What if 'God' simply wants to experience everything?

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Punisher75
luthier

I've read it when studying Aquinas. It is a retraction after loosing debates and thinking through the problem since Jesuits were the educators they needed to come up with a solution to the problem. It's not a good arguement.

Whats the fatal flaw in the argument to your way of thinking?

Is God a perfect being?

If so how can he have imperfect knowledge?

I don't think you understand middle knowledge.

It is best characterized as God's prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom.

Sure I do. It's imperfect knowledge. A very smart priest came up with a solution 700 years later because their was a resurgence of classical philosophy at the time. He used a term from the Greeks. I don't buy it. You do that's OK. We can disagree.

akushla99

No? Perhaps you could explain to me how this response addresses the question I asked you?

My Question...

ATS is full of strange theology, I don't know yours, so can you be a bit more specific?

your answer...

The little golden book of inconsistency, brought to you by generations of the vagaries of the human brain to comprehend very simple ideas...

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: Profusion

Why does "God" allow bad things to happen to good people?
Why does "God" allow allow so much suffering?
Why does "God" allow so much disease?
Why did "God" create such a "dog eat dog" world?

Let's reword this...

Why does "Mom & Dad" allow bad things to happen to good children?
Why does "Mom & Dad" allow allow so much suffering for their kids?
Why does "Mom & Dad" allow so much disease to infect their sons and daughters?
Why did "Mom & Dad" create such a "dog eat dog" world?

We have the means at our disposal to avoid bad things happening to anyone. We today have the technology to prevent horrid diseases, to live in a world that is not dog eat dog.

But, we choose other paths... which is exactly what a child does when angry at life; blame other kids, blame teachers, blame Mom & Dad, blame anyone else. Anyone at all.

At this point, it becomes more than obvious that the human species has no wish to assign blame upon itself. For anything at all.

I think many people do blame themselves and it manifests in ways such as hopelessness, low self esteem, fear, addictions, destructive behavior such as suicide and getting involved in groups or with a person that is essentially destructive while at it's surface is protective. Many people who do blame themselves for things, rightful blame or not, when seeking help from others such as professionals or friends, are told to stop blaming themselves and coaxed to move on. They need constant reminding to not live in the past and begin a day brand new with a positive outlook. Self loathing is more prevailant than what people think.

I agree we do have the resources to stop bad things happening to other people such as ending homelessness and ending cancer to name a few, but don't have the correct attitude to do that. The attitude isn't just with the wealthy, its likely more prevailant in those who've gained a measure of a tangible life sustaining need but who had to suffer to achieve it. Examples of this would be free housing and college where many against these would say that would be unfair to them because of all the years they had to suffer enduring and working in a dog eat dog system that is difficult to navigate. So basically what we have are millions of people purposefully resisting change to make life easier and a fuller experience for all because they had to suffer they feel so should others. Which that attitude is projecting a suffering that doesn't lead to a reward for having done so because of the continual increase in the cost of living, stagnant and/or low wages and excluding people from participating in the workforce as seen in the billions of resumes and applications sent to employers that are denied or not even looked at. If the aformentioned isn't secured due to it being more of a game of chance rather than having gained something because you did what was right or looked for an avenue to do what is right but it is closed off, then that is unnecessary suffering. Making life a game of chance to establish basic human needs in otherwise normal and healthy people is a feral attitude which that in itself is destructive and brings in more crime, war and abuse. People say they want that to cease but don't make the connection they are tied into that with projecting and manifesting suffering towards others.
In regards to the OP, I like the theory and think it is meaningful. I would add that we are at a time where God has experienced the same suffering for hundreds of thousands of years and is looking for a way to move on out from that to which that would mean a total mind bending in reconditioning human minds so they can look favorably on themselves and others and stop projecting suffering onto others even knowing they hated enduring it themselves.

luthier

Sure I do. It's imperfect knowledge. A very smart priest came up with a solution 700 years later because their was a resurgence of classical philosophy at the time. He used a term from the Greeks. I don't buy it. You do that's OK. We can disagree.

No it is perfect knowledge. As a matter of fact it is so perfect that it includes knowledge of all potential possibilities.

Molinists believe that God does not only have knowledge of necessary truths and contingent truths but that God's middle knowledge contains, but is not limited to, His knowledge of counterfactuals. A counterfactual is a statement of the form "if it were the case that P, it would be the case that Q". An example would be, "If Bob were in Tahiti he would freely choose to go swimming instead of sunbathing." The Molinist claims that even if Bob is never in Tahiti, God can still know whether Bob would go swimming or sunbathing. The Molinist believes that God, using his middle knowledge and foreknowledge, surveyed all possible worlds and then actualized a particular one. God's middle knowledge of counterfactuals would play an integral part in this "choosing" of a particular world.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Punisher75

Oh boy. Both your links have the arguements against to this situation. Read them I find them convincing.

Why don't you explain to me though how middle knowledge works in your words.

Otherwise we are just going to be clicking and pasting the arguements that were done over 300 years ago.

originally posted by: Punisher75
akushla99

No? Perhaps you could explain to me how this response addresses the question I asked you?

My Question...

ATS is full of strange theology, I don't know yours, so can you be a bit more specific?

your answer...

The little golden book of inconsistency, brought to you by generations of the vagaries of the human brain to comprehend very simple ideas...

What will my 'theology' give you, outside of a point of reference to argue against?

I have asked the question, in relation to no theology in particular...'Why is the OP question posited as a 'theory' when all cosmologies share the same fundamental understanding? (Give or take invention or second-guessing).

That's a fairly broad question that needs no insult. If I prefer to refer to the bible as a blockbuster or the little golden book (remember those?) I could quite easily do the same for the koran...nevertheless, what I've said about the similarities of all cosmology is evident.

Å99

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Punisher75

Oh boy. Both your links have the arguements against to this situation. Read them I find them convincing.

Why don't you explain to me though how middle knowledge works in your words.

Otherwise we are just going to be clicking and pasting the arguements that were done over 300 years ago.

In brief God knows all possibilities both factual and counter factual.
In effect he knows what is Objectively true in the reality that we dwell and all the consequences therein and he knows all of the things that would be true and their consequences in a hypothetical reality.

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Punisher75

Oh boy. Both your links have the arguements against to this situation. Read them I find them convincing.

Why don't you explain to me though how middle knowledge works in your words.

Otherwise we are just going to be clicking and pasting the arguements that were done over 300 years ago.

In brief God knows all possibilities both factual and counter factual.
In effect he knows what is Objectively true in the reality that we dwell and all the consequences therein and he knows all of the things that would be true and their consequences in a hypothetical reality.

Of course IT does...because IT is all there is to know...

That's called a truism by any other name.


Å99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Punisher75

Oh boy. Both your links have the arguements against to this situation. Read them I find them convincing.

Why don't you explain to me though how middle knowledge works in your words.

Otherwise we are just going to be clicking and pasting the arguements that were done over 300 years ago.

In brief God knows all possibilities both factual and counter factual.
In effect he knows what is Objectively true in the reality that we dwell and all the consequences therein and he knows all of the things that would be true and their consequences in a hypothetical reality.

Of course IT does...because IT is all there is to know...

That's called a truism by any other name.


Å99

Sounds like pantheism.

akushla99

What will my 'theology' give you, outside of a point of reference to argue against?

An avenue for me to respond to this statement;

The fatal flaw of christianity, in general, is that the word Almighty is bandied around as if they really believed it, but credit a fictitious created being with the capacity to challenge its creator...

I asked Which being did God create that could challenge Gods sovereignty.
Then you responded with,

If you've read the final chapter of the blockbuster, you'll know what fictitious being I've mentioned.

And so I asked you to be more specific because of the breath of theologies on ATS. I think you would agree that not everyone is reading the Bible in the same way?
If your goal is not to have a back and forth conversation there is no need to continue, ATS is full of people who just kinda want to get their thoughts out on paper as it were. There is nothing wrong with that I would think it would be a good way to vent.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Punisher75

Oh boy. Both your links have the arguements against to this situation. Read them I find them convincing.

Why don't you explain to me though how middle knowledge works in your words.

Otherwise we are just going to be clicking and pasting the arguements that were done over 300 years ago.

In brief God knows all possibilities both factual and counter factual.
In effect he knows what is Objectively true in the reality that we dwell and all the consequences therein and he knows all of the things that would be true and their consequences in a hypothetical reality.

Of course IT does...because IT is all there is to know...

That's called a truism by any other name.


Å99

Sounds like pantheism.

What sounds like pantheism?

Å99

originally posted by: Punisher75
akushla99

What will my 'theology' give you, outside of a point of reference to argue against?

An avenue for me to respond to this statement;

The fatal flaw of christianity, in general, is that the word Almighty is bandied around as if they really believed it, but credit a fictitious created being with the capacity to challenge its creator...

I asked Which being did God create that could challenge Gods sovereignty.
Then you responded with,

If you've read the final chapter of the blockbuster, you'll know what fictitious being I've mentioned.

And so I asked you to be more specific because of the breath of theologies on ATS. I think you would agree that not everyone is reading the Bible in the same way?
If your goal is not to have a back and forth conversation there is no need to continue, ATS is full of people who just kinda want to get their thoughts out on paper as it were. There is nothing wrong with that I would think it would be a good way to vent.

...or perhaps preach...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

What sounds like pantheism?

Your theology sounds like pantheism.

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75
akushla99

What will my 'theology' give you, outside of a point of reference to argue against?

An avenue for me to respond to this statement;

The fatal flaw of christianity, in general, is that the word Almighty is bandied around as if they really believed it, but credit a fictitious created being with the capacity to challenge its creator...

I asked Which being did God create that could challenge Gods sovereignty.
Then you responded with,

If you've read the final chapter of the blockbuster, you'll know what fictitious being I've mentioned.

And so I asked you to be more specific because of the breath of theologies on ATS. I think you would agree that not everyone is reading the Bible in the same way?
If your goal is not to have a back and forth conversation there is no need to continue, ATS is full of people who just kinda want to get their thoughts out on paper as it were. There is nothing wrong with that I would think it would be a good way to vent.

...or perhaps preach...

Å99

No discuss.

Double Post

a reply to: Punisher75

...and if folk are only reading the bible, they are kidding themselves...

Å99

originally posted by: akushla99
a reply to: Punisher75

...and if folk are only reading the bible, they are kidding themselves...

Å99

Can I ask what the deal is? Why are you continuously taking jabs at me for being Christian? Have I done something to offend you?

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: akushla99

What sounds like pantheism?

Your theology sounds like pantheism.

How the fleck did you get from me saying 'all cosmologies share the same basic understanding' to my theology sounds like pNtheism?...remembet, I also did mention the capacity for the human brain to invent...

Å99

I DO suspect this is true... partly.

I don't believe in an entity- deity God, but perhaps feel more of a general consciousness, like "the Force" or something, that seeks only experience.... experience of any and every kind.
I feel such a spark in me, so I guess it is easy to just imagine that further, endless, in everything....

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Punisher75
a reply to: akushla99

What sounds like pantheism?

Your theology sounds like pantheism.

How the fleck did you get from me saying 'all cosmologies share the same basic understanding' to my theology sounds like pNtheism?...remembet, I also did mention the capacity for the human brain to invent...

Å99

Because you said,

Of course IT does...because IT is all there is to know...

And the definition of Pantheism is...

Pantheism is the belief that the Universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god./quote]