do is actually create Smith and see what transpires, as you say above, that does indeed afford free will to Smith, but it seems to come at the cost of introducing temporality into God.

On your account, it seems like there is one act where God creates Smith and a second act where God gains knowledge of the historical aftermath of creating Smith.

I gather your response will be that these are two “eternal” acts, i.e. eternally simultaneous, but I can’t help thinking that by admitting more than one act you are introducing “sequence” into God, or at least more than one “state.” That is, there is one state where God does not know the historical aftermath and another state where God does know the historical aftermath.

It’s extremely difficult for me to visualize eternity, and in trying to describe things, it does come about that my language infers some kind of temporality - that “first” something happens and “then” - but in reality, it’s all happening in something like a never-ending instant. But language itself is temporal, and it’s difficult to avoid giving an impression of sequence, when language itself is necessarily sequential.

Once we get there, it will make a great deal more sense, I’m sure.

 

[jmcrae]

If all God can do is actually create Smith and see what transpires, as you say above, that does indeed afford free will to Smith, but it seems to come at the cost of introducing temporality into God.

On your account, it seems like there is one act where God creates Smith and a second act where God gains knowledge of the historical aftermath of creating Smith.

I gather your response will be that these are two “eternal” acts, i.e. eternally simultaneous, but I can’t help thinking that by admitting more than one act you are introducing “sequence” into God, or at least more than one “state.” That is, there is one state where God does not know the historical aftermath and another state where God does know the historical aftermath.

It seems to me that God, the Creation, the Judgment Day, Heaven, Hell, and Eternity all came to be and are coming to be and ceasing to be, all in the same eternal instant, outside of which nothing is. Smith died and went to Hell at the same “instant” of eternity in which God breathed the Creation into existence.

It’s mindboggling to think of.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Knowing and causing are two different things. If God is to respect our free will, he can not forcibly intervene to prevent circumstances that he knows will occur. Can’t you people keep those two concepts separate?

Regarding the man that goes to hell:

Although he (the man himself-not God) may have damned his own soul, God is able to bring about good from evil. It is possible that man’s existence contributed to some good, albeit, against his own wishes, and therefore if God had never created him, that good, which might have been very necessary and important, would never have been done. For example he may have had children.

 

[quaestio]

Knowing and causing are two different things. If God is to respect our free will, he can not forcibly intervene to prevent circumstances that he knows will occur.

You imply that a non-forcible intervention could occur. Correct?

You imply that there are circumstances God does not know will occur. Correct?

Can’t you people keep those two concepts separate?

When you say “you people,” what group do you have in mind?