Why would God create if destined for hell?

[davidv]

You are yet another person who either cannot grasp the content of my question or you are choosing not to grasp the content of my question…follow along please:

1. God new us before we were born.
2. God is all knowing and all seeing.
3. God is all loving and all good.
4. Because God is all knowing and all seeing, God knows precisely every decision will we will ever make with our free will.
5. Because God is all knowing and all seeing, God will know ahead of time how we will live our lives and God will know what choices we make and those choices that people make, will determine if they go to heaven or hell.
6. One more time - God all knowing all seeing, God knows everything that will ever happen to us and knows every decision we will ever make…God will know ahead of time if we are destined for heaven or hell, because of our choices.
7. If God is all loving and all good, how could he create a person, when he knows before that person is born, that that person will live a life that will condemn themselves to hell.

Because it is His nature to create beings in His image and likeness to love Him and serve Him and be loved. My wife and I chose the have children, knowing full well that each of them, in many and varied ways would dishonor us. Should we have not had children and why?

1. Wouldn’t the more loving and good thing to do would be not to create the life that is destined for hell, rather than have that life spend eternity in hell?

No. See response to 7)

EVERYONE, PLEASE STOP TELLING ME IT’S OUR CHOICE…I KNOW THAT!

THIS QUESTION IS NOT THAT COMPLICATED, RATHER THE ANSWER IS COMPLICATED ( IF THERE EVEN IS AN ANSWER. THIS QUESTION IS ABOUT GODS FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE LIFE WE WILL LIVE AND THE CHOICES THAT WE WILL MAKE, BECAUSE GOD IS ALL KNOWING AND ALL SEEING)

I believe because of unstated assumptions about the nature of God, your question is not a straight forward as you think.

 

[jmcrae]

So, then why would an all good and all loving God create a life, that he knows will end up in hell, because God is all knowing and all seeing and he knows ahead of time that the person will make choices that will condemn themselves to hell?

If God cannot see a persons life before they have lived it, then God is not all knowing or all seeing.

You are avoiding the question entirely.

God cannot see a person’s life before he has lived it, for two reasons:

1: Because God’s act of seeing - of thinking about the person - is what causes the person to exist. That’s the creative act, right there - His thoughts. Existence is the substance of God’s thoughts.

God cannot think of anything that does not exist, because His act of thinking is what causes it to exist.

2: God cannot see anything BEFORE it happens, because God does not exist in Time - God is in Eternity, where everything is happening all at once, and not in sequence.

 

[ateista]

Originally Posted by SeekingCatholic
Why can He not actualize a world in which everyone chooses rightly?

The definition of a possible world is one which does not entail a logical contradiction. The two propositions by SeekingCatholic do not contain an explicit contradiction. The only assumption about these worlds is stated explicitly. There can be no “hidden” contradiction, because there are no other assumptions.

You agree that the world proposed by SeekingCatholic “may” be logically possible. Obviously you cannot point out a contradiction, because if you could, you would have done it. So you hide behind the idea, that “since we are not omniscient, we cannot decide if a proposition is without a contradiction”.

By the same token you could argue that the proposition: “2 + 2 = 4” may not be correct, since it might lead to some “hidden” logical contradiction of which we are not aware. And that would be the same cop-out as it is here.

The lack of omniscience does not mean that we are totally ignorant, that we cannot decide the true-false-null value of any proposition. If we cannot point out a contradiction, then there is no contradiction. You cannot bring up an example, where there is no apparent, explicit contradiction, but there is a “hidden” contradiction, can you? If you could, that would lend credence to your argument.

 

[onetimeposter]

God cannot see a person’s life before he has lived it, for two reasons:

1: Because God’s act of seeing - of thinking about the person - is what causes the person to exist. That’s the creative act, right there - His thoughts. Existence is the substance of God’s thoughts.

God cannot think of anything that does not exist, because His act of thinking is what causes it to exist.

2: God cannot see anything BEFORE it happens, because God does not exist in Time - God is in Eternity, where everything is happening all at once, and not in sequence.

So then your suggesting that God is not all knowing or all seeing.

Please tell me where you have read that God, an all powerful being, is incapable of thought without creation.

To limit the thought of God to a solitary act of creation, in fact limits God’s power.

God cannot be all powerful, if his thoughts do only one thing…create. If God is all powerful, then Gods thoughts can do anything he wishes.

What your saying is that our Christian God is not omnipotent. Our Christian God is omnipotent and there are no limits to what he is able to do…including thought without creation…
**
To suggest that there are any limits, rules or stipulations upon Gods thoughts, states clearly that God is not omnipotent.
**

 

[Justin_A]

The thing is, that God dos’nt do things that are agianst his nature. My brother once asked me if God (Being all powerfull) could make a rock to hevy for himself to lift. I found the answere, and it’s no. This dos’nt meen he,s not all powerfull, it’s just against his nature. Example: You as a person, can not fly off like a duck, because it’s against your nature. God may (ho knows, I don’t, if he can see the future if he’s timeless) what the future holds, but he also gives us the tools and the apertoonity to change. I for one am only 17, and i’m sorry if I don’t emediatly get what your asking, but my parents thought for a while that I would shorly end up in prison. I was able to change because of prayer, because I am not ( nobody is) destand for hell. God helped me away from my oath to hell, and he try’s to help everyone else as well.

 

[SilentKnight]

Book of the bible. I’d recommend it, but I’m spelling out why I’m taking the position I am here anyway, so I guess it’s not totally necessary. Mostly the end, where Job starts asking for answers about why God would permit his suffering.

The book is one of my favorites in the OT. Just was not sure of the point you were trying to make by simply citing its title and am still not sure in your reference to Job’s questions.

Nulla, you seem to still be confusing permission to, or tolerance of sin with its endorsement. Maybe you’re not. But the way your posts continue to read, I can’t help but perceive your response to the scenario above with Agent 1 and 2 to essentially be, “No, Agent 1 should not have raped anyone…But…Well, yeah, it’s good that he did ultimately because what came out of it was Agent 2 and Agent 2 is going to Heaven.” Your response would seem to be that, had Agent 1 (and everyone else) known in advance that Agent 2 would be conceived and ultimately end up in Heaven, eveybody and their brother could have then given a hearty two thumbs up to the act because, considering the outcome of it, it was actually a good thing after all.

Am I wrong?

Then I don’t get why you’re bringing up consequentialism in response to what I’m saying. If it’s to insist that humans should never permit evil on the justification that the ends are worth it, I agree.

But my question for you would be, “Why do you agree?” Do you agree because the ends don’t justify the means? Or, in other words, because morality is objective and does not depend on the outcome of an act for its desgination as an evil thing to do? Or do you agree only because Agent 1 above does not know the outcome of his act in advance and, therefore, no one can determine whether the act, in the end, will ultimately be “good” or not? Do you understand what I’m saying?

If it’s to insist God never permit it, well, then that’s constraining God by said commandments.

Obviously He does. And there’s a reason for that. But it’s very important to be very clear on the distinction between, as I said, permitting or tolerating evil and proximately endorsing it because of its final outcome.

Apparently, God has reasons for permitting sin. Maybe there’s an Adam and Eve somewhere, in some reality, that will result in a perfect and non-fallen world. I’m reminded of Perelandra.

Sorry. We’re gonna have to do this again…What’s Perelandra???

SK

 

[jmcrae]

What’s Perelandra???

“Perelandra” is the name of the idea of an alternative universe in which Adam and Eve didn’t sin. It comes from a book by that name, written by C. S. Lewis - it’s intended to be science fiction.

 

[jmcrae]

So then your suggesting that God is not all knowing or all seeing.

Quite the opposite. God sees all and knows all, because all that exists, exists in God’s mind.

 

[Nullasalus]

Nulla, you seem to still be confusing permission to, or tolerance of sin with its endorsement. Maybe you’re not. But the way your posts continue to read, I can’t help but perceive your response to the scenario above with Agent 1 and 2 to essentially be, “No, Agent 1 should not have raped anyone…But…Well, yeah, it’s good that he did ultimately because what came out of it was Agent 2 and Agent 2 is going to Heaven.” Your response would seem to be that, had Agent 1 (and everyone else) known in advance that Agent 2 would be conceived and ultimately end up in Heaven, eveybody and their brother could have then given a hearty two thumbs up to the act because, considering the outcome of it, it was actually a good thing after all.

Am I wrong?

You’re wrong, for a number of reasons.

First, the example provides a drastically limited illustration of a serious good that can come from an evil. Agent 1’s life will be filled with acts that alter history and have a relation to additional changes, so there’s a tremendous number of new factors to consider in practice that aren’t required to be considered for the example.

Second, no person should regard the rape itself as good regardless of what good comes out of it, even if they had complete knowledge of what came from it. The evil act is an evil act. But it could be - and in the case of the example, I believe is - an evil that a benevolent God could justifiably permit due to the goods that will come from it. Those good results don’t make the act itself good. At most, it’s a necessary ill whose negation of possibility would be more evil.

But my question for you would be, “Why do you agree?” Do you agree because the ends don’t justify the means? Or, in other words, because morality is objective and does not depend on the outcome of an act for its desgination as an evil thing to do? Or do you agree only because Agent 1 above does not know the outcome of his act in advance and, therefore, no one can determine whether the act, in the end, will ultimately be “good” or not? Do you understand what I’m saying?

Morality for humans is certainly objective in my view, though that doesn’t mean it’s always clear-cut. We’re subject to God, and God’s commandments. We’re also limited beings - we have no omniscience, so the ends justifying the means doesn’t work as a defense (We don’t know the actual ends). By Catholic teaching, knowledge is absolutely a factor in determining evil - arguments of culpability, etc.

But I don’t believe that God is bound by human morality. He couldn’t be, based on the unique position He holds. Again: A world without evil would be a world without ourselves, even though we - potentially all of us - are, while fallen, capable of being saved. I believe it is vastly more benevolent to allow evil and provide as much good as possible than to allow zero evil and only allow some kind of ‘perfect’ good. At the same time, humans remain subject to God’s commandments, and no evil that good springs from is itself a good.

Sorry. We’re gonna have to do this again…What’s Perelandra???

Book by CS Lewis about an Adam & Eve event on an alien planet.

 

[onetimeposter]

You must remember the t God, DID NOT, create us even to die!
We were made in the garden of Eden. There was no death,sikness or anything ells even like it. Our first parents, Adam & Eve chose death. It says in Genesis 3:2-4, when Eve is talking to the serpant:" We may eat of any tree in the garden ACCEPT the on in the center LEST WE DIE. The bible also says that Saten is “A lyer and the father of lye’s, a murderur from the begining”. Hell was created along with death when we CHOSE it. No evil thing can enter heaven, were God, ho is all good dwells.
So, WE, in a sence, chose, & made hell along with death, for our selfes. It’s a dark and unwanted statement I know, but its the truth, and God said, “the trth will set you free”.

???

What are you talking about?

God creates us, God wills us into existence. God knows all and see’s all, therefor he can see that we will choose to live a life that will have us ending up in hell.

Why would an all loving God create a person, knowing the whole time that that person will choose to live a life that will have them end up in hell?

 

[onetimeposter]

Because it is His nature to create beings in His image and likeness to love Him and serve Him and be loved. My wife and I chose the have children, knowing full well that each of them, in many and varied ways would dishonor us. Should we have not had children and why?

No. See response to 7)

I believe because of unstated assumptions about the nature of God, your question is not a straight forward as you think.

God knows all and see’s all. God knows ahead of time exactly how a person will live, because he see’s all and knows all.

You presume one of your children may dishonour you…but you don’t know for sure.

MASSIVE differrence.

 

[onetimeposter]

The thing is, that God dos’nt do things that are agianst his nature. My brother once asked me if God (Being all powerfull) could make a rock to hevy for himself to lift. I found the answere, and it’s no. This dos’nt meen he,s not all powerfull, it’s just against his nature. Example: You as a person, can not fly off like a duck, because it’s against your nature. God may (ho knows, I don’t, if he can see the future if he’s timeless) what the future holds, but he also gives us the tools and the apertoonity to change. I for one am only 17, and i’m sorry if I don’t emediatly get what your asking, but my parents thought for a while that I would shorly end up in prison. I was able to change because of prayer, because I am not ( nobody is) destand for hell. God helped me away from my oath to hell, and he try’s to help everyone else as well.

No one is destined for hell…but God knows what choices people will make, before they make the choices, so God knows who has chosen a life that will lead them to heaven…even before those choices are made.

God knows all and see’s all.

 

[onetimeposter]

Quite the opposite. God sees all and knows all, because all that exists, exists in God’s mind.

Exactly…so God can see that the life that he is creating, is destined for hell.

So we agree.

Now, can you answer my question.

If an all knowing, all good, and all loving God knows that the person he is going to create is destined for hell ( you admit God knows all and see’s all) so why would such an all loving God create a person only to have them suffer an eternity in hell? ( By their own choice of course)

 

[jmcrae]

Exactly…so God can see that the life that he is creating, is destined for hell.

So we agree.

Now, can you answer my question.

If an all knowing, all good, and all loving God knows that the person he is going to create is destined for hell ( you admit God knows all and see’s all) so why would such an all loving God create a person only to have them suffer an eternity in hell? ( By their own choice of course)

Because He loves him - loves him enough to let him choose badly.

 

[SilentKnight]

You’re wrong, for a number of reasons.

First, the example provides a drastically limited illustration of a serious good that can come from an evil. Agent 1’s life will be filled with acts that alter history and have a relation to additional changes, so there’s a tremendous number of new factors to consider in practice that aren’t required to be considered for the example.

No, morality isn’t that complicated. We don’t have to know what type of child is conceived after the rape and how many people they will benefit in their own life versus how many people they will harm and who they caused to move to what side of the country, etc., etc., etc. in order to know that the rape should never have occurred.

It has and Agent 2 came about as a result and is now headed for Heaven. Let’s say Agent 1 rapes nine more women and all the women conceive children from this and all ten children are now headed for heaven.

Each rape was evil and never should have happened. The fact that there are now ten new souls on the planet, all of whom are headed for heaven is not a counterargument in favor of the rape. They are simply a testimony to the inability of evil to fully overcome good.

**Second, no person should regard the rape itself as good regardless of what good comes out of it, even if they had complete knowledge of what came from it. The evil act is an evil act. But it could be - and in the case of the example, I believe is - an evil that a benevolent God could justifiably permit due to the goods that will come from it. Those good results don’t make the act itself good. **At most, it’s a necessary ill whose negation of possibility would be more evil.

See, I’m following you all throughout the bolded section. Then it’s that last sentence that reverts to you contradicting yourself again. To state that the rape was a “necessary ill” is to say that the ends justify the means. And they don’t. That’s Consequentialism. The rape was not a necesary ill. If it was necessary, could we really call it a sin to begin with? If it needs to happen, then how can the rapist be faulted?

To add the phrase “whose negation of possibility would be more evil” only puts the cherry on top.

The rape was evil.

But it was necessary so that Agent 2 (and 3 and 4 and 5, etc.) could all come into existence, so, in that way…ya know…who can fault the rapist?

Further more, had the rapist contemplating* not *raping these ten women, well, whoa…Firing squad for him because it was totally necessary for him to rape all ten women so that the Agents 2 through 12 could all get to Heaven.

This is what you’re arguing.

I think what you’re trying to argue is that free will is always necessary, no matter what the outcome (even if, for example, this means that Agent 1 will use that free choice to rape somone), not that specific sins are necessary. There is a big difference between those two, though.

Which one are you really positing?

But I don’t believe that God is bound by human morality. He couldn’t be, based on the unique position He holds. Again: A world without evil would be a world without ourselves, even though we - potentially all of us - are, while fallen, capable of being saved. I believe it is vastly more benevolent to allow evil and provide as much good as possible than to allow zero evil and only allow some kind of ‘perfect’ good. At the same time, humans remain subject to God’s commandments, and no evil that good springs from is itself a good.

This is not compatible with your last sentence above.

SK

 

[onetimeposter]

Because He loves him - loves him enough to let him choose badly.

God already knows he will choose badly, so why create him in the first place, knowing that the man will choose badly and end up in hell?

How could an all loving and good God create a life, knowing that that life will make choices that will condemn him to hell for eternity.

Either you are side stepping my question or for some unknown reason, you fail to grasp what I am saying.

 

[jmcrae]

God already knows he will choose badly, so why create him in the first place, knowing that the man will choose badly and end up in hell?

Because it’s his free choice to do so.

How could an all loving and good God create a life, knowing that that life will make choices that will condemn him to hell for eternity.

Maybe because the few years of happiness that the man will enjoy during the innocence of his childhood are worth the cost?

Either you are side stepping my question or for some unknown reason, you fail to grasp what I am saying.

I’m still trying to figure out how God can know someone who doesn’t exist.

 

[onetimeposter]

Because it’s his free choice to do so.
**
Then you are firmly saying that God is not all good and not all loving, because you are stating that God is creating people knowing that there lives will end with them ending up in hell for all of eternity.**

Maybe because the few years of happiness that the man will enjoy during the innocence of his childhood are worth the cost?

Again, the pain of hell, contradicts that an all loving and all good God would create someone, knowing ahead of time that that person he creates will live a life that will have him sent to hell.

I’m still trying to figure out how God can know someone who doesn’t exist.

**
God knows all and see’s all. If someone is going to exist in one thousand years, God already knows about it and knows everything that will ever happen to that person and every decision that the person will make. God lives outside of space and time…if he see’s all and knows all, then God can absolutely do this.**

 

[Nullasalus]

No, morality isn’t that complicated. We don’t have to know what type of child is conceived after the rape and how many people they will benefit in their own life versus how many people they will harm and who they caused to move to what side of the country, etc., etc., etc. in order to know that the rape should never have occurred.

As humans, information is irrelevant to our decision about whether or not to regard rape as desirable - it is always something immoral for us to do, period. God, however, can choose whether or not to permit evils such as rape since God is in the ultimate position of judgment. You said you weren’t binding God by human standards of morality, but you do so repeatedly.

Here, let me ask you this. You keep saying ‘These things should never have happened.’ If God said to you, ‘Hey, SilentKnight. A whole lot of evil has happened in this world. Now, in the current plan everyone who has ever existed will achieve salvation and justice. But, those evils will always exist in the past. How about I completely wipe out this history and provide another timeline where no evil ever occurs?’ According to the logic you’re giving here, there’s no question: Wipe the timeline. I find that understanding of evil to be ridiculous.

See, I’m following you all throughout the bolded section. Then it’s that last sentence that reverts to you contradicting yourself again. To state that the rape was a “necessary ill” is to say that the ends justify the means. And they don’t. That’s Consequentialism. The rape was not a necesary ill. If it was necessary, could we really call it a sin to begin with? If it needs to happen, then how can the rapist be faulted?

There’s no contradiction here. There are two perspectives in play: God’s, and our own. For us, rape is always an evil event. It’s a commandment of God, and even if good comes from it, it remains an evil - we can’t justify it through the ends.

God is in a different position. To God, rape can always be an evil. But God is under no commandment and is capable of truly seeing ends. There exists an apparent dilemma, whereby forbidding evil from ever being realized in the world will lead to the forsaking of quite a lot of good. God, and God alone, can make the call about whether to permit such. A sin remains a sin for us - even if we think God may have a reason for permitting evil, we are not God. We cannot be certain, we don’t see ultimate ends, we have no power on our own to perfectly correct these evils.

If the rapist turns around and says, “Ha! My acts brought good into the world! How can you say I sinned?”, the response can be, “You had no idea what your act would ultimately bring into the world. You knew that your act was certainly one of evil. You knew it went against my commands. You had no way to correct the act. You don’t get off the hook just because your act had a swarm of consequences you were not aware of and because I as God am capable of correcting all these evils after the fact.”

Or he can give the same response he gave to Job.

This is what you’re arguing.

Frankly, you don’t really get what I’m arguing - you think you can apply human moral standards to God, which I find ridiculous. You’ve set a standard for God whereby none of us should exist, because our world has evil in it and it would be better for no evil to ever exist, no matter how temporary, no matter how many people are doomed to the void. So from my perspective, I’m defending the existence of all people in this world - you’re defending their effective annihilation.

I think what you’re trying to argue is that free will is always necessary, no matter what the outcome (even if, for example, this means that Agent 1 will use that free choice to rape somone), not that specific sins are necessary. There is a big difference between those two, though.

Which one are you really positing?

Considering I haven’t said word one about ‘free will’ in any of my posts in this thread, neither. My standard applies whether we truly have libertarian free will, or just compatiblist free will.

This is not compatible with your last sentence above

It remains entirely compatible. Evil is always evil - at most, it is a necessary evil. Good coming from evil does not make evil ‘good’. At most, it makes evil justifiable.

 

[Nullasalus]

SilentKnight, just wanting to chime in with something additional. I respect that you disagree with me - this is a touchy subject, everyone has different views. But I’d like to keep the tone more respectful if possible, and calm. Maybe I’m being over-cautious, but this really sounds like it has the potential to spill out into a lot of exchanges of barbs and slights and accusations. I’d like to avoid that, at least as much as possible.