Why would God create people he knew would go to hell?

[HarryStotle]

Gorgias:

Jesus says something that makes people scratch their heads. “What do you mean, Jesus,” they ask, “when you say that ‘only the Father knows the day and the hour’? Aren’t you God? Don’t you know, omnisciently, just as God knows?”

The reply is subtle: Jesus’ divine nature doesn’t “swamp” His human nature. Rather, St Paul tells us, Jesus “took on the form of a [human] and… humbled himself, becoming obedient.” In other words, in His humanity, Jesus deferred exercising all that belongs to His divine nature.

Not true according to Pope Saint Gregory the Great who wrote:

“Whence also this can be understood in a more subtle way, that the only-begotten, incarnate and made perfect man for us, did indeed in his human nature know the day and the hour of the judgment, but nevertheless did not know this from his human nature. What he knew in it he did not on that account know from it, because God-made-man knew the day and the hour of the judgment by the power of his Godhead” (Letter to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria 10:21 [A.D. 600]).
So Jesus as God and Man did indeed know in his human nature, although not from his human nature.
So 2000 years ago Jesus knew that I would choose strawberry ice cream today at 2:30 both in his divine nature and in his human nature, but not from his human nature.

Your logic is just a tad faulty here.

Merely because Jesus knew some things – like the day and hour of judgement – “in his human nature,” does not mean that Pope Saint Gregory the Great should to be taken to imply that Jesus, therefore, knew all things “in his human nature.” The assumption would be that the God-made-man from his divine nature permitted Jesus, the man, to know only what was required or necessary as a man in his human nature.

 

[Edward_H]

He doesn’t positively desire it, but maybe their bad example helps others get closer to Him, so He allows it.

 

[Gorgias]

So Jesus as God and Man did indeed know in his human nature, although not from his human nature.

So 2000 years ago Jesus knew that I would choose strawberry ice cream today at 2:30 both in his divine nature and in his human nature, but not from his human nature.

Still doesn’t help you, though. (I mean, like I said – it’s a novel and creative approach! – but it doesn’t get you where you need to be.) If Jesus knew it from his divine nature, then the knowledge is eternal, not time-bound. Therefore, as eternal knowledge, it does not constrain you to any certain action.

(Moreover, you need to change your argument a bit. Jesus isn’t here in the flesh to constrain you today. Your argument would sound a little better if you were claiming that he knew what Mary and Joseph were gonna eat on his 13th birthday. You’d still have the problem of knowledge in eternity and temporal knowledge, but at least the argument would have the appearance of possibly working…)

 

[Gorgias]

God writing His prediction down simply allows the person with the free will to read it and have the choice of disproving God’s omniscience by doing the opposite of what He said would happen.

Right. In other words, paradox.

So, umm… no. God does not do things that run counter to Himself (so, He doesn’t create a rock so big that He can’t lift it, nor does He create a five-sided triangle). Not doing so doesn’t impinge on his omniscience or omnipotence… they simply affirm that He is consistent in His being and nature.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Have you really circled back to this stupid “writing it down” argument again?

I want you to pay really close attention:

God
DOESN’T
do
that

God does not write His predictions down and leave them sitting around for people to read and contradict. You are basing your entire argument on a preposterous hypothetical. This is no different from saying “If clarkgamble created reality out of nothing, that would make him comparable to God.” While yes, technically, my hypothetical is true, it doesn’t actually prove anything, as you are incapable of creating from nothing.

Seriously, drop this argument. It doesn’t prove anything given that God has never acted in a manner consistent with it, and it just shows that you aren’t actually interested in learning anything, given that you refuse to discuss the question in light of the behavior we have observed from God.

Discussing nonsense hypothetical actions is a waste of time for you and everyone else.

---

Gorgias:

God doesn’t create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it because such a thing is logically incoherent. God has absolute power, so it is logically impossible to create something which exceeds the limits of that power. Similarly, He cannot create a five-sided triangle because a five-sided polygon is not a triangle. Having three sides is essential to the ontological nature of a triangle, if something does not have three sides, it cannot be a triangle.

It does not lessen God’s power by saying He cannot do something which is itself outside the realm of rational possibility.

 

[pocaracas]

Seriously, drop this argument. It doesn’t prove anything given that God has never acted in a manner consistent with it, and it just shows that you aren’t actually interested in learning anything, given that you refuse to discuss the question in light of the behavior we have observed from God.

Discussing nonsense hypothetical actions is a waste of time for you and everyone else.

See the bit I bolded?
If there was any observed behavior from any god, there would be no religion.

God doesn’t create a rock so heavy He can’t lift it because such a thing is logically incoherent.

I like to think of it as gravity… if you create a sufficiently large rock, then… what are you lifting it from?.. the puny planet Earth? In that case, you’d be lifting earth from that rock…

I think that whole “paradox” should be rephrased to “Can god create 2 rocks so massive that he can’t keep them apart?”
Of course, as it often is the case with these things, we are mixing two meanings of “can” here.

1. Can create - creation ex-nihilo or just will matter already present in the Universe to be all clumped together? If ex-nihilo, we could be talking about a Universe cudstom made for this purpose?
2. can keep them apart - has the capability to produce enough force to counter the gravitational pull between the two objects. Are we supposing that god actually interacts with the Universe and exerts forces? That makes it a physical entity, within the context of our Universe. Would there be any limitation to the interaction of the divine with the physical realm?

We can speculate all we want about all these and more scenarios, but how to reach the correct answer?

God has absolute power, so it is logically impossible to create something which exceeds the limits of that power.

[just stoking some fires…] So, in the grand scheme of things, god is below logic, huh?

Similarly, He cannot create a five-sided triangle because a five-sided polygon is not a triangle. Having three sides is essential to the ontological nature of a triangle, if something does not have three sides, it cannot be a triangle.

Well… technically… you can draw a 5 sided triangle.
Imagine you’re drawing your triangle, not on a plane, like a sheet of paper, but on a curved surface, like a cube. Two vertexes on opposite sides of the diagonal of the cube’s side and the other along the same edge as one of the other two and, remember, the triangle is drawn on the surface of the cube, not through it.
On the surface of the cube, it would be a triangle… on euclidean space, it would have 5 sides.
[feel free to disagree!]

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If there was any observed behavior from any god, there would be no religion.

How do you possibly arrive at that conclusion? We have observed behaviors from God. That’s where the Jewish and Christian religions came from…

I like to think of it as gravity… if you create a sufficiently large rock, then… what are you lifting it from?.. the puny planet Earth? In that case, you’d be lifting earth from that rock…

Erm… you can think about it that way all you like, but that doesn’t actually make it a rationally coherent question. You cannot create something which exceeds infinity. Therefore, it is impossible to create something which exceeds God’s infinite capacity.

I think that whole “paradox” should be rephrased to “Can god create 2 rocks so massive that he can’t keep them apart?”
Of course, as it often is the case with these things, we are mixing two meanings of “can” here.

…

This being a problem presupposes that God is bound by the laws of gravitational attraction which would draw the two rocks closer together. Given that gravity is another of God’s creations, and subject to His power, He could create rocks of any physical size and they would not be required to move closer to each other.

Even ignoring that, once again, God’s power is infinite, whereas gravity is a finite construct of physical existence. Something finite cannot exceed something infinite, so the question remains logically incoherent.

[just stoking some fires…] So, in the grand scheme of things, god is below logic, huh?

Not below it, but subject to it, yes. God is a rational being, and all rational beings are subject to logic. This isn’t a good way of thinking about it though. Logic and rationality flow from God’s rational nature. They are inherent qualities of His existence, not separate qualities apart from Him. He is subject to them because He cannot violate His own nature.

Well… technically… you can draw a 5 sided triangle.

…

On the surface of the cube, it would be a triangle… on euclidean space, it would have 5 sides.
[feel free to disagree!]

Then this is not a triangle, it’s a euclidean form. It may be seen as a triangle when viewed from the proper angle, but in reality it’s something else entirely. This is like those 3D sculptures where viewing it from one angle makes it look like a bird, while viewing it from another angle makes it look like a dinosaur. In reality, it is neither a bird nor a dinosaur, it is a mess of shapes. It just happens to take on a familiar shape when viewed from a certain angle.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

God does not predict, He knows. Even if He were to write down a set of actions for you to take, and you chose to take the opposite course of actions, that is within the scope of His knowledge.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

If there was any observed behavior from any god, there would be no religion.

How do you possibly arrive at that conclusion? We have observed behaviors from God. That’s where the Jewish and Christian religions came from…

I arrive at that conclusion because, if god was known for real, everyone would know about it and there would be no need for human representatives and human priests and human interpreters of scriptures… and no need for scriptures, let alone old musty ones…
…
So… how about ALL other religions?
Each and every one of those will similarly claim that their gods have observed behaviors…

But actual observed reality presents us all those “observed behaviors” as claimed by people… never actually evidenced.

Erm… you can think about it that way all you like, but that doesn’t actually make it a rationally coherent question. You cannot create something which exceeds infinity. Therefore, it is impossible to create something which exceeds God’s infinite capacity.

In maths, there are infinites that are greater than other infinites. #ℕ < #ℝ.
That means that the number of elements in the set of all natural numbers is lower than the number of elements in the set of all real numbers. And we both know that both of those sets have infinite elements.

Be careful, when you say these things… Infinity is not a number.

Even ignoring that, once again, God’s power is infinite, whereas gravity is a finite construct of physical existence. Something finite cannot exceed something infinite, so the question remains logically incoherent.

Why would gravity be finite?
Are you saying God can’t create two equally infinite rocks that would require infinite force to keep apart?

Not below it, but subject to it, yes. God is a rational being, and all rational beings are subject to logic. This isn’t a good way of thinking about it though. Logic and rationality flow from God’s rational nature. They are inherent qualities of His existence, not separate qualities apart from Him. He is subject to them because He cannot violate His own nature.

I like to see you doing this whole doublethink thing… it’s truly amazing!

Then this is not a triangle, it’s a euclidean form. It may be seen as a triangle when viewed from the proper angle, but in reality it’s something else entirely.

No, I don’t mean when viewed from the proper angle… I mean, on the plane defined as the surface of the cube, a triangle that goes over an edge of that cube is still a triangle, no matter how you look at it. On that surface, it is a triangle. In our 3D euclidean space, however, it can be 5 sided… or even more sided, if you stretch the triangle so that each vertex goes over a different edge of the cube…

 

[AIPM1615]

If there was any observed behavior from any god, there would be no religion.

To be fair, a Nazarene named Jesus claimed to be one with God, and his followers accepted him as such, then spread his message across the world over the next 1900 years. Hence the Catholic religion.

If what you’re trying to say is that “we wouldn’t need religion because God’s observed behavior would be irrefutable empirical evidence, thus accepted at face value,” I understand but disagree.

There are people who seriously believe the world is 6000 years old, even though there are human corpses tens, even hundreds of thousands of years older than that. And that’s just one example. Think of all the people who are wholly convinced that vaccinations are “fake news…”

Humans clearly have a tendency to believe what they like in spite of what others tell them. If, for a moment, we just assume that the Gospel accounts are truthful–countless people rejected, mocked, slandered, then eventually put Jesus to death.

Let’s pretend you were alive in those days.

If a miracle-worker or (apparent) prophet commanded a rotting corpse to “come forth” from its tomb, and the body spontaneously walked out still tied in the burial shroud, would you accept that he was God–or at least question whether he was something more than mere man?

Or what if urns of water suddenly became wine?

Naturally, you would have to ask whether or not it was some kind of trick. That’s not the point I’m making though. If something obviously miraculous happened in front of you, it wouldn’t necessarily make you believe. The Jewish authorities had all of this “observed behavior from God” and then some–but still they rejected it. In light of this, I can think of just two logical conclusions: (1) he wasn’t actually divine (2) humans are sheer idiots.

This is a bit of a deviation from the topic and I do apologize. I’m thinking out loud more than I am directing this at you, Pocaracas. Food for thought, amiright?

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

If there was any observed behavior from any god, there would be no religion.

To be fair, a Nazarene named Jesus claimed to be one with God, and his followers accepted him as such, then spread his message across the world over the next 1900 years. Hence the Catholic religion.

To me, the main problem with the story of the Nazarene is that we can’t discern two very important things that should be discerned:

1. Jesus claimed to be one with God
2. The followers claimed their deceased teacher/mentor/leader/king (I think teacher is the actual title most used in the text, no?) to have claimed to be one with God.

If what you’re trying to say is that “we wouldn’t need religion because God’s observed behavior would be irrefutable empirical evidence, thus accepted at face value,” I understand but disagree.

You said irrefutable… even those conspiracy nuts would have a damned hard time refuting it… I’m thinking along lines kinda like no one refutes gravity, or the existence of the Sun.

Humans clearly have a tendency to believe what they like in spite of what others tell them. If, for a moment, we just assume that the Gospel accounts are truthful–countless people rejected, mocked, slandered, then eventually put Jesus to death.

Let’s pretend you were alive in those days.

If a miracle-worker or (apparent) prophet commanded a rotting corpse to “come forth” from its tomb, and the body spontaneously walked out still tied in the burial shroud, would you accept that he was God–or at least question whether he was something more than mere man?

Indeed, I would.
But, in reality, I have to keep in mind the two options I outlined at the start of this post.

The Jewish authorities had all of this “observed behavior from God” and then some–but still they rejected it. In light of this, I can think of just two logical conclusions: (1) he wasn’t actually divine (2) humans are sheer idiots.

Both of those seem correct to me…

This is a bit of a deviation from the topic and I do apologize. I’m thinking out loud more than I am directing this at you, Pocaracas. Food for thought, amiright?

Keep it coming (as long as the mods don’t mind)!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I arrive at that conclusion because, if god was known for real, everyone would know about it …

You’re ignoring the prospect of free will

So… how about ALL other religions?
…
But actual observed reality presents us all those “observed behaviors” as claimed by people… never actually evidenced.

No evidence, except for Christianity. That’s what you seem to be missing. Christ’s miracles were not private things, they were very public. They were done in front of hundreds of people at a time, as were the miracles of the apostles, as are some modern miracles like the miracle of the sun.

You should really look into the spread of the early Church. The book “Hostile Witnesses” includes many accounts from the first years of Christendom which attest to the public, verifiable nature of the miracles being performed.

In maths, there are infinites that are greater than other infinites. #ℕ < #ℝ.
That means that the number of elements in the set of all natural numbers is lower than the number of elements in the set of all real numbers. And we both know that both of those sets have infinite elements.

Be careful, when you say these things… Infinity is not a number.

I never said that infinite was a number. Infinity in the terms of this discussion is a quality. God’s power is truly infinite, it has no boundaries. We’re not talking about a subset of numbers, we’re discussing the concepts those numbers attempt to explain.

Why would gravity be finite?

Because all evidence suggests that physical existence is finite, and gravity is an aspect of physical existence, meaning that it is also finite.

Are you saying God can’t create two equally infinite rocks that would require infinite force to keep apart?

No, I said that God’s power is infinite, as in boundless. It is rationally incoherent to say that you can create something that is “bigger” than something whose size has no limit.

I like to see you doing this whole doublethink thing… it’s truly amazing!

There’s no double think here. Rationality is an aspect of God’s nature. Rationality exists because God exists. God cannot violate His own nature, therefore God is subject to rationality.

No, I don’t mean when viewed from the proper angle… I mean, on the plane defined as the surface of the cube, …

It still only takes on the shape of a triangle if viewed from a specific angle though, otherwise it takes on another form. This means that it is not actually a triangle.

Perhaps you should draw an illustration of what you’re trying to explain here, because I’m visualizing what you’re describing and my point remains intact.

---

Sorry to get the conversation going and then duck out, but I have to head out for the day, and won’t be able to respond again. I’d be happy to continue this in PM if you’re interested.

 

[pocaracas]

You’re ignoring the prospect of free will

Am I?
Why would I do that?
Haven’t we been seeing that some of us are not convinced that free will is a real thing?

No evidence, except for Christianity. That’s what you seem to be missing. Christ’s miracles were not private things, they were very public.

Yes, very public… Like the story of Thecla that sadly never made it into the canonical gospels…
Even way back in the 300s ac, people didn’t believe this story to be representative of reality… Why should the canonical ones be any more trustworthy? Because those people in the 300s said so? Sorry, that’s not how reality works.

Maybe you should also look into the spread of early Hinduism… or early Islam, or early Jainism, or early Norse…

I never said that infinite was a number. Infinity in the terms of this discussion is a quality. God’s power is truly infinite, it has no boundaries.

Indeed… and what’s wrong with considering that some infinite power is less than another infinite power?

Because all evidence suggests that physical existence is finite

Use your imagination.
God wouldn’t do that on our Universe, as it would wreak havoc everywhere.
Couldn’t he make his own parallel universe for such cool experimentation? Or is that beyond him?

No, I said that God’s power is infinite, as in boundless. It is rationally incoherent to say that you can create something that is “bigger” than something whose size has no limit.

That’s where different degrees of infinite come in, again. See how numbers help?

Can god create an infinite power that is greater than its own infinite power?

I like to see you doing this whole doublethink thing… it’s truly amazing!

There’s no double think here. Rationality is an aspect of God’s nature. Rationality exists because God exists. God cannot violate His own nature, therefore God is subject to rationality.

Truly, truly amazing!

Perhaps you should draw an illustration of what you’re trying to explain here, because I’m visualizing what you’re describing and my point remains intact.

Have you ever made a paper cube?

Draw a triangle anywhere on there so that it crosses one of the future edges of the cube.
When you fold it up, that is still a triangle, on the surface of the cube.
However, in our 3D space, it has become something else.

Sorry to get the conversation going and then duck out, but I have to head out for the day, and won’t be able to respond again.

Yeah, I’m going out, too…so, let’s let others do some talking!

 

[AIPM1615]

To me, the main problem with the story of the Nazarene is that we can’t discern two very important things that should be discerned…

Right, and this opens up a whole different can of worms when it comes to verifying the accounts given of those days. But I would say that the general consensus of all early Christian texts points to belief that Christ is both God and man… hence the outcome of the Nicene Council, where Catholicism triumphed over Arianism and dominated Christian theology for the next 1200 years.

You said irrefutable… even those conspiracy nuts would have a damned hard time refuting it… I’m thinking along lines kinda like no one refutes gravity, or the existence of the Sun.

That’s where the literal “white-bearded old man sitting on a cloud” would come in handy, agreed

But, in reality, I have to keep in mind the two options I outlined at the start of this post.

Of course.

Keep it coming (as long as the mods don’t mind)!

I’d love to, I could talk this stuff all day, but it’s better to get back to the topic at hand. I guess.

 

[AlNg]

If Jesus knew it from his divine nature, then the knowledge is eternal, not time-bound.

But He knew it in his human nature which is somewhat time bound.

 

[AlNg]

God’s power is truly infinite, it has no boundaries.

I think that there are boundaries to the power of God. For example, there is the boundary of logic and the boundary of the principle of non-contradiction. It is impossible for God to make an equilateral triangle with unequal sides.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

If Jesus knew it from his divine nature, then the knowledge is eternal, not time-bound.

But He knew it in his human nature which is somewhat time bound.

The funny thing is that the implication of this argument defeats the “God could write it down, which would allow me to change my act, which proves God isn’t omniscient” meme. If you want to claim that divine knowledge is time bound (in the Incarnation of Jesus), then you have an example in which precisely that situation existed… but in which God’s omniscience wasn’t thwarted.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

That’s not really a boundary though. The inability to do something that is impossible / self contradictory isn’t really a limitation since that “thing / act” that cannot be done is something that doesn’t exist.