Debate: The Freedom To Create:- The difference between Gods Perfect Freedom & Human Free-will

[MindOverMatter2]

Don’t get me wrong, I totally see why it would appear that all of God’s actions are necessary actions, and I am not claiming that I understand it perfectly myself.

I suspect that you are just skipping through what I have said instead of giving it serious attention. All Gods Actions are “free” actions, but not by the definition of “human freewill”. Human freewill is necessary for contingent human-beings, but not for God. Again I never said that God is not free. I simply reject your definition of “true freedom”. I will explain this further…

However, I do know that defined teachings of the Church hold both that God is a necessary being and that He has free will to act or not act (in certain cases).

That depends on how you define freedom. God is free not to create the universe if by that one means to say that nothing external to Gods nature is forcing God to create. In other words it is not the nature of the universe that causes it to exist.

Now you can say that this is the wrong interpretation, and is not what is truly meant by church teaching. But this doesn’t change the fact, however, that God, by his very nature is “Love”, and to love is to share the good of ones being. This necessarily entails that God would create, simply because it is the nature of love to do so; that is to say, share. This is not because of the necessity of something external to God, but rather it is because it is Gods perfect will, and Gods perfect will is identical to Gods perfect being, and Gods perfect being is perfect love.

You need to address this fact, rather than ignore it.

Once you ground “personal will” in moral actions, you cannot avoid the fact that ultimately God is going to do what ever conforms to the moral nature of love, nothing more and nothing less, because that is what God is. God does things because it is good and perfect to do them. God doesn’t do arbitrary things or for fancy of the whim; God is not like human beings. This might sound like God is necessitated by something external to his will, but in reality it is the nature of Gods will that necessitates what God does, and Gods will is identical to Gods nature, which is love, and nothing else. Thus God necessarily loves and does that which is good. It is not a choice in the human sense of freewill, but rather its is a perfect expression of moral goodness. It is a loving act to share the good of ones being with that which does not yet have it; and that is why the universe was created. It is only because God is perfect that it is Gods will to create. Gods being is perfectly free from selfish imperfect acts. It is in this sense that God has perfect freedom. Perhaps God can choose what “kind” of creation will exist, and that is to say that our particular universe didn’t have to exist (although I believe that it is more consistent to say that God creates all and whatever “reflects” the good of love). But “love”, which is an intrinsic expression of Gods nature and thus Gods will, is creative by its very nature none-the-less.Thus not sharing the good of ones being is not and cannot possibly be an act of God. Therefore something, that is not identical to God, will definitely exist in the presence of love. You cannot look at Gods actions apart from the moral expression which is love. All of Gods acts are moral acts. Human freewill is, by itself, an imperfection since it can choose and do arbitrary things and it can choose evil. The reason for that kind of freewill, is because, given the nature of humanity, human beings must choose love, whereas God does not require that kind of freedom. The truest of sense of freedom is to perfectly love without possibility of failure since the will in this case is governed by that which is good.

A denial of free will is logically implicit in the second sentence quoted here, i.e. that it is impossible for God to act in a way other than which He does act.

Well one thing is certainly true; God cannot act in a manner that contradicts love. Its impossible, since love is an intrinsic expression of what God is. Some people would see this as a necessity rather than a truly free act of love; and thus God does not really love anyone. This is why a growing number of Christians are rejecting a thomistic understanding of God for a being that can choose evil and can “change”, as in to say that God has potentiality. But given my understanding of what it means to be perfectly free from evil and what it means for human beings to have freewill, I would strongly argue that they are wrong like you are wrong despite appearances to contrary. Thus it depends on how you “interpret” freedom in the moral context of God. Necessity, depending on the context in which the word is employed, isn’t always a barrier to freedom, depending on how you define it.

 

[Katholish]

I suspect that you are just skipping through what I have said instead of giving it serious attention. All Gods Actions are “free” actions, but not by the definition of “human freewill”. Human freewill is necessary for contingent human-beings, but not for God. Again I never said that God is not free. I simply reject your definition of “true freedom”. I will explain this further…

Likewise, I kind of feel like you skipped over and haven’t addressed any of the points which I think were most essential in my last post–specifically the statement from the First Vatican Council that God could have not created the universe. This statement is independent of any quibble over the definition of freedom.

God is not free to do that which contradicts His nature. Do you feel this statement to be in error?

But this doesn’t change the fact, however, that God, by his very nature is “Love”, and to love is to share the good of ones being.

God is love. True. Love does not imply, however, nor does it necessitate a creation ex nihilo. Love is directed toward an object which actually exists. You cannot love something which does not exist. God primarily loves Himself since He is infinite Goodness and has the capacity to recognize His own Goodness and to appreciate it, He Loves Himself infinitely. Just because God loves Himself doesn’t mean that He has to create horses (just to pick a random example). God’s nature as love does not necessitate creation.

This necessarily entails that God would create, simply because it is the nature of love to do so; that is to say, share. This is not because of the necessity of something external to God, but rather it is because it is Gods perfect will, and Gods perfect will is identical to Gods perfect being, and Gods perfect being is perfect love.

St. Thomas explains this in the Summa, Prima Pars, Q19, A3. God only wills necessarily His own Goodness. “Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary.” Your argument, on the other hand, would implicitly state that God’s perfection would be incomplete without creation.

To say that creation was a necessary as it is necessary for God to love Himself is a condemned propostion as I have been saying all along. I looked up the exact wording of Vatican I’s canon, and it reads:

If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, were produced, according to their whole substance, out of nothing by God; or holds that God did not create by his will free from all necessity, but as necessarily as he necessarily loves himself; or denies that the world was created for the glory of God: let him be anathema.

God is completely self-sufficient and does not need to create. There is really no abiguity in this canon. Your theory is condemned in the exact words you use to explain it, i.e. “This necessarily entails that God would create, simply because it is the nature of love to do so; that is to say, share.” I understand that I have not adequately proven why this must be the case, but I have proven that the Church definitely says that it is the case.

I know that your comments go on in some detail, but this is the issue that lays at the heart of the whole matter, so I will refrain from further comment on your other points which are all based on this core issue of whether all of God’s will acts are necessitated by His nature.