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

[JuanFlorencio]

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.

Are you suggesting that your argument is a “reductio ad absurdum” kind of argument? It obviously is not!:

1. 
   *]Either a world contains instances of free agents choosing evil or it does not contain instances of free agents choosing evil.
   *]Let’s assume it is not possible that a world does not contain instances of free agents choosing evil.
   *]Therefore, every possible world contains instances of free agents choosing evil.
   *]Therefore, if there is a world with exactly one free agent and one free choice, the choice must be evil.
   
   Where is the contradiction? You have demonstrated nothing, JK!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Are you suggesting that your argument is a “reductio ad absurdum” kind of argument? It obviously is not!:

1. 
   *]Either a world contains instances of free agents choosing evil or it does not contain instances of free agents choosing evil.
   *]Let’s assume it is not possible that a world does not contain instances of free agents choosing evil.
   *]Therefore, every possible world contains instances of free agents choosing evil.
   *]Therefore, if there is a world with exactly one free agent and one free choice, the choice must be evil.
   
   Where is the contradiction? You have demonstrated nothing, JK!

1. 
   You mean I demonstrated nothing, aside from the conclusion I demonstrated? I guess we’ve flipped from needing to introduce extraneous terms and conditions to needing to ignore relevant ones.
   
   If you recall, I said that asserting the impossibility of (a world with free agents but without instances of free agents choosing evil) has troubling implications. I would have thought that once we made the realization about the single-decision case, the problems would be obvious. Perhaps they are, but not to everyone.
   
   Troubling implication #1:
   
   The necessary-badness of the first-and-only decision depends on whether or not God will actually end the world before a second decision gets made. In other words, there is retrocausality. The effect (the decision is necessarily bad) occurs prior to the cause (the universe ending before a second decision is made.)
   
   This isn’t a logical contradiction, but admitting the possibility of retrocausality has several interesting implications for various proofs and conceptions of God.
   
   Troubling implication #2:
   
   If the first decision is good, then God can’t decide to end the world until a second decision gets made, because he would be creating a situation we declared to be impossible.
   
   Troubling implication #3:
   
   In the one-decision scenario, the free-will actor is not capable of making the good decision. In several definitions of free-will, that means the actor doesn’t actually have free will.
   
   I could go on. There are a number of other issues that crop up if we raise the objection that God is timeless in an attempt to escape the retrocausality issue.

 

[clem456]

In other words, the end DOES justify the means.

Can you connect the dots in that logic?

Human freedom is not a means. Human freedom is given to every person by virtue of being human. Human beings are good.

Human beings choose to do evil. Our choice to do evil is free. God as a redemptive being transcends the evil committed to the glory of his good. God is larger than evil. He has no need or desire for evil.

How is that “means”?
Makes no sense.

“Means to an end” is my taking a hammer to someone’s head so that my family might have his sandwich. That is using people as a “means”.
Objectification.

 

[clem456]

If it is logically possible that God could have created a world in which persons always freely choose the good, then he must not be all-good. For if he was, he wouldn’t subject us to the needless suffering of this world when there was clearly a better alternative. If he isn’t able to create a logically possible world then he most not be all-powerful. In other words, if a world where created beings always freely choose the good is possible, and God (all-good and all-powerful) didn’t create it, then it shows that God probably doesn’t exist.

Anyone wanna take a stab?

God is love. Love does not violate free will. Love does not abuse power, even omnipotence.
Love risks rejection.
The alternative is “rape”.

Show of hands here:
who among us would prefer an inanimate doll, who can never hurt us, to relations with a living human being, with all his/her faults, with all the risk of suffering and rejection?
Get it?

Let the logical objections begin over love, which is foolish after all.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Can you connect the dots in that logic?

Human freedom is not a means. Human freedom is given to every person by virtue of being human. Human beings are good.

Human beings choose to do evil. Our choice to do evil is free. God as a redemptive being transcends the evil committed to the glory of his good. God is larger than evil. He has no need or desire for evil.

How is that “means”?
Makes no sense.

“Means to an end” is my taking a hammer to someone’s head so that my family might have his sandwich. That is using people as a “means”.
Objectification.

I’ll connect the dots for you. : )

One poster said “God brings a greater good out of evil, always.”

Could he bring about that greater good without the evil?

If yes, the question remains: then why does he allow evil?

In no, then evil is necessary for the greater good. Evil is the “means” to achieve a greater good. You’ll say freedom/love is the “means,” but if evil is necessary, it implies that either freedom or love require evil in that case. Why would evil be required or necessary? You just said so, by saying that it allows for a “greater good.” Evil seems inextricably bound to what you consider to be the means of achieving good, and so we can say that it [evil] is essential to the means of “greater good.”

But, this doesn’t make sense, since you’ll claim that God is essentially love and perfectly free. If that were the case, and either or both of these require evil, or inevitably entail evil, then God is not perfectly good, and the question remains. Or, if God requires evil, then we really can say he is “using” it as a “means” to an end, and God forbids what he himself does (according to Catholic morality which prohibits means-end justification).

Either way, these answers aren’t good enough. I think it might be better to say we don’t know why God allows evil. We don’t know why he answers wealthy 1st world people’s prayer requests to find their keys or whatever while letting destitute children die from diarrhea every minute of every day continuously. We don’t know, it’s horrible, and making excuses just infuriates people in my opinion.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

God is love. Love does not violate free will. Love does not abuse power, even omnipotence.
Love risks rejection.
The alternative is “rape”.

Show of hands here:
who among us would prefer an inanimate doll, who can never hurt us, to relations with a living human being, with all his/her faults, with all the risk of suffering and rejection?
Get it?

Let the logical objections begin over love, which is foolish after all.

No, this isn’t the issue.

Catholic theology asserts boldly and pompously that Mary was a sinless human who freely chose the good, perfectly.

Are you saying she was an inanimate doll, a victim of divine rape? Of course not, you’ll feel guilty just reading that.

So the question remains: why didn’t/couldn’t/hasn’t/shouldn’t God create[d] a race of Mary-like human beings who freely choose the good? Apparently, he did it once, is he not able/willing to do it again? Why not right from the beginning? Catholics cannot answer this question meaningfully without blowing up at least one infallible dogma somewhere or other. Believe me, before I left the church I spent years and years trying to answer this very question without leaving my theological commitments behind. I found it to be impossible. I am not aware of a good Catholic answer to this, there are problems with all of them. If you are aware, share your source of course!

 

[tonyrey]

No, this isn’t the issue.

Catholic theology asserts boldly and pompously that Mary was a sinless human who freely chose the good, perfectly.

Are you saying she was an inanimate doll, a victim of divine rape? Of course not, you’ll feel guilty just reading that.

So the question remains: why didn’t/couldn’t/hasn’t/shouldn’t God create[d] a race of Mary-like human beings who freely choose the good? Apparently, he did it once, is he not able/willing to do it again? Why not right from the beginning? Catholics cannot answer this question meaningfully without blowing up at least one infallible dogma somewhere or other. Believe me, before I left the church I spent years and years trying to answer this very question without leaving my theological commitments behind. I found it to be impossible. I am not aware of a good Catholic answer to this, there are problems with all of them. If you are aware, share your source of course!

Mary 's assent to becoming the mother of Our Redeemer which involved great suffering on her part when she was at the foot of the Cross gave her the grace to live a holy and unblemished life. It was retroactive because love (in her case love for her Son) transcends time and space. She is often regarded as the Co-Redemptrix for that very reason.

 

[StevenFrancis]

If it is logically possible that God could have created a world in which persons always freely choose the good, then he must not be all-good. For if he was, he wouldn’t subject us to the needless suffering of this world when there was clearly a better alternative. If he isn’t able to create a logically possible world then he most not be all-powerful. In other words, if a world where created beings always freely choose the good is possible, and God (all-good and all-powerful) didn’t create it, then it shows that God probably doesn’t exist.

Anyone wanna take a stab?

God is love. He is the author of love and would not make His creatures love Him without them knowing what other possibilities there are. As a creator, and out of love for His creature He did something amazing. He incarnated as one of His creatures, retaining all of His divinity, while also experiencing the fullness of human temptation. He was incarnated to suffer and die horribly for us at the hands of both the government and the leaders of His own church. He did this as an atonement for all of our sins, past present and future, and as an atonement for His curse on Adam and all subsequent generations, now shortening the suffering of man to no more than 100 or so years. Generally somewhat less. During this time He also offers glimpses of joy and perfection. Models of love. Hope. We can choose love. If we couldn’t choose love, it would be a meaningless and arbitrary thing. We have faith and blessed hope that the way it is, is the best way it can be. He also offers eternal life in love for those who choose it, and gives His sanctifying grace to us along the way in the sacramental life He ordained for us. God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God in them. We ARE ordered TOWARD love. But the beloved wants to be pursued. To have this any other way, would be pointless. Why would a creative entity simply make creatures that always chose to love Him. What would that even mean? We would be no more than toy soldiers in a sandbox.

But no. That’s not what a loving creator would desire. If heaven were either empty apart from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or full of creatures who were automatons who had not chosen to be with Him there is no difference. Still empty, apart from self. Even if that self is all in all.

But a heaven full of creatures who love you with all their hearts? Who quested for you? Who made their entire lives a journey towards your embrace giving up sensory earthly pleasures and comforts, going hungry, experiencing loss, pain and suffering. Clawing each inch of the way just to feel the warmth of your eternal love? Well, there are some creatures who are happy to be with you and in your presence. Who have overcome much. Who have endured so many fleeting worldly and demonic temptations and chose as you would have them, while understanding they could have given in to what is easy and chosen another way? Then you have real lovers. Those who deeply desire with their own free wills to be with you forever. How could it be any other way?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll connect the dots for you. : )

One poster said “God brings a greater good out of evil, always.”

Could he bring about that greater good without the evil?

If yes, the question remains: then why does he allow evil?

In no, then evil is necessary for the greater good. Evil is the “means” to achieve a greater good. You’ll say freedom/love is the “means,” but if evil is necessary, it implies that either freedom or love require evil in that case. Why would evil be required or necessary? You just said so, by saying that it allows for a “greater good.” Evil seems inextricably bound to what you consider to be the means of achieving good, and so we can say that it [evil] is essential to the means of “greater good.”

But, this doesn’t make sense, since you’ll claim that God is essentially love and perfectly free. If that were the case, and either or both of these require evil, or inevitably entail evil, then God is not perfectly good, and the question remains. Or, if God requires evil, then we really can say he is “using” it as a “means” to an end, and God forbids what he himself does (according to Catholic morality which prohibits means-end justification).

Either way, these answers aren’t good enough. I think it might be better to say we don’t know why God allows evil. We don’t know why he answers wealthy 1st world people’s prayer requests to find their keys or whatever while letting destitute children die from diarrhea every minute of every day continuously. We don’t know, it’s horrible, and making excuses just infuriates people in my opinion.

The distinction between good and evil is simplistic. Very often in life it is a question of choosing the lesser of two evils. It would be a greater evil not to create us with free will to prevent us from doing evil because without free will we would be incapable of love. We cannot have everything for nothing and every advantage has a corresponding disadvantage…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If it is logically possible that God could have created a world in which persons always freely choose the good, then he must not be all-good. For if he was, he wouldn’t subject us to the needless suffering of this world when there was clearly a better alternative. If he isn’t able to create a logically possible world then he most not be all-powerful. In other words, if a world where created beings always freely choose the good is possible, and God (all-good and all-powerful) didn’t create it, then it shows that God probably doesn’t exist.

Saint Mary, Mother of God?

Edit:

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.

Oops, beat me to it.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

You mean I demonstrated nothing, aside from the conclusion I demonstrated? I guess we’ve flipped from needing to introduce extraneous terms and conditions to needing to ignore relevant ones. .

No, I meant that you have demonstrated absolutely nothing. You have the feeling that you are lifting an extremely heavy weight, but in reality you are hanging from a balloon inflated with helium.

If you recall, I said that asserting the impossibility of (a world with free agents but without instances of free agents choosing evil) has troubling implications. I would have thought that once we made the realization about the single-decision case, the problems would be obvious. Perhaps they are, but not to everyone.

So, let´s see the tremendous implications…

Troubling implication #1:

The necessary-badness of the first-and-only decision depends on whether or not God will actually end the world before a second decision gets made. In other words, there is retrocausality. The effect (the decision is necessarily bad) occurs prior to the cause (the universe ending before a second decision is made.)
This isn’t a logical contradiction, but admitting the possibility of retrocausality has several interesting implications for various proofs and conceptions of God.

There is no second decision for a “first-and-only decision” scenario; so, no trouble.

Troubling implication #2:

If the first decision is good, then God can’t decide to end the world until a second decision gets made, because he would be creating a situation we declared to be impossible.

You would need to add this extra statement:

“God cannot decide to end a world in which the first decision is good.”

And of course, you would have to prove it. Therefore, there is no troubling implication so far.

Troubling implication #3:
In the one-decision scenario, the free-will actor is not capable of making the good decision. In several definitions of free-will, that means the actor doesn’t actually have free will.

I got the impression that you had troubles with definitions. Why don’t you select one which does not muddy the waters?

So, according to your definition, a “one-decision scenario” would not be logically possible; with which you refute yourself. This is very troubling indeed, but the trouble is for you.

I could go on. There are a number of other issues that crop up if we raise the objection that God is timeless in an attempt to escape the retrocausality issue.

And… are those issues as troubling as the ones you have proposed here?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

There is no second decision for a “first-and-only decision” scenario; so, no trouble.

The only-ness of the decision is actualized after the decision is made. God could, for example change his mind once the first decision was made, and allow a second decision.

“God cannot decide to end a world in which the first decision is good.”

And of course, you would have to prove it. Therefore, there is no troubling implication so far.

The proof of this statement is the logical claim that is on trial: the impossibility of worlds with free actors but no instances of the free actors choosing evil.

I got the impression that you had troubles with definitions. Why don’t you select one which does not muddy the waters?

So, according to your definition, a “one-decision scenario” would not be logically possible; with which you refute yourself. This is very troubling indeed, but the trouble is for you.

I was not interested in debating the wide variety of free will definitions available. I was pointing out that for certain definitions of free will, creating this sort of one-decision universe is either impossible or their definition of free will is wrong. This is troubling because it seems a very strange imposition on the omnipotence of God. “A world with exactly one free will decision” does seem like the sort of thing that an omnipotent being should be able to create. Indeed, it seems that the much more likely case is that the logical claim on trial is false, and that it is possible for a world to have free will decisions and lack instances of free actors choosing evil.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

The only-ness of the decision is actualized after the decision is made. God could, for example change his mind once the first decision was made, and allow a second decision.

The proof of this statement is the logical claim that is on trial: the impossibility of worlds with free actors but no instances of the free actors choosing evil.

I was not interested in debating the wide variety of free will definitions available. I was pointing out that for certain definitions of free will, creating this sort of one-decision universe is either impossible or their definition of free will is wrong. This is troubling because it seems a very strange imposition on the omnipotence of God. “A world with exactly one free will decision” does seem like the sort of thing that an omnipotent being should be able to create. Indeed, it seems that the much more likely case is that the logical claim on trial is false, and that it is possible for a world to have free will decisions and lack instances of free actors choosing evil.

Likelihood! Weren’t we talking about logical arguments?

 

[o_mlly]

One poster said “God brings a greater good out of evil, always.”

True.

Could he bring about that greater good without the evil?

No. If the creature lacked free will then no moral evil could enter His creation.

If yes, the question remains: then why does he allow evil?

N/A

In no, then evil is necessary for the greater good.

Yes. The existing good would be known to the creature as “the good” and the creature would want for nothing more.

Evil is the “means” to achieve a greater good. You’ll say freedom/love is the “means,” but if evil is necessary, it implies that either freedom or love require evil in that case.

Evil is not necessary. Free will may always choose to obey and to love.

Why would evil be required or necessary? You just said so, by saying that it allows for a “greater good.” Evil seems inextricably bound to what you consider to be the means of achieving THE GREATER good, and so we can say that it [evil] is essential to the means of “greater good.”

N/A. Evil is not a necessary event. We would be perfectly happy in the “good.”

But, this doesn’t make sense, since you’ll claim that God is essentially love and perfectly free. If that were the case, and either or both of these require evil, or inevitably entail evil, then God is not perfectly good, and the question remains. Or, if God requires evil, then we really can say he is “using” it as a “means” to an end, and God forbids what he himself does (according to Catholic morality which prohibits means-end justification).

God does not do the evil, therefore, He does not employ evil as a means. He finds evil in his creation as you may find weeds in your garden. As a good gardener, you pull the weeds. As God is omnibenevolent, He does not allow evil to prevail in His creation.

Either way, these answers aren’t good enough. I think it might be better to say we don’t know why God allows evil. We don’t know why he answers wealthy 1st world people’s prayer requests to find their keys or whatever while letting destitute children die from diarrhea every minute of every day continuously. We don’t know, it’s horrible, and making excuses just infuriates people in my opinion.

God allows evil because He is faithful to his faithless creatures – His gift of free will remains a gift.

 

[fred_conty]

If it is logically possible that God could have created a world in which persons always freely choose the good, then he must not be all-good. For if he was, he wouldn’t subject us to the needless suffering of this world when there was clearly a better alternative. If he isn’t able to create a logically possible world then he most not be all-powerful. In other words, if a world where created beings always freely choose the good is possible, and God (all-good and all-powerful) didn’t create it, then it shows that God probably doesn’t exist.

Anyone wanna take a stab?

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

But God did do this. God did create all human beings to choose only the good. The problem is that some see “the good as evil, and evil as good.” This was spoken of in the Old Testiment.

St. Thomas said that the human will always choose what it sees as good. The will does not choose evil as such, but it sees the evil as good and chooses that.

Now obviously the person chooses what it wants to make itself happy. For some people abortion looks good because it solves so many problems … financial, marital, schooling, etc. But others see abortion as evil, for what it is, because of God’s teaching that the fetus is human life, and that life belongs to God alone.

When a high school student plays hookey, for him that is what is good even tho it is evil. For a person who chooses any thing, it is always seen as good, whether it is or not in actuality.

The problem isn’t in always choosing good, the problem is confusing good with evil, and not recognizing the evil as evil and the good as the good at the moment.