Can God be philosophically compatible with free will?

[quaestio45]

No worries… it’s an interesting discussion!

I very much agree! As much as it may seem I haven’t given much of an inch so far in this exchange of thoughts, I actually did end up being enlightened to a couple of things which are of great importance. So I have very much changed a couple of my positions as a result.

Note that you just changed perspective: from God’s essence to human conception of God …!

Yes indeed, but I don’t exactly think thats a bad thing. We must have a conception of what it means for God to have his essence fully explained by his existence, otherwise such a statement would be meaningless. And we must have a conception of what it is to betray the concept of fully explained existence by essence. And, very importantly, we must have an idea of what it means for a Christian to say “God didn’t have to create this world or any world at all” in order for us to see if it is in alignment with our previous two conceptions, wouldn’t you agree? Or, perhaps am I misunderstanding you?

It’s unreal – as it “not actualized reality.” It’s merely a human construct.

Therefore, I don’t know that we’d categorize it as “valid” or “invalid”. It’s merely a hypothetical idea in the mind of humans. Doesn’t touch upon God at all, wouldn’t you say?

Maybe it doesn’t actually touch upon God, but I do believe it touches upon the concepts we hold of God, and sees if they have any ultimate coherence to them.

It’s merely a counter-factual: “If God’s nature were different, then the universe might be otherwise (or not at all).” But, God’s nature is not different, and therefore it holds.

Intuitively, it seems to me to be akin to truth tables:

X	Y	X → Y
T	T	T
T	F	F
F	T	T
F	F	T

So… if the premise “if God’s existence were different” is false (and it is!), then the implication itself is true (or, in your words, “valid”), even if the conclusion does not follow. Simple logic.

I’m a little confused to be frank Gorgias. Correct me if I’m wrong, but are what you trying to say is that I’m entertaining a clearly wrong premise (that being the mutability of God)? If that be so, you’re mistaken. What I am saying is that it holding the idea that God can’t change (p1) and that God can act differently (p2) leads to the a reductio ad absurdum (conclusion: that God must be able to change in order to act differently).

 

[Gorgias]

Yes indeed, but I don’t exactly think thats a bad thing.

The thing is… it’s a different thing. So, when you start with X, and then switch over to Y, it’s necessary to account for the difference in the frames of reference. So, if you can’t account for something in your frame of reference (“Y”, let’s say), that doesn’t imply that there’s something wrong or missing in another frame of reference (“X”)!

We must have a conception of what it means for God to have his essence fully explained by his existence, otherwise such a statement would be meaningless.

“Somewhat mysterious”, I’d say, but not “meaningless.” As Christians, we would say that we cannot fully understand God’s nature. We can approach it, we can come close at times to it… but there’s no such thing as possessing a “full understanding of God’s nature” outside of the Trinity itself!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but are what you trying to say is that I’m entertaining a clearly wrong premise (that being the mutability of God)?

No – “immutability of God” is something we agree on. You asserted “if God’s existence were different” – that’s the false premise! And, since God’s existence isn’t different than it is, then the inference “if God’s existence were different than it is, then the universe would be different” is true, regardless of the truth value of the clause “then the universe would be different.”

What I am saying is that it holding the idea that God can’t change (p1) and that God can act differently (p2) leads to the a reductio ad absurdum (conclusion: that God must be able to change in order to act differently).

Hang on, though. “God is immutable” and “God changes His act” are in conflict. Why does that bother you? We really would say that “if God is immutable then God changes his nature” is false! Not a reductio, mind you… just straight up false…!

But… we seem to be at odds in the way that we look at this: you seem to be coming from the perspective that “if God is immutable, then He’s constrained”, while I’m coming from the perspective that “if God is immutable (and perfect), then He will not act in a way that is less perfect than His will.” In other words, His lack of an “otherwise” (and imperfect) action isn’t a limitation on His part – it’s part of His perfect will!

So, I’m not seeing why that’s a problem, much less a reductio!

 

[STT]

No… you merely asserted it.

There is something which doesn’t make decision and is not conscious yet it causes. Do you call such a thing God?

But God is ‘conscious’…!

What is the use of consciousness if there is no need for decision. A force also can cause without any need for consciousness.

So… prove it! You can’t just say “well… it’s feasible , ya know!” as proof!

You don’t need to prove a feasible scenario.

 

[Gorgias]

There is something which doesn’t make decision and is not conscious yet it causes. Do you call such a thing God?

You’re the one asserting “no consciousness”. Sorry… I’m not buying what you’re selling, especially since you have no substantiation for your claim.

What is the use of consciousness if there is no need for decision.

The raison d’etre of consciousness is not “the need for a decision”. Your consciousness is part of your nature, whether or not you use it to make decisions.

You don’t need to prove a feasible scenario.

OK: let’s suppose that I say it’s feasible that you have no clue what you’re talking about. Do you accept that scenario, or might you demand I prove my ‘feasible scenario’?

 

[STT]

The raison d’etre of consciousness is not “the need for a decision”.

What is the use of raison d’etre when a force can simple create?

OK: let’s suppose that I say it’s feasible that you have no clue what you’re talking about. Do you accept that scenario, or might you demand I prove my ‘feasible scenario’?

I already prove that God needs time in order to sustain and create time. Both case leads to regress so your scenario of God created the universe and sustain it is out of question. It is simply false.

 

[Gorgias]

What is the use of raison d’etre when a force can simple create?

Ahh, but you haven’t shown that mere forces can create ex nihilo !!

I already prove that God needs time in order to sustain and create time. Both case leads to regress so your scenario of God created the universe and sustain it is out of question.

You actually haven’t. You’ve made some bald assertions, and have been unable to respond successfully to challenges to your assertions, but nevertheless continue to suggest that you’ve “proven” your ideas.

 

[STT]

Ahh, but you haven’t shown that mere forces can create ex nihilo !!

It is shown if you answer to my question.

 

[quaestio45]

The thing is… it’s a different thing . So, when you start with X , and then switch over to Y , it’s necessary to account for the difference in the frames of reference. So, if you can’t account for something in your frame of reference (“Y”, let’s say), that doesn’t imply that there’s something wrong or missing in another frame of reference (“X”)!

Hmmm… that is true… and what you’re saying, if I’m not wrong, is that my switch from reality to conception can be viewed as flawed on this basis? But, is not even the reality evaluated under conceptions too? So if you go from a conception of reality and add it with a truth claim, although the final product is also a conception (even if one not reflecting our current reality), it doesn’t seem to be something which should be put into question for that reason, right?

“Somewhat mysterious”, I’d say, but not “meaningless.” As Christians, we would say that we cannot fully understand God’s nature. We can approach it, we can come close at times to it… but there’s no such thing as possessing a “full understanding of God’s nature” outside of the Trinity itself!

In terms of our understanding of it, it would be meaningless. The same way that purely equivcol interpretation of God description is ultimately meaningless.

Hang on, though. “God is immutable” and “God changes His act” are in conflict. Why does that bother you? We really would say that “if God is immutable then God changes his nature” is false! Not a reductio, mind you… just straight up false …!

So God can’t change his act? As in, there was never a way for him not to create?

But… we seem to be at odds in the way that we look at this: you seem to be coming from the perspective that “if God is immutable, then He’s constrained”, while I’m coming from the perspective that “if God is immutable (and perfect), then He will not act in a way that is less perfect than His will.” In other words, His lack of an “otherwise” (and imperfect) action isn’t a limitation on His part – it’s part of His perfect will!

So are we ultimately saying the same thing but in different ways? Which is that in no universe would God ever be different or act different or effect different then the way he does in our reality?

 

[Gorgias]

It is shown if you answer to my question.

Which question?

Hmmm… that is true… and what you’re saying, if I’m not wrong, is that my switch from reality to conception can be viewed as flawed on this basis?

I wouldn’t say “flawed”, so much as “the unrecognized and unaddressed context switch leads to invalid conclusions”.

So if you go from a conception of reality and add it with a truth claim, although the final product is also a conception (even if one not reflecting our current reality), it doesn’t seem to be something which should be put into question for that reason, right?

I’m having a hard time synthesizing the phrases “even if [it’s a conception] not reflecting reality” with “it shouldn’t be something which should be put into question for that reason”.

If a counterfactual proposition is leading you to seeming contradiction… by all means, abandon it and search another approach!

In terms of our understanding of it, it would be meaningless. The same way that purely equivcol interpretation of God description is ultimately meaningless.

Not ‘meaningless’; just “not fully solving the mystery.”

So God can’t change his act? As in, there was never a way for him not to create?

You’re getting in trouble with tenses again, I’m afraid. Are you now asking whether God could “undo creation” and do it differently a second time?

Which is that in no universe would God ever be different or act different or effect different then the way he does in our reality?

If He did, then one would be more perfect than the other, right? So… are you saying that God makes mistakes or acts imperfectly? (That’s the problem with your construction – it sets up a paradox in which one of the alternatives doesn’t perfectly actualize God’s will.)

 

[quaestio45]

If He did, then one would be more perfect than the other, right? So… are you saying that God makes mistakes or acts imperfectly? (That’s the problem with your construction – it sets up a paradox in which one of the alternatives doesn’t perfectly actualize God’s will.)

I don’t think that God would be any less perfect if he didn’t create, because the world adds nothing to him (in the same way that adding any number to infinity does nothing to infinity; its the same before and after the adding of the number). If that be so, I don’t think there would be a paradox here. The question is, how could God be the exact same (no more or less perfect in his being) were he to not create then were he to create? Not a question of whether he could be imperfect.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think that God would be any less perfect if he didn’t create, because the world adds nothing to him (in the same way that adding any number to infinity does nothing to infinity; its the same before and after the adding of the number).

If it’s God’s will to create, then perfection is found in Him doing His will. Therefore, if it’s His will to create, and He does not create, then His act is not perfectly aligned to His will.

Your thought experiment still comes down to the paradox of God’s will being alternately one way or the other. That can’t be the case.

The question is, how could God be the exact same (no more or less perfect in his being) were he to not create then were he to create?

The two don’t work; they’re mutually exclusive. It’s like me asking how you could simultaneously be a father and not be a father (in the same sense). Just doesn’t work that way.

 

[Richca]

I’m on my iPhone this week so I’m not going to write much, I’m slow on it. Some quick thoughts. God is Being or Existence itself. He possesses the fullness of being in an infinite degree in himself. In every change some new being, either substantial or accidental, begins to exist anew. Being cannot be added to God who possesses being in its fullness. Change is not possible in God nor can he ever exist in a way differently, that is change, than he has eternally existed.

 

[quaestio45]

I’m on my iPhone this week so I’m not going to write much, I’m slow on it. Some quick thoughts. God is Being or Existence itself. He possesses the fullness of being in an infinite degree in himself. In every change some new being, either substantial or accidental, begins to exist anew. Being cannot be added to God who possesses being in its fullness. Change is not possible in God nor can he ever exist in a way differently, that is change, than he has eternally existed.

Right, I completely agree. Now the question is, is his act of creation a part of his being (or, simply is his being)? If it is, then we should be able to say that God cannot be seperated from the act of creation because God must always be the same in every possible conception we have of him. If we have the conception of God not needing creation, and therefore could’ve been complete without creation, then that means we can conceive of a reality in which God doesn’t create. However, if the act of his creation is a part of his immutable being, and God must always be the exact same across all conceivable realities to be in alignment with the God of actus purus, then the God we concieve cannot be compatible with the idea of noncreation because he’d be lacking the act of creation necessary to the being of God.

 

[Richca]

God is complete in himself with or without creation. Nothing accrues to him from creation, the benefit of existence rests upon the creatures. Although the act of creating is from God, creation is about the coming to be or existence of things other than God who didn’t exist before.

 

[quaestio45]

Well, as unfortunate as it may be, it seems that we’ve all come to an impasse. For it seems to me that it is contradictory to hold both the views that God is actus purus (and that his essence perfectly describes his existence) and that God can somehow be one that may have never created at all on the basis of conscious decision (not in the temporal sense, of course, but in any eternal sense).

This is because, as I’ve argued before, if one were to say God may have not created (in the sense that he may have eternally willed not to create), their conception of God must necessarily be one that is the same in our reality because, if otherwise, God would have a difference in his existence which cannot be, for God’s existence is his essence; therefore, to have God in a thought experiment is to necessarily invoke his essence which is to necessarily invoke his existence as it is here in our reality. But God is divenly simple, and thus not even his conscious (the thing which makes decisions or wills in a particular way) can be something different then the way it is in our current reality, for it is a part of his existence, which cannot change in any thought experiment were the thought experiment to be consistent with its own premises of Gods immutability. Therefore, because not even the thing by which can will different (consciousness) can be different, and because an identical cause will always have an identical effect, God could not have ever produced differently then as he did given the two presumptions in the beginning.

That said, I do still believe that God has free will, but for me to believe such I’d have to invoke the idea of the divine being supra-rational, and thus beyond our rationalities capabilities to understand. On that note, I’ve come to my conclusion that God cannot indeed be philosophically compatible with free choice.

 

[STT]

That said, I do still believe that God has free will, but for me to believe such I’d have to invoke the idea of the divine being supra-rational, and thus beyond our rationalities capabilities to understand. On that note, I’ve come to my conclusion that God cannot indeed be philosophically compatible with free choice.

There is nothing like supra-rational since rationalism is set of coherent statements that explain all reality. We understand what coherent is.

 

[Richca]

I think you need to explain how the creation of creatures by God affects his own infinite and eternal being or existence. Also, you seem to be focused or stuck on a single idea such as God’s will to create or not to create by which, in your mind, you see a contradiction between God’s immutability and free will or something of this nature. However, there are consequences to saying God is not pure act or that he doesn’t have free will. Indeed, there are a host of theological, philosophical, scriptural, and common sense problems with denying that God is not pure act or that he doesn’t have free will. I think the ‘whole picture’ as it were has to be looked at.

If God is not pure act, then he is a composition of potency and act. He will not be Being or Existence itself. Indeed, he will not be God. And if this being who is a composite of potency and act also doesn’t have free will, then we are talking about a creature who is less perfect than human beings.

We can also consider that it has been revealed to us by God that creation has a beginning, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). This means that God existed for an endless eternity, happy with himself, before he created the world. In my opinion, this is a clear demonstration by God to us that God didn’t need to create anything for his own fulfillment which doesn’t make sense anyway since God possesses the plentitude of being and existence in himself. So, if God necessarily willed creation, this means that the infinite God needed finite creatures to fulfill himself which doesn’t make any sense and one would think that creation would be eternal which it is not. These are just a couple of thoughts but there are a host of problems if we say God is not pure act or that he doesn’t have free will concerning creation. We would not be talking about God, the first being, but a creature of God and as I said above, a creature less perfect than a human being. In a word, if we look at the consequences or what follows if God is not pure act or that he doesn’t have free will in regards to creation but necessarily wills all that he wills, what follows is a being who is simply not God. You may think that immutability or pure act and free will concerning God are incoherent. But, it can be shown that denying either concerning God is incoherent.

 

[Richca]

Actually, the more I think about it, if God is pure act, Being itself, creation which is not God but a creature of God, can only be coherently conceived as something freely done by God, that is, not under compulsion or necessity of his own divine nature and will, but through free choice, freely willed.

 

[quaestio45]

Actually, the more I think about it, if God is pure act, Being itself, creation which is not God but a creature of God, can only be coherently conceived as something freely done by God, that is, not under compulsion or necessity of his own divine nature and will, but through free choice, freely willed.

Yes, this must indeed be true @Richca, for any being of pure actuality must be fully self sufficient and thus completely independent of any and all things beyond itself; therefore, it cannot possibly be something that can ever be conceived as having needed to create, and therefore you should be able to contemplate of a reality by which they did not create. However, we already know that there are problems that come about when we hold both the idea of an immutable being who created the universe, and the idea that said immutable being could’ve created differently or not at all due to its own complete and independent perfection.

Thus, one could make an argument against the existence of God that goes something along what follows:
P1) God does not have free choice

P2) God, being without free choice, acts necessarily

P3) God, being of pure act and self sufficient, cannot need anything beyond himself

C1) God does not act beyond himself, for that would be acting outside of necessity

P4) God created the world, and therefore acted beyond Himself

C2) Reductio ad absurdum (there can be no God)

 

[Gorgias]

For it seems to me that it is contradictory to hold both the views that God is actus purus (and that his essence perfectly describes his existence) and that God can somehow be one that may have never created at all on the basis of conscious decision (not in the temporal sense, of course, but in any eternal sense).

The premise is flawed. God doesn’t “decide”, as such.

God could not have ever produced differently then as he did given the two presumptions in the beginning.

God would not, not could not. I still maintain that this distinction is what’s tripping you up and leading you to a conclusion that seems inaccurate.

Nevertheless… cool discussion!