Could God have created free beings that always choose to do the good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YosefYosep
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YosefYosep said:
I wouldn’t say so. God, as we Catholics believe, created Mary to be sinless. She chose only to do the good. We still believe, however, that she freely chose this good.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t God creates us all to be sinless? Nothing evil proceeds from God. Sin, the rejection of God’s offer of friendship, is an act of free will. Mary’s special graces are still God’s gifts that she chose freely to accept.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
Lets say that we are God, and setting about to create a universe in which 3 decisions get made by a free-will-having person. Those decisions can either be good (G) or bad (B). Then we have exactly 2^3 = 8 possible combinations of decision-outcomes:

1: (G,G,G)
2: (G,G,B)
3: (G,B,G)
4: (G,B,B)
5: (B,G,G)
6: (B,B,G)
7: (B,G,B)
8: (B,B,B)

Now, as far as your objection goes, the (G,G,G) scenario is not unique. In other words, if we [God?]designed world 7: (B,G,B) we could make the exact same type of objection: “A person designed to choose bad, then good, then bad again does not posses free will by definition!”

And so the conclusion, it seems to me, is that either God cannot know prior to creation which world he was creating (if he did, we can raise your objection) or we do not actually have free will.
Click to expand...
I do not object to the (G,G,G) scenario as a preferred possibility. However, all outcomes with a “B” event although known by God are not intended by Him but only permitted.
 
DrTaffy said:
If there is only one good.

What of beings who only choose good, but choose ‘freely’ between good options?
Click to expand...
If I understand your comment, as long as the choice is free then the choice is not “designed” into the creature. Free will still determines choice.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
This argument puts forth a lot of linear logic and that does not apply to God.
Click to expand...
If human logic is inapplicable to God, then you are not in the position to declare that God is good.
1Lord1Faith said:
RC Church believes in redemptive suffering.
Click to expand...
In other words: “the end justifies the means”… strange that the church believes in two contradictory concepts. The word for this is “doublethink”.
 
JapaneseKappa said:
I think it is clearly logically possible. The negation of it is very troubling.

Consider the scenario where God creates a universe with the intent to end the universe at the exact instant the first free-will decision gets made.

If it were not logically possible to have a universe where everyone always chose the good, then the first decision is necessarily evil. After all, if it were good, and then God ended the world, we would have a logically impossible situation: a universe in which everyone always chose the good.
Click to expand...
I guess you intended to formulate a “reductio ad absurdum” type of argument. I will try to rephrase it. Please, tell me if it conveys what you see with all clarity, because I don’t. The argument would start with a definition, and then a proposition which should lead to a contradiction. So:


  1. *]A world is perfect if every free agent in it always choses the good
    *]A perfect world is not possible
    *]If a world is not perfect, then some free agents in it sometimes chose the evil and sometimes chose the good.
    *]The first decision made in a perfect world is good
    *]The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or it is evil
    *]If the first decision made in a world is evil and the world ends with it, then such world was non-perfect
    *]If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was
    perfect or imperfect.

    I don’t see the contradiction. Can you complete the argument if something is missing, JK?
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I guess you intended to formulate a “reductio ad absurdum” type of argument. I will try to rephrase it. Please, tell me if it conveys what you see with all clarity, because I don’t. The argument would start with a definition, and then a proposition which should lead to a contradiction. So:


  1. *]A world is perfect if every free agent in it always choses the good
    *]A perfect world is not possible
    *]If a world is not perfect, then some free agents in it sometimes chose the evil and sometimes chose the good.
    *]The first decision made in a perfect world is good
    *]The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or it is evil
    *]If the first decision made in a world is evil and the world ends with it, then such world was non-perfect
    *]If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was
    perfect or imperfect.

    I don’t see the contradiction. Can you complete the argument if something is missing, JK?
Click to expand...

  1. The #1 definition is irrelevant. We only talk about a world, where everyone freely makes the “right” decision, whatever that might be. No need to call it “perfect”.

    But even if one accepts it, your #7 does not follow. Why would one consider the world imperfect if the world is ended after the first good decision was made?

    Your #6 says: “If the first decision made in a world is evil and the world ends with it, then such world was non-perfect”

    As such #7 SHOULD say: “If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was perfect”.
 
YosefYosep said:
At least one of our purposes is to discern God. Is this not why we’re here, to freely choose our eternities?
Click to expand...
I agree, but why does the test seem to us to walk the line between reason and illusion.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
I guess you intended to formulate a “reductio ad absurdum” type of argument. I will try to rephrase it. Please, tell me if it conveys what you see with all clarity, because I don’t. The argument would start with a definition, and then a proposition which should lead to a contradiction. So:


  1. *]A world is perfect if every free agent in it always choses the good
    *]A perfect world is not possible
    *]If a world is not perfect, then some free agents in it sometimes chose the evil and sometimes chose the good.
    *]The first decision made in a perfect world is good
    *]The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or it is evil
    *]If the first decision made in a world is evil and the world ends with it, then such world was non-perfect
    *]If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was
    perfect or imperfect.

    I don’t see the contradiction. Can you complete the argument if something is missing, JK?
Click to expand...

  1. I think invoking the concept of a “perfect” world somewhat muddies the waters, but we can roll with it. I am essentially saying this:

    The necessary and sufficient conditions for a world to be perfect are that all free agents chose good all the time.

    If it can be the case (as you assert in the last point of your list) that there exists a world where all free agents chose good all the time but was not perfect then we’ve voided the definition of perfect that we started with. Such a world met the necessary and sufficient conditions, and therefore is “perfect” in the sense we defined.
 
Solmyr said:
The #1 definition is irrelevant. We only talk about a world, where everyone freely makes the “right” decision, whatever that might be. No need to call it “perfect”.

But even if one accepts it, your #7 does not follow. Why would one consider the world imperfect if the world is ended after the first good decision was made?

Your #6 says: “If the first decision made in a world is evil and the world ends with it, then such world was non-perfect”

As such #7 SHOULD say: “If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was perfect”.
Click to expand...
“We”?

My statement #7 follows from #3, #4 and #5, which say:
  • If a world is not perfect, then some free agents in it sometimes chose the evil and sometimes chose the good.
  • The first decision made in a perfect world is good
  • The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or it is evil
Therefore,
  • If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was perfect or non-perfect.
Maybe you can consider this example:

    • My son likes ice cream and cakes
    • My daughter likes ice cream and dislikes cakes
    • If someone ate the cake then it was my son
    • If someone ate the ice cream, then it was my son or my daughter.
    Or, perhaps a relevant definition is missing now?
 
JapaneseKappa said:
I think invoking the concept of a “perfect” world somewhat muddies the waters, but we can roll with it. I am essentially saying this:

The necessary and sufficient conditions for a world to be perfect are that all free agents chose good all the time.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I accept your definition. Then we modify mine and the inconclusive argument would be now:


  1. *]A world is perfect if and only if every free agent in it always choses the good
    *]A perfect world is not possible
    *]If a world is not perfect, then some free agents in it sometimes chose the evil and sometimes chose the good.
    *]The first decision made in a perfect world is good
    *]The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or evil
    *]If the first decision made in a world is evil and the world ends with it, then such world was non-perfect
    *]If the first decision made in a world is good and the world ends with it, then such world was perfect or non-perfect.
    JapaneseKappa said:
    If it can be the case (as you assert in the last point of your list) that there exists a world where all free agents chose good all the time but was not perfect then we’ve voided the definition of perfect that we started with. Such a world met the necessary and sufficient conditions, and therefore is “perfect” in the sense we defined.
    Click to expand...
    I think proposition #5 (“The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or evil”) needs to be included in the argument; otherwise it would be incomplete. So, if the first decision in a non-perfect world can bee good (and the second, and the third, and the fourth…), then from the quality of the first decision (whatever it is), it cannot be concluded that such a world was perfect.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
My statement #7 follows from #3, #4 and #5, which say:
    1. If a world is not perfect, then some free agents in it sometimes chose the evil and sometimes chose the good.
    1. The first decision made in a perfect world is good
    1. The first decision made in a non-perfect world is good or it is evil
Click to expand...
But #5 is incorrect. It should say: “The first decision made in a non-perfect world is evil”. It is not relevant what the agents “MIGHT” do, only what the agents “ACTUALLY” do. Since there is only one decision to be made, and the agent chooses the “right” decision, therefore the world is “perfect”… using your terminology.

In your #5 every possible world is non-perfect (by your definition) because in every situation the agents “MIGHT” choose correctly or incorrectly - that follows from the free will.
 
o_mlly said:
What follows is the Catholic position; from the CCC:
*310 But why did God not create a world so perfect that no evil could exist in it? With infinite power God could always create something better.174 But with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world “in a state of journeying” towards its ultimate perfection. In God’s plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection.175

311 Angels and men, as intelligent and free creatures, have to journey toward their ultimate destinies by their free choice and preferential love. They can therefore go astray. Indeed, they have sinned. Thus has moral evil, incommensurably more harmful than physical evil, entered the world. God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil.176 He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it:
Code: 
For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.177
312 In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures: “It was not you”, said Joseph to his brothers, "who sent me here, but God. . . You meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive."178 From the greatest moral evil ever committed - the rejection and murder of God’s only Son, caused by the sins of all men - God, by his grace that “abounded all the more”,179 brought the greatest of goods: the glorification of Christ and our redemption. But for all that, evil never becomes a good. *
Click to expand...
I always found the said excerpts from the CCC helpful to some degree. I think I’ve found a better way to reframe my question though. When the argument is made that if God was who we think he is (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent) then he would have created a world where we always freely choose the good, the person is essentially asking why God did not keep mankind in a perpetual pre-fallen state.

If man always chose the good, then he would always be choosing God. God could have sustained the world in this incorrupt state by ensuring that all the creatures he made would freely choose him. For instance, instead of making Adam and Eve he could have made Jake and Ellen–two different persons who would have freely chosen no to have sinned.

So I pose the question another time: Why not heaven now?
 
YosefYosep said:
So I pose the question another time: Why not heaven now?
Click to expand...
And that is the question, for which you cannot receive a rational reply. A benevolent creator would immediately choose the best existence for its creation… and that is self-evident. 🙂

Being exposed to the “beatific vision” would allow people to reject it, but being in the state of constant bliss, with their virtual saliva dripping off their imaginary face - who would want to do it?
 
Solmyr said:
But #5 is incorrect. It should say: “The first decision made in a non-perfect world is evil”. It is not relevant what the agents “MIGHT” do, only what the agents “ACTUALLY” do. Since there is only one decision to be made, and the agent chooses the “right” decision, therefore the world is “perfect”… using your terminology.

In your #5 every possible world is non-perfect (by your definition) because in every situation the agents “MIGHT” choose correctly or incorrectly - that follows from the free will.
Click to expand...
Well, Solmyr, actually in our imperfect world free agents sometimes choose what is good and sometimes choose what is evil. I don’t know what leads you to think that the first decision which was made in this world was necessarily evil. I have absolutely no idea about that nor about perfect worlds. How do you get to that conclusion?

On the other hand, I am just putting JK’s incomplete argument in a clearer shape and am asking him to complete it, because something is missing. Obviously he can’t conclude as he did. If you are interested, I guess you could work with him and do something about it.
 
JuanFlorencio said:
Well, Solmyr, actually in our imperfect world free agents sometimes choose what is good and sometimes choose what is evil. I don’t know what leads you to think that the first decision which was made in this world was necessarily evil. I have absolutely no idea about that nor about perfect worlds. How do you get to that conclusion?

On the other hand, I am just putting JK’s incomplete argument in a clearer shape and am asking him to complete it, because something is missing. Obviously he can’t conclude as he did. If you are interested, I guess you could work with him and do something about it.
Click to expand...
The conclusion is quite easy to reach, and I suspect the only reason you’ve failed to see it is your unnecessary insistence on invoking the concept of a perfect world. As I said, it muddies the waters.

There are exactly two groups of worlds in which free agents make choices:
Worlds which contain instances of free agents choosing evil, and worlds which do not contain instances of free agents choosing evil.

If the latter set is logically impossible, then all worlds which contain free agents making choices necessarily belong to the former set.

In other words: all worlds which contain free agents making choices must belong to the set of worlds which contain instances of free agents choosing evil.

Therefore, in a world with exactly one free agent and one free choice, that one choice must be the instance of the free agent choosing evil.
 
YosefYosep said:
I always found the said excerpts from the CCC helpful to some degree. I think I’ve found a better way to reframe my question though. When the argument is made that if God was who we think he is (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent) then he would have created a world where we always freely choose the good, the person is essentially asking why God did not keep mankind in a perpetual pre-fallen state.

If man always chose the good, then he would always be choosing God. God could have sustained the world in this incorrupt state by ensuring that all the creatures he made would freely choose him. For instance, instead of making Adam and Eve he could have made Jake and Ellen–two different persons who would have freely chosen no to have sinned.

So I pose the question another time: Why not heaven now?
Click to expand...
From His omnibenevolence, God created us in His Image with intellect, reason and free will. As soon as posit that “God … ensures that all … would freely choose him” you contradict free will. Let us presume that God could have ensured that Adam and Eve would always choose not to reject Him by fully revealing Himself to them because doing so, allowing them to see the Beatific Vision, would have so overwhelmed them that their free will would be negated. He had something better (best) in plan for his children but the plan required them to love Him freely. Felix culpa, the happy fault, bought God the Son to humanity and the good news that loving God without fully knowing God would allow us to join with the Triune God in eternity rather than merely immortally exist in the Garden of Eden. God brings a greater good out of evil always.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top