“Leave it to God’s plan.�

[Zzyzx]

.
Today I encountered a religious commercial that said, “Leave it to God’s plan.�

What the heck is that advising people to do?

Is ‘whatever happens’ supposed to be ‘God’s plan’?

Does God plan human lives?

[Difflugia]

QUESTION Is there a difference between purposing something to happen and allowing it to happen?

Not for an omnipotent, omniscient being.

In a similar way God guarantees that his purpose for mankind (life in a paradise "house") will happen according to his design and within his time frame. So while he has and will, intervene to ensure his purpose, this does not mean that God has chosen to micro-manage the life and actions of every human on earth while progress is being made. In other words, most of the things that happen on planet earth are not what he wants or desires but what he is ALLOWING while his plans progress.[/list]

Is He incapable of changing the things he doesn't want or desire without bringing about His ultimate plan?

Does the world have exactly the correct number of guinea worm infections to bring about His plan? Or is human suffering beneath God's notice? More to the point of the OP, when God created everything, was it within His power to bring about His plan with a million fewer cases per year? A thousand? One? If it was, then what is the difference between purposing something and allowing it?

[JehovahsWitness]

QUESTION Is there a difference between purposing something to happen and allowing it to happen?

Not for an omnipotent, omniscient being.

Why not. Could you explain why in your opinion, purpose and permission are negated by omnipotence and omniscience?

[JehovahsWitness]

Is He incapable of changing the things he doesn't want or desire without bringing about His ultimate plan?

God is, I believe, omnipotent, thus he is capable of doing anything he wants. The question is whether or not he will choose to do something. Allowing something by definition means one can change it if one chooses. God does not allow suffering and wickedness because He cannot do anything about it (his purpose is not dependent on human suffering; as if that is the only way he can achieve his purpose), God allows suffering and wickedness because it is, given the circumstances the right and wise thing to do.



JW



Further reading: Why does God allow evil and suffering?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... suffering/



RELATED POSTS

Why does God permit suffering?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 277#381277

Does the Edenic rebellion represent a defeat for God?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 395#853395

[Difflugia]

Why not. Could you explain why in your opinion, purpose and permission are negated by omnipotence and omniscience?

God created the initial conditions of the Universe. If He is omniscient and can know the future and omnipotent in a way that His creative power is not limited, then those conditions could have been created to bring about any series of events.

From an omniscient God's perspective, the entire future of the Universe was patterned in the Creation. An omnipotent God had before Him all possibilities and still chose to create one with events that are, as you put it, contrary to His own express will and purpose. If all futures are possible for God and He set things in motion leading to the specific one that is unfolding, all events are the direct result of an active volition on God's part.

One may argue limitations. For example, the Universe may be indeterministic even from God's point of view or God may have had to choose an optimal future from among limited possibilities rather than create the perfect one, but in my opinion those negate omniscience and omnipotence respectively.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by Difflugia]



OMNISCIENCE & SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE

• Can God use his power of foreknowledge selectively?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14#p848314
  
  Does the idea of being selective in the use of his powers negate God being "all knowing" in nature ?
  http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 68#p849068
  
  DID GOD KNOW ADAM AND EVE WOULD SIN?
  [youtube][/youtube]

RELATED POSTS

Is God OMNISCIENT ?
viewtopic.php?p=1075354#p1075354

Is omnipotence AND omniscient even possible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 04#p334604

Were Adam and Eve being tested?
viewtopic.php?p=1092256#p1092256

Would God not have to know everything in order to choose what not to know?
viewtopic.php?p=1052893#p1052893

Is foreknowledge the same as causation?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p850450

Why would and omnipotent God choose to be flexible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 07#p836607

Is SATAN omniscience and omnipresent?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 09#p848009

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

OMNISCIENCE , OMNIPOTENCE and ...SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

Omniscient means "all knowing". Full stop. Either God knows all, or He doesn't. If He chooses to not know things (or "not use" his knowledge, whatever distinction that has), He is no longer omniscient, even if it's just temporary.

In that case, in a technical sense, one could argue that God's immediate actions aren't volitional, but I don't think that absolves God of moral failure. For the same reason that we hold criminals responsible for actions performed while they're drunk, God is at least negligently responsible for the wickedness that He created by virtue of making Himself forget which actions would create the wickedness.

I understand the theological difficulty in claiming that God is either not omniscient or not omnipotent while also recognizing the presence of wickedness. I'm personally theologically OK with God having certain limitations, for what it's worth, but I think your (and apparently Watchtower's) theological position that God is both omniscient and not omniscient really doesn't resolve the issue.

As a thought experiment, let's say that I drive my car into a pedestrian and kill her. Under what circumstances am I morally responsible? For each example, is there a difference, either morally or lingustically, between what I did and what I allowed to happen?

• I see a pedestrian, aim my car for her, and hit the gas.
• I see a pedestrian, take my hands off the wheel, and hit the gas.
• I see a pedestrian, take my hands off the wheel, close my eyes, and hit the gas.
• I closed my eyes three intersections ago so I don't know the pedestrian is in the intersection, take my hands off the wheel, and hit the gas.
• I closed my eyes three intersections ago, still have my eyes closed, and someone pushes a pedestrian in front of my car. If my eyes were open, I would have had enough time to stop, but I don't.
• I'm omniscient and omnipotent, know an infinite number of ways to create cars, pedestrians, places to go, intersections and traffic laws that won't result in anyone dying. I also know that if I forget all of that, that I'm going to create things such that a pedestrian gets killed. I choose to forget all of that anyway, run over the pedestrian, use neither my omniscience nor my omnipotence to prevent her death, and then throw my empty Boone's Farm bottle on the sidewalk so that it shatters next to a toddler as I park sideways across two handicapped spaces.

If none of those analogies fits, can you come up with a better one?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by Difflugia]

Is God responsible for wickedness and suffering?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 24#p967524

[Difflugia]

IS GOD ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SUFFERING IN THE WORLD?

♦ANSWER No, one carries responsibility only for what one does or causes, not for what one legitmately allows.

What do you mean by "legitimately"? Can you contrast some things that God legitimately allows with things that would not be legitimate for God to allow?

How about someone killed by a drunk driver? God allowed Himself to forget that would happen, so I'm guessing that He "legitimately" allowed the death? Does the driver get the same pass because he allowed ("legitimately?") himself to forget how to drive safely and "legitimately" allowed his car to strike a person?

The natural (and spirit) world God created was perfect.

As perfect as possible with the limited knowledge that God allowed Himself to use, you mean? Or do you mean perfect, like containing the maximum amount of righteousness possible?

Humans were perfectly designed, entirely without fault and purposed to pass on that perfect condition to their offspring through their biology. He created both humans and spirits ("angels") as free moral agents capable of determining their own future. This being the case the responsibility for any decisions such ones would make is entirely transferred to each independent being.

Was it impossible for God to create humans and angels that would only make righteous decisions? Not that could only make such decisions, but that had true free will and would be righteous anyway? Did God have the knowledge to do that, but choose not to use it, thus "legitimately" abrogating His responsibility? Or was that simply outside of God's ability to do?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by Difflugia]

Could you explain why you keep refering to God "allowing himself to forget" things?


Thanks



JW

[Difflugia]

[Replying to post 18 by Difflugia]

Could you explain why you keep refering to God "allowing himself to forget" things?

Thanks

JW

You claimed that His omniscience is selective. God has, apparently, all knowledge at His disposal, yet sometimes chooses not to know some of it. If God goes from unlimited knowledge to limited knowledge, then it seems to me that a reasonable anthropomorphism is that He "forgets" some of what He knew.

If you are claiming that God never knew something, then He's not omniscient. As I said, I'm fine with a claim that God isn't omniscient, but my understanding is that beginning with posts 9-10, we are talking about an omniscient and omnipotent God that allows evil and yet isn't a moral monster.