Are there any philosophers that deal with the belief in a God and free will? What does /his/ think?
I was thinking today, about God, and it seems to me that if He were omniscient, as He is generally thought to be, then He must have known the complete history of His creation from the moment He said "let there be light." If one knows every single variable affecting an event, as God must given His omniscience, then one can calculate with absolute certainty the outcome of that event. This would mean, then, that from the beginning of time God knew exactly which atoms would go on to create which people, and how each of those people would behave and act given their circumstances and which people would go to Heaven or Hell. How can God be just or loving or good if he created a world where some people were predetermined to go to Hell, where they had no choice to be anything other than what they are because God made them that way? I feel this would be a serious problem for Christianity, or any religion with an omniscient God, and I'm sure there's some theodicy or other that deals with it and would like to learn more on the topic.
I posted it on /lit/ but this philosophy is probably better suited to here
pic unrelated, it's my cat
You can argue that God is just because evil people go to hell even if he created them to be evil. Society does that all the time when puts criminals in prisons even if they care into crime only because they are neglected by society in the first place. God in be loving in some crazy way where he loves you but want to watch you suffer anyway.
>>772263
It was Darrow in the Leopold and Loeb murder case, if my memory serves me correctly, that argued for the societal hard determinism that you're talking about. I'd argue, though, that society influences us in the way we behave and act, that seems obvious enough, but it is possible to go beyond that. Not every person who had the typical childhood of a psychopath, neglectful parents etc etc, becomes a psychopath so that's more of a soft kind of determinism and thus the justice system is justified. When we bring God into the equation, though, he creates us to go to Hell. We can't be anything other than what God creates us, I think is my point, and that makes the existence of evil and evil people a choice that he made. The Irenaean theodicy doesn't really get around this, given that the basis for it is we have free will.
>>772243
It's not a problem for us at all. We're not privy to what God knows, and He's not heavy handed when it comes to our decision making processes.
Just as you cannot surprise God, you cannot disappoint Him, either. And in that truth lies a wealth of peace.
Omniscience makes God just because it determines the ultimate fate of those who are good and evil. It gets complex when people begin to question the reasons good and evil are polar opposites, what makes them good and evil, and more importantly why God is the arbiter of these decisions. I find it interesting when a lot of people say that God is evil because he lets it exist. Evil wouldn't exist without good. So what would be good without evil to extend it? You also have to take into account good people who are ultimately punished and evil people who are ultimately saved. This is why good and evil are morally ambiguous terms in the sense that they don't have inherent definitions, assuming you don't go by the religious ones. It also shows the concept of intention versus action (i.e. someone may do good but have bad intentions). It's just interesting.
>>772324
It is not God's will that anyone goes to hell, but for satan and his rebels, so no. God does not create people just to throw them into hell.
People go to hell for the only sin that wasn't pardoned at the cross.
>>772374
When people encounter actual evil in their life, it turns them to God very quickly.
>>772381
Satan and his rebels was created by God and he perfectly knows how their creation will end for us. By single mean of his omnipotence God directly responsible for anything in his creation.
>>772243
Maybe this God would be able to create true randomness?
>>772243
Christians have been dealing with this issue since antiquity.
Start with
Boethius- The Consolation of Philosophy
Ockham has the best solution imo, though it is fairly complicated.
You can check out
William of Ockham- Predestination, God's Foreknowledge and Future Contingents.
>>772385
Any reliable statistic on this?
>>772409
My mistake,the issue I am thinking of is related, but not quite the same.
>>772243
>I posted it on /lit/ but this philosophy is probably better suited to here
/lit/ is better suited for philosophy, but theology is mostly ignored there because /lit/ seems to know that they devolve into skirmishes, and hence, avoided.
>>772411
Who would study such a thing? No, these are just anecdotes from my decades of caring about such things.
>>772406
It should be possible. Still there is no need for him to created hell or even just suffering in general. It isn't basically a problem of free will that contradict narrative of good God.
>>772424
If there were no suffering, but only joy, then joy would feel neutral.
And less joy would feel like suffering.
Suffering is inevitable.
>>772419
> Who would study such a thing?
Psychologists. Faith is psychological mechanism after all. There should be studies on how it works.
>>772370
I've never had much of an appreciation for the "God is unknowable" approach Aquinas held, because that would then make the Bible a non-propositional revelation which of course has all it's own problems.
>>772374
Evil wouldn't exist without good? Maybe in our understanding of morality, limited as it is, but for God he cannot be limited. He must know what good is without any stipulations as that implies God is limited somehow.
>>772381
This post, this is gibberish.
>>772406
That feels like Descartes, where God can do the logically impossible. True randomness, as science understands it, is logically impossible. It's just a not yet understood pattern.
>>772409
Thanks. I read some on Boethius and the idea of foreknowledge=/=predestination, similar to Monilla I thought, but Ockham I didn't know chimed in on this issue.
>>772441
> God just can't create joy that doesn't depend on suffering to feel good
That is how you know that omnipotent God doesn't exist. Because he should be able to create such kind of joy.
>>772454
> True randomness, as science understands it, is logically impossible.
What? There is nothing logically impossible in true randomness. Not yet understood pattern certainly is more counter scientific because you shouldn't assume that there is pattern if you can't check if there is really any.
>>772472
Okay, fair, could does not have to operate within logic. I accept that. His creation, however, does and clearly the universe in which we live follows the law of randomness being impossible. He could create a random universe, but He didn't.
>>772480
Us humans do not fully understand science AT ALL yet.
We don't know if true randomness exists in our universe.
>>772475
A random event is impossible because once you know the variables affecting it, you know the outcome. If I toss a coin, it is not random. I could measure the weight, air pressure, humidity, force with which it is thrown, wind speeds etc and be able to calculate with exact certainty the outcome. It appears random, but it is not. The same can be applied to any other event.
>>772488
Yes, I suppose so. Though, the idea it's okay to believe in a just God because it is impossible to know with certainty if there is randomness or not and that the burden of proof is on me seems a bit hypocritical. Not satisfactory, though I guess it works. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>>772489
This view directly contradicts quantum mechanics and its results. There is no hidden variable in how quantum systems would evolve. You can't predict results of this evolution either. Ability to do some kind of predictions based on variables is just very popular assumption and nothing more. It isn't the real physical law in any sense.
>>772515
I never said that believing in God is okay. I'm an agnostic myself, and I think that believing in one thing rather than another, when neither can be proved is just plain stupid
I choose to believe in what is proved to me, and I act like there is no God, because I have no reason to believe that there is one.
>>772515
> It is impossible to know with certainty if there is randomness or not
It is impossible to know with certainty if there is some kind of hidden law, variable, pattern, force, etc. That is why both statements aren't viable in scientific view.
>>772537
Agnostic also, I love this stuff because I'm looking for God. I want to believe, even though I can't. I like being proved wrong about these issues. It must be very convenient for people who need only their faith.
>>772454
Who says he doesn't know? We can't impose limitations on God, only discuss them. Let's assume we did know; what would be the point of discussing morality? It would be self-evidently true and no one would dispute what is enjoined in good and forbidden in evil.
>>772620
Suppose that you know all the right answers. Does it means that suddenly you subjective position now is objective one? I don't think so. Next we can go by analogy and say that even omniscient God hold subjective opinions. That logic basically means that what God define as good or evil matters no more that his choice of favorite ice cream. I don't think that even if God prefer chocolate one this flavor somehow would just be objectively better than any other.
>>772649
If I knew the right answers there would be no subjectivity or objectivity, only the truth. The idea of what is subjective and objective is human, not divine. Why does one thing have to be based on influence and feeling while the other have to be represented fact? The truth simply is. Now, what the truth means, of course, is not up to our complete understanding. I don't believe anyone will comprehend the schism of good and evil, but they can try their best to understand it.
>>772676
> The idea of what is subjective and objective is human, not divine.
Idea of what is true or false isn't divine too. God can made true things false and false things true. For human it is true that you will be dead if you are killed. We all seen how true it was for Jesus. Miracles of God transcends mortal categories of truth, laws of physics and so on. Truth is things that we can't change. God can change anything so there is no real truth for divine being like him.
>>772721
You're right, we can't change truth. The same way it's not the spectrum of what is true and false. I'm not comparing a multiple choice test to universal axioms. I'm simply saying the "truth" of the matter is not subjective, objective and cannot be categorized. It simply is. Death is a great example. It's one of the ultimate truths because no one can escape its realization. It doesn't fall under any category, it simply is a facet of life. This is an example of a "truth".
You can argue the nature of your death has limited implications but I'm speaking of the idea of passing. Of course there isn't a "truth" to God, in the same way I mentioned that we can't give him human imperatives. But these imperatives are the only way we can understand him. So to say, for example, "God is the truth" is not wrong even though he is obviously above the truth (semantics). It's the human interpretation of the divine without limiting God's capableness. Right, wrong, true, false are all opinions. But truths are ultimate realities.
>>772243
The fact that God knows our choices doesn't mean we have no choices.
You are terribly missing the whole point.
>>772461
We had 'such kind of joy' before the first men were exiled from the Paradise.
Since then, joy (as in our mortal lives) is merely a break inbetween the times of suffering.
>>772489
You can only say this about the known physical world, which is limited and predictable. God is not limited, nor is he predictable.
He is able to create things that defy our laws of logic.
>>772552
Faith can be only found within yourself. You are a fool if you look for the justification of your faith in the outside world.
>>772957
How do you know that?
>>772974
God is seen as unlimited by every religion.
