If God knew beforehand why did he go through with it?

[Humanistheart]

1. I'd argue that if it weren't for sin, the world wouldn't have been created in the first place. Nothing would have been created. Creation implies something inferior to an eternal God; something inferior to the desire for an eternal God. "Sin" basically means to desire something aside from God. Therefore, sin is what makes the world, so to speak..

Something inferior to the desire FOR an eternal god, of the desires Of an eternal god?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Something inferior to the desire FOR an eternal god, of the desires Of an eternal god?

Both. I meant to imply both. Sorry if I wasn't very clear.

 

[Humanistheart]

1. I'd argue that if it weren't for sin, the world wouldn't have been created in the first place. Nothing would have been created. Creation implies something inferior to an eternal God; something inferior to the desire for an eternal God. "Sin" basically means to desire something aside from God. Therefore, sin is what makes the world, so to speak..

Interesting idea's, but isn't that contradictory? If to desire something aside from god is a sin, than who is the sinner in this analogy? If creeation is inferior to the desire of an eternal god (as you've clarified) than why did this god create it? Why create if he did not desire to do so? And if that is indeed a sin, then the sin is god's, for desiring something aside from himself.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's interesting, can I ask how you explain this scripture then?

Psalm 139:7-8
"Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

I do believe that no matter were we end up, GOD knows exactly what happens to each of us. And I believe David was aware of this. Obviously, David didn't go to hell...

 

[Humanistheart]

I do believe that no matter were we end up, GOD knows exactly what happens to each of us. And I believe David was aware of this. Obviously, David didn't go to hell...

The psalm doesn't seem to indicate that god would merely know the author was in hell, but would be there as well.

 

[no-body]

As for the Abrahamic God He seems a trifle forgetful and limited when He intervenes in earthly affairs. If we read the story of Moses it's as if God is pantheistic and it takes deep concentration and will for Him to take form onto the earth to affect things, seems like for the most part He sends his angels to do His bidding. Maybe He is limited by certain self imposed rules when dealing with humanity?

 

[Dunemeister]

True, but in order for foreknowledge to be possible, the future must be determined.

No it doesn't have to be. This is one of those old canards that is having a surprising resurgence of popularity nowadays. But it's really not all that compelling as it confuses the direction of dependency of truth and knowledge.

For a moment, leave God out of the picture and consider the truth value of the following sentence:

(A) Barack Obama will receive a second term as President.

Question: Is it possible for this sentence to be true or false? I think it is possible. I don't know its truth value, and at least for me, I won't know its truth value until the fateful day when Americans go to the polls again. But there's a truth of the matter which way Americans will vote. And this truth of the matter doesn't change the fact that the Americans will freely vote this way or that. The way Americans will vote determines whether Obama receives a second term, which in turn determines whether (A) is true. In other words, the free choices of Americans determines the truth of (A); it is not the truth of (A) that determines how Americans will vote.

What changes if we suppose there exists an omniscient deity? Presumably, the deity will know how Americans will vote. But knowledge doesn't CAUSE anything. Knowledge is a RESULT of truth, not a CAUSE of it. Thus there is a way Americans will vote. They will do this freely. The fact that there is a deity that knows which way the vote will turn out does not affect the freedom of the voters.

You might object, if God knows how Americans will vote, there is no way for those Americans to change the way they will vote. I say, that's true, but that's true with or without God. There's a truth value to future propositions. But what MAKES them true is what actually happens. In other words, God's knowledge of (A) is DEPENDENT upon how humans act. God's knowledge doesn't CAUSE human actions, rather human actions cause God's knowledge (of human actions).

In other words, your comment is getting the dependencies exactly backwards. Your comment seems to suggest that knowledge of (A) causes (A) to happen and therefore to be true. But the reverse is actually true. The truth of (A) causes God (or a psychic, say) to know (A).

 

[Paraprakrti]

Interesting idea's, but isn't that contradictory? If to desire something aside from god is a sin, than who is the sinner in this analogy? If creeation is inferior to the desire of an eternal god (as you've clarified) than why did this god create it? Why create if he did not desire to do so? And if that is indeed a sin, then the sin is god's, for desiring something aside from himself.

The question - why did God create? - is what this all boils down to. And I agree that if no plausible answer can be found, what we're left with is a contradiction in our understanding of God. My answer doesn't fall in line with the Abrahamic religions since it involves the eternal existence of fallible souls.

In short, I offer that souls subordinate to God are not created but instead exist eternally. These souls sometimes have inferior desires and those desires are what bring about the facility of creation. Those who believe that God is alone in eternity are unable to reconcile this problem. For them, the answer is that God desires creation for some reason or other. My problem is that I can't find any plausible reason that God would desire such a thing. Sometimes I hear the answer: "God creates out of love for the creation" or "God creates in order to benefit the creation." But, of course, these kinds of answers just beg the question.

So I am left to conclude that creation must involve a desire inferior to God and, consequently, inferior desirers must fundamentally (eternally) exist lest we merely move the problem back a step.

 

[Wandered Off]

Your comment seems to suggest that knowledge of (A) causes (A) to happen and therefore to be true.

I agree that foreknowledge is not the cause. It is an effect of a pre-existent future. In order for foreknowledge to be possible, the future must already exist in some form. That is what hoses free will, not the foreknowledge itself. The fact that some being hypothetically could become aware of it is incidental.

 

[Humanistheart]

The question - why did God create? - is what this all boils down to. And I agree that if no plausible answer can be found, what we're left with is a contradiction in our understanding of God. My answer doesn't fall in line with the Abrahamic religions since it involves the eternal existence of fallible souls.

In short, I offer that souls subordinate to God are not created but instead exist eternally. These souls sometimes have inferior desires and those desires are what bring about the facility of creation. Those who believe that God is alone in eternity are unable to reconcile this problem. For them, the answer is that God desires creation for some reason or other. My problem is that I can't find any plausible reason that God would desire such a thing. Sometimes I hear the answer: "God creates out of love for the creation" or "God creates in order to benefit the creation." But, of course, these kinds of answers just beg the question.

So I am left to conclude that creation must involve a desire inferior to God and, consequently, inferior desirers must fundamentally (eternally) exist lest we merely move the problem back a step.

If souls exist eternally, seperate to this god's existance as you say, why would they be subordinate to this god? Their immortal, their sentient. Is this god just a slave owner then? Also, in what way are these souls 'fallible'? How are you defining this?

 

[Paraprakrti]

If souls exist eternally, seperate to this god's existance as you say, why would they be subordinate to this god? Their immortal, their sentient. Is this god just a slave owner then?

We could say that souls are separate in the sense of being distinct individuals, but there is also a sense in which they are part of God. I am not a creatio ex nihilo-ist, so I don't value this idea that God is entirely separate from what we call creation. I am more or less panentheistic. So just as the energy that underlies creation is ever-existing and part of God, souls are also ever-existing and part of God. There is simultaneously a oneness and a distinction between energy and the Energetic. In Vaisnava religion, this philosophy is called achintya bhedabheda tattva.

I don't see how eternality and sentience suffice as making an entity equal to God in all respects.

Slave owner? I didn't think that slaves had the capacity to wander off based on their desires.

 

[Humanistheart]

We could say that souls are separate in the sense of being distinct individuals, but there is also a sense in which they are part of God. I am not a creatio ex nihilo-ist, so I don't value this idea that God is entirely separate from what we call creation. I am more or less panentheistic. So just as the energy that underlies creation is ever-existing and part of God, souls are also ever-existing and part of God. .

Then, if they are a part of god, rather than god being a part of them, all souls must be god. Just as three parts of a trinity make up god in a mainstream christians mind, then by that same tocken by what you're describing these souls are, in essence, god. So how are their desires seperate from the god?

I don't see how eternality and sentience suffice as making an entity equal to God in all respects. .

All respects? I didn't realize individuals had to be completely equal in abilities to deserve equal treatment. Imagine telling a woman she is subject to a mans desires because she is not equal to him in streangth. I never said in all respects, but if they are eternal why would they need god? If they are intellegent, why should they be under the heel of a god? That makes no sence what so ever.

Slave owner? I didn't think that slaves had the capacity to wander off based on their desires.

You never implied these souls 'wandered off' to create the universe. Is that you're contention now?

 

[Willamena]

Agreed. A forward-limited omniscience is the only type compatible with free will IMO, but that's another topic.

Well, that's nothing I said, but okay.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Then, if they are a part of god, rather than god being a part of them, all souls must be god. Just as three parts of a trinity make up god in a mainstream christians mind, then by that same tocken by what you're describing these souls are, in essence, god. So how are their desires seperate from the god?

Achintya bhedabheda tattva - simultaneous oneness and difference. We are similar to God qualitatively but dissimilar to God quantitatively, similar to the relationship between a drop of ocean water and the ocean itself.

All respects? I didn't realize individuals had to be completely equal in abilities to deserve equal treatment.

I didn't realize we were talking about treatment.

Imagine telling a woman she is subject to a mans desires because she is not equal to him in streangth. I never said in all respects, but if they are eternal why would they need god? If they are intellegent, why should they be under the heel of a god? That makes no sence what so ever.

Your line of questioning assumes that the only need for God would be to begin an individual's existence. I don't see why this would necessarily be the case. The need for God can be just as fundamental to the soul as its own cognitive faculty. Souls could be like eternal fish who are dependent upon the eternal water in which to live. In this case, being eternal doesn't automatically mean that the fish no longer needs water. God is that eternal water. To imply that being eternal alone suffices in not needing God is to imply that eternality alone equates to Godhood. I just don't see a reason to accept that proposition.

You never implied these souls 'wandered off' to create the universe. Is that you're contention now?

I said that creation arises out of the desire of fallible beings, which is basically the same thing. The fact that souls have the choice of seeking enjoyment apart from God defies your accusation of them being slaves.

 

[cottage]

No, they were bound to fail because that was the nature of the case. And there is a difference between "express" will and "permissive" will. Allowing something to happen is not the same as mandating it or determining it to happen. If I let my son play hockey and he gets hurt, I have permitted the injury. It doesn't follow that I wanted my son to get injured or that I think his injury is something to be desired. (It's also inevitable for hockey players that they get hurt eventually.)

No, the difference is that you couldn't be expected to know your son would be injured playing hockey, whereas God knew in the smallest detail exactly what would occur in the case of Adam and Eve. If it is the nature of God is that he has no contradictions, and evil is an anathema to him, then the Fall is a logical impossibility.

 

[Humanistheart]

[quote=Paraprakrti;1838171]Achintya bhedabheda tattva - simultaneous oneness and difference..[/quote]

I do not know what your are trying to say here.

We are similar to God qualitatively but dissimilar to God quantitatively, similar to the relationship between a drop of ocean water and the ocean itself. .

A drop of ocean water is part of the ocean. This did nothing to challenge my previous comment.

I didn't realize we were talking about treatment. .

"In short, I offer that souls subordinate to God are not created but instead exist eternally. These souls sometimes have inferior desires and those desires are what bring about the facility of creation."

If these souls are subordinate to god that gives us a clue as to their treatment. They are not treated as equals.

Your line of questioning assumes that the only need for God would be to begin an individual's existence. I don't see why this would necessarily be the case. The need for God can be just as fundamental to the soul as its own cognitive faculty. .

No, it does not. Your idea was that the souls were eternal just like god, I was working on that premise with you, so the idea that the souls needed a god to start their existence was not, in any way, implied by me.

Souls could be like eternal fish who are dependent upon the eternal water in which to live. .

You just said souls were a drop of ocean water. Which is it? Are we fish or ocean drops?

In this case, being eternal doesn't automatically mean that the fish no longer needs water. .

It means they would not need water to survive.

God is that eternal water. To imply that being eternal alone suffices in not needing God is to imply that eternality alone equates to Godhood. I just don't see a reason to accept that proposition. .

But you offer no reason to accept your proposition, while talking about one that I in fact never made, and contradicting yourself throughout your response.

I said that creation arises out of the desire of beings with inferior desires, which is basically the same thing. The fact that souls have the choice of seeking enjoyment apart from God defies your accusation of them being slaves.

The choice? Well first of all, clarify, are you or are you not saying that the souls of mankind created the universe as your posts suggest? Second of all, when did it become a choice to exist in this world? I certainly don't recall being asked or deciding to, and would certainly rather not exist than exist if I had the option. And how do you define inferior? I refer you back to the man stronger than women example. Not to mention that humans seem to have several superior aspects to most gods, particularly the horrid abrahamic version. And finally, in what possible way can these independent souls seeking their own joy apart from this god be considered a bad thing as you imply?

 

[Paraprakrti]

[quote=Paraprakrti;1838171]Achintya bhedabheda tattva - simultaneous oneness and difference..

I do not know what your are trying to say here.[/quote]

I said it. Qualitative oneness, quantitative difference.

A drop of ocean water is part of the ocean. This did nothing to challenge my previous comment.

Then your previous comment did nothing to challenge my position. In my analogy, the drop of ocean water is distinct from the ocean. If you want, we can say that the drop is resting on something beyond the ocean's surface. This causes a sense of distinction, but there remains similarity in quality.

"In short, I offer that souls subordinate to God are not created but instead exist eternally. These souls sometimes have inferior desires and those desires are what bring about the facility of creation."

If these souls are subordinate to god that gives us a clue as to their treatment. They are not treated as equals.

They are subordinate to God by constitution. I still don't see what treatment has to do with anything.

No, it does not. Your idea was that the souls were eternal just like god, I was working on that premise with you, so the idea that the souls needed a god to start their existence was not, in any way, implied by me.

Then where is your argument? When you ask why God is needed if souls are eternal, how can this NOT imply that the necessity of God relies entirely on whether souls are created or eternal?

You just said souls were a drop of ocean water. Which is it? Are we fish or ocean drops?

I didn't know I was limited to one analogy. Is this a game we're supposed to be playing?

It means they would not need water to survive.

Sure. But in this case, their existence is contingent upon the eternal water. The two - eternal fish and eternal water - are inseparable items in eternity. They go hand-in-hand, necessarily. That is what I am saying. For the soul, deovtional activities toward God constitute one's eternal occupation. Survival obviously has nothing to do with it.

But you offer no reason to accept your proposition, while talking about one that I in fact never made, and contradicting yourself throughout your response.

Once again, there is no other way to interpret your argument. I simply put two and two together and got four. Your idea that God is not needed arose from my proposition that souls are eternal. If there is no connection between these two things, then are you admitting to just randomly saying things for no reason? And I have not contradicted myself even once. There is every reason to accept my proposition as it provides an answer to the questions in this thread.

The choice? Well first of all, clarify, are you or are you not saying that the souls of mankind created the universe as your posts suggest?

I am not limiting souls to a "mankind," for one, but that is beside the point. And I am not saying that these desires themselves create the universe. I am saying that these desires are the reason the universe is created. In other words, God creates the universe in order for the conditioned souls to try and fulfill those desires. And that, if it weren't for such desires, God wouldn't have created at all.

Second of all, when did it become a choice to exist in this world? I certainly don't recall being asked or deciding to, and would certainly rather not exist than exist if I had the option. And how do you define inferior?

I doubt it was as direct as: "Do you want to exist in creation?" It is our desires to act and enjoy disconnected from God that constitute creation. That is what I am saying. Basically, I just mean "inferior" in that we are not in control. God is, by definition, the controller. We are dependent upon God.

I refer you back to the man stronger than women example. Not to mention that humans seem to have several superior aspects to most gods, particularly the horrid abrahamic version. And finally, in what possible way can these independent souls seeking their own joy apart from this god be considered a bad thing as you imply?

I don't see how your man being stronger than women example has application here. I am not speaking of any sort of "might makes right" contingency. God doesn't just happen to be the one in control. God is the root of all existence. That is part of what it means to be God. This is an existential consideration. God is the entity to whom all else is related and dependent. This tends to be axiomatic for theism, especially as is implied by this thread.

I am not necessarily making any personal judgment call on whether seeking enjoyment apart from God or not is good or bad. I am simply attempting to explain the philosophy, which states that we are in our natural position when in direct connection with God and, therefore, in illusion when acting in ignorance of that connection.

 

[Riverwolf]

No, you were right the first time Riverwolf;

Revelation 22:16
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Vulgate: ego Iesus misi angelum meum testificari vobis haec in ecclesiis ego sum radix et genus Davidstella splendida et matutina

No Lucifer there.

 

[Riverwolf]

Eveything is because GOD exists, but that doesn't mean that GOD created everything.

If God didn't directly create it, he indirectly created it.

BTW, the Bible itself says that God created evil:

The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these. (Isaiah 45:7 NASB)

 

[Riverwolf]

The question - why did God create? - is what this all boils down to. And I agree that if no plausible answer can be found, what we're left with is a contradiction in our understanding of God. My answer doesn't fall in line with the Abrahamic religions since it involves the eternal existence of fallible souls.

In short, I offer that souls subordinate to God are not created but instead exist eternally. These souls sometimes have inferior desires and those desires are what bring about the facility of creation. Those who believe that God is alone in eternity are unable to reconcile this problem. For them, the answer is that God desires creation for some reason or other. My problem is that I can't find any plausible reason that God would desire such a thing. Sometimes I hear the answer: "God creates out of love for the creation" or "God creates in order to benefit the creation." But, of course, these kinds of answers just beg the question.

So I am left to conclude that creation must involve a desire inferior to God and, consequently, inferior desirers must fundamentally (eternally) exist lest we merely move the problem back a step.

I believe that, in Truth, God is One eternally, but when it comes to the question of why create, I don't come up with reasons. I just say: "I don't know."