Anything God wants he simply commands into existence but do you think he does not have knowledge or need to have knowledge how things work?

He only needs to be omniscient about spiritual stuff; there is nothing to indicate he knows or needs to know scientific stuff. If he can command anything into existence then he does not need to. Did he inspire Darwin to develop the theory of evolution or did he inspire the story of creation? 

Limited knowledge (EG: only spiritual stuff) is NOT "omniscience".

You are trying to make an argument that god is not all-knowing.  
Thus changing the very nature of the Christian god.

God inspired the story writer to say He created the heavens and the Earth but the Law of the Conservation of Energy/matter says matter cannot  be created or destroyed. Didn't God know that?

Scientists also accept that the laws of physics prior to the "big bang"/creation of this universe are unknown.

Then, there's the theory that our reality is actually a computer simulation.

The "Law of the Conservation of Energy/matter" is not a law of the universe. It is an admission of a limit to human knowledge.

Knowledge is a work in progress;  scientific laws may change where evidence is discovered to make necessary changes.

Human knowledge is based on human logic. God is not a god of logic, he is the God of rightness. It is and always has been painfully obvious that rightness trumps logic. For example, human logic proved conclusively that bumblebees couldn't fly, but bumblebees flew anyway. Another example: human logic is unable to achieve fusion without vast amounts of expensive equipment, but nature does it by accident.

Both. You have to consider the language each was written in and the amount of scientific knowledge available. Had Moses said "In the beginning was the singularity, which exploded" the Israelites would have chased him up a tree and set fire to it.

An all powerful being would naturally make itself all knowing as well and all knowing would figure out how to be all powerful.

Maybe God was all knowing about evolution but needed to wait till he thought mankind was ready to grasp and accept the concept before he inspired Darwin to develop the theory of evolution to bring mankind out of the dark ages of ancient mythological beliefs. 

Maybe it was not so much God the inspiration for that but some other to further distance you. Many holes in the theory of evolution explaining Mankind and it was never intended to explain the origin of life. This post was edited by O-uknow at April 10, 2018 7:37 AM MDT

Origin of life is a separate issue apart from evolution.  Evolution will always likely be a scientific theory because there is insufficient material to predict what new events will happen in the process of evolution. 
I know the 'scientists' at Discovery Institute are working their butts off trying to discredit evolution.

The Religious Right powers-that-be are likely well aware that evolution stands up as a valid scientific fact but they prefer 'their people' believing in creation because belief in evolution might turn them into heathen atheists and loss of collection plate donations and their lux lifestyles.  This post was edited by Kittigate at April 10, 2018 7:37 AM MDT

Read this, Don Barzini, and you will understand everything (And then you can explain it to me---lol.)

The theory of predestination post prævisa merita:

This theory defended by the earlier Scholastics (Alexander of Hales, Albertus Magnus), as well as by the majority of the Molinists, and warmly recommended by St. Francis de Sales "as the truer and more attractive opinion", has this as its chief distinction, that it is free from the logical necessity of upholding negative reprobation. It differs from predestination ante prævisa merita in two points: first, it rejects the absolute decree and assumes a hypothetical predestination to glory; secondly, it does not reverse the succession of grace and glory in the two orders of eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This view not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. 2 Timothy 4:8), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita est, apokeitai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "the just judge will render" (reddet, apodosei) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matthew 25:34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matthew 25:41 sq.): "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlasting fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is inflicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversary in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. lxiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriti delectu), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante prædestinavit quam præscivit, sed quorum merita præscivit, eorum præmia prædestinavit" (He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theory here presented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.

Hi Tom. 
As I read this, it is an attempt to explain the Molinist position (that being a theory espoused by a 16th century Jesuit priest named de Molina, which attempts to rationalize the connection of God’s benevolence with the concept of Freewill- I am acquainted with this “theory”) but here gets a bit bogged down in convolution, and lost me entirely in the Latin. 

The Molinist theory goes (maybe I’m oversimplifying) that God allots us freewill (in certain measures) as an opportunity to earn merit toward everlasting happiness. (Brownie points? ;-)  I digress) 

The Greeks called this “conditional predestination”, but doesn’t square with other Bible teachings  i.e., “... all of our righteous efforts are as filthy rags” -Isaiah 64:6; and still calls into question the degree of Gods omni-powers:
Can He pre-know how each and every person will manage his “allotment” of Freewill?
If yes, then Freewill is a myth; if no, omniscience is. 

In theory —and I admit not being a Biblical Scholar to the point this is entirely clear how— it jibes with the concept of God as Judge, which the atheist position challenges as invalid if all human lives are preordained; but valid in principle if TRUE unfettered Freewill exists. If it does, then what of omnipotence? 

My opinion is that the article outlines a tenuous middle ground, that God’s grip on our destiny is not absolute, there is latitude to advance our case in His eyes; but to my understanding, this premise doesn’t clear up the paradox, and smells a whiff of revisionism. 
It does, however, lend itself to the fickle God of Islam- “Allah guides or leads astray whom He wills...”. 


The key excerpt, to me, “He did not predestine before He foreknew, but for those whose merits He foresaw, He predestined the reward”. Hmmm.
Are there, then, those whose merits He did not or could not foresee? By earning sufficient merits, can we change His mind about our fate if He already knows all (is omniscient)? And if He does indeed foreknow, foresee and predestine, is God’s final judgement then superfluous?  

Does this make any sense? I am eager for your thoughts on this...

Regards. 

This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 11, 2018 9:39 AM MDT

Well, done, Don.

And it was intended by me just to point out---as you mentioned---how convoluted such issues can become. 

I remember reading Theology and Sanity by Frank J Sheed.  He addressed (perhaps not intentionally) a quote from the book Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton in which Chesterton said that the people in the insane asylum are the ones who have tried to get the universe inside their heads rather than be content with simply sticking their head inside the universe.  Sheed made suggestions about how become "more comfortable" (my description) with the concept of a triune God.

Someone (perhaps on here) quoted someone (Augustine ?) saying something to the effect that if you think you understand God, you don't.

Thomas Aquinas (who happens to be my patron saint) commented at the end of his life that "everything he had written was as straw"---in the sense that he had received a revelation from God Himself that he had only barely scratched the surface with regard to explaining all the things he wrote about.  I haven't had any obvious visions, but I admit to suspecting the same thing about my theological understanding---a drop in the bucket compared to what really exists in the vast ocean.

We have written a small novel back and forth over the years regarding such questions.  While I do not grow intellectually weary of such discussions, I am old enough to think that I will have the answers soon enough and that I can pursue other interests besides speculating on whether there is life after and whose fault it is if I don't like the answers.   (lol)

As you say, logic would seem to indicate that predestination attacks either omnipotence or omniscience---sort of like you can't have short pants and not have your socks showing.  Personally, I do believe in some sort of "predestination."  Certainly not because it makes all that much sense to me, but because if I accept God's omniscience and omnipotence, then I figure I just haven't put the pieces of the puzzle together yet.  Not unlike DM who prefers not to use God as a "place holder," but just coming from the other direction.

Regards,
Tom


Edit---changed an adjective to a noun This post was edited by tom jackson at April 11, 2018 4:16 PM MDT

Indeed, Tom. A real page-turner too. Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I think it fair to say the number of people who completely understand all of this are too few in number to fill a phone booth, and whether one believes or not, we are more inclined to accept what most closely resonates with our personal standards and the circles we travel in. 

It might be unreasonable to expect believers to grasp every detail of their doctrines, so picking the parts that work for them (I mean, who really gets spiritually motivated by Leviticus?) suffices to steer their beliefs, and provide a base for fellowship. 
Those of us on the heathen side tend less toward the tradition and more toward the analysis, finding dogma inadequate for our taste. 
The key, to me, is to be articulate in whatever position we hold. 

Regards.   Z This post was edited by Don Barzini at April 11, 2018 4:53 PM MDT

I've come to a similar conclusion, Don.  If one things that there is no "God," then analysis of claims to the contrary is the primary tool that must be used---and rightly so in the pursuit of the "destruction" of such claims or arguments.

Once one thinks / believes that there is a God, analysis does not work so well since it is a tool to which we think the supernatural / infinite may not choose to yield.

Chesterton said that he believed in God because of an "elephantine accumulation of small but unanimous facts."  A lack of belief in gods is probably buttressed by similar logical deductions as one proceeds in life.

You and I both continue to divine (defined as to find out through insight, prophecy or intuition---in case someone didn't get my little pun there) the truth.  That in itself is a noble effort.

And a clear statement of our relative positions is probably one of the most useful things we can do.

Always a pleasure to converse with you...

Regards....


This post was edited by tom jackson at April 11, 2018 7:59 PM MDT

"The evangelist spake to the pagan, infidel, idolater, unbeliever, atheist,  skeptic...

When God created the Garden of Eden he made a man from clay. That does not sound very scientific.