Does God have free will?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ana_v

Guest
If “free will” and “necessarily being good” are mutually exclusive? May we entertain the idea that they’re not? Would it be heretical to do so?

During the Fall of last year, I submitted a question to William Lane Craig’s Q&A feature on his Reasonable Faith website. Dr. Craig is a Christian (Protestant) philosopher, and he’s perhaps the face of Christian apologetics, at least as far as the atheist perception is concerned (William Craig has an exhaustive record of formally debating atheists, including the world’s leading outspoken ones, such as Christopher Hitchens).

Back to the point … Dr. Craig selects one question per week, but mine was not selected (understandably – he receives many submissions).

Below is what I had written to him. Perhaps someone here would like to take a stab at it. I have yet to resolve my question.
" In my experience of Christian apologetics, I see the free will theodicy as the most popular and frequently cited argument in addressing the problem of evil and suffering in light of the existence of a benevolent God. While thinking about free will incessantly over the past few days, I found myself questioning a particular claim that is made within a standard presentation of the argument. The claim (paraphrased) is that, had God created mankind – Adam and Eve – without the capacity to choose that which is not good (i.e. to choose to disobey Him)… or, in other words, had God created Adam and Eve to where they could and would ONLY do that which is good… that it means Adam and Eve would not have had free will.

But, if that conclusion is correct, would we – in order to be consistent – not also have to argue that God Himself does not have free will? As Christians, we maintain that God is holy, He is just, He is perfection, He has no evil to him, and cannot commit evil, as He has a nature to which He is bound to. And His nature is such that He can only do that which is good. Are we to suggest that because God is bound to this nature, and can only act in accordance to it, that therefore He does not have free will? If we are to argue that God does have free will, then in what sense can it be argued that if God had created man with a nature that could exercise only the good, man would lack free will? "
Click to expand...
 
I would argue that free will is a concept that doesn’t apply to God. The choice we’re offered in free will boils down to the choice for good or evil. That boils down to a choice for or against God. Well, God–in all His infinite goodness–essentially existed before any evil. To say that God has the opportunity to choose against Himself would be a contradiction in the terms of his nature.

It was only in His act of creation that God gave His creations the ability to choose either for or against Him and that’s when the concept of free will was introduced to the universe.
 
Agree with Passus. I would argue that good is not something that exists apart from God and to which he happens to adhere. His will defines good. If he should change his mind about some aspect of natural law (but that has not been his nature so far), then that change becomes the new good.:twocents:
 
passus said:
To say that God has the opportunity to choose against Himself would be a contradiction in the terms of his nature.
Click to expand...
That right there I think is the central answer. One part of the nature of God is that He does not contradict Himself, for if He did, then he would not be God. To be omnipotent is to have nothing that has power over you. Because there is nothing more powerful than God, He is omnipotent, because He has power over all things. However, does that mean that He can go against another part of His nature, namely, his Perfect Goodness? No, because then God would be contradicting Himself, and that is not possible in an all-perfect being. It’s a meaningless contradiction, much like a square circle. God can bring it into being, but it is nonsense, and in the words of C.S. Lewis: “nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we add the words ‘God can’ before it.”

So, is God able to choose evil? Yes, because He is omnipotent, and He is able to do all things. But can He do so without contradicting His own perfect Goodness? No. But then does He have free will if he essentially cannot choose evil without ceasing to be God? No, not in the human sense. However, passus also brought up the point that free will boils down (at least in the Christian understanding) to a choice between good and evil, God and something less than His Goodness. Keeping that in mind, does the fact that God does not essentially have free will make him any less God-ly, any less of Himself? No, it simply means that God does not have free will as we humans do. But then how can He have free will at all? That is part of the mystery of God, something which we are simply not able to comprehend.
 
I think this will help you! This is a bit of on the spot speculation though.

In English, we tend to think of “right” as a dichotomy inclusive of “wrong”.

Rather, righteousness, in it’s very nature, is that which ought to be.
Evil, in it’s very nature, is that which should not be.

There is only one righteousness, but many evils. Evils stand opposing to even one another, while righteousness is in full union with itself and is indivisible.

God is all that is righteous and good, and that which is ought to be. The ideal of imposing that which ought not to be upon that which should is little more than splitting hairs. This brings us to the subject of neutrality.

Neutrality is really the only subjective form of existence. If all that existed was righteous, except for a neutral ground, then the neutral ground would be an evil seeing as how it impedes righteousness in it’s fullest. If all that existed was evil, except for a neutral ground, then the said ground would be a goodness, seeing as how it potentially makes amends for righteousness.

In that case, free will is not righteous intrinsically, but rather what seems to be its righteous products. We see, in the Judeo-Christian family, that these righteous products are not of our own power though, but that of God’s. So free will is handing the power to God, or not handing the power to God. This stands in proper alignment with the implication that free will is the ability to love, or not to love, all by the course of will. We understand that God has free will because he uses it in creation! Giving free will to others, rather than only himself, God has exercised free will, because he has taken his power, and given it to us as humans. He has exercised will by investing his overflowing love in creation.
 
Ana_v said:
If “free will” and “necessarily being good” are mutually exclusive? May we entertain the idea that they’re not? Would it be heretical to do so?

During the Fall of last year, I submitted a question to William Lane Craig’s Q&A feature on his Reasonable Faith website. Dr. Craig is a Christian (Protestant) philosopher, and he’s perhaps the face of Christian apologetics, at least as far as the atheist perception is concerned (William Craig has an exhaustive record of formally debating atheists, including the world’s leading outspoken ones, such as Christopher Hitchens).

Back to the point … Dr. Craig selects one question per week, but mine was not selected (understandably – he receives many submissions).

Below is what I had written to him. Perhaps someone here would like to take a stab at it. I have yet to resolve my question.
Click to expand...
Its very hard to understand if God has free-will. With the omniscience of God he knows what we will do and what he will do for all eternity.
In our case we have free-will under the permissible will of God. but under the direct will of God there is no free-will. This was shown in the book of Job where God gave satan permission to do what he likes with Jobs life. But the direct will of God was satan could not take the life of Job.
So some things in our life is under the direct will of God and other things are under the permissible will of God.
 
Saburo said:
Agree with Passus. I would argue that good is not something that exists apart from God and to which he happens to adhere. His will defines good. If he should change his mind about some aspect of natural law (but that has not been his nature so far), then that change becomes the new good.:twocents:
Click to expand...
I agree that G-d created free will for Man’s benefit, just as he created Nature. Although we are created in the image of G-d, meaning that we contain many of G-d’s internal attributes–albeit to a lesser degree–such as love and compassion, I do not believe free will is one of them. Your mentioning of G-d’s changing His mind about natural law presents a similar conundrum. Although the Bible does suggest G-d’s ability to change His mind, what would that process mean with respect to G-d, who is omniscient and lives in eternity rather than time?
 
CatholicTrekkie said:
That right there I think is the central answer. One part of the nature of God is that He does not contradict Himself, for if He did, then he would not be God. To be omnipotent is to have nothing that has power over you. Because there is nothing more powerful than God, He is omnipotent, because He has power over all things. However, does that mean that He can go against another part of His nature, namely, his Perfect Goodness? No, because then God would be contradicting Himself, and that is not possible in an all-perfect being. It’s a meaningless contradiction, much like a square circle. God can bring it into being, but it is nonsense, and in the words of C.S. Lewis: “nonsense does not cease to be nonsense when we add the words ‘God can’ before it.”

So, is God able to choose evil? Yes, because He is omnipotent, and He is able to do all things. But can He do so without contradicting His own perfect Goodness? No. But then does He have free will if he essentially cannot choose evil without ceasing to be God? No, not in the human sense. However, passus also brought up the point that free will boils down (at least in the Christian understanding) to a choice between good and evil, God and something less than His Goodness. Keeping that in mind, does the fact that God does not essentially have free will make him any less God-ly, any less of Himself? No, it simply means that God does not have free will as we humans do. But then how can He have free will at all? That is part of the mystery of God, something which we are simply not able to comprehend.
Click to expand...
God is the Creator of Everything in the Universe, including Free Will. He Is LOVE. Evil is the Lack of Good, which God Can Not be. God IS.
 
If free will is a created reality, not an eternal one, then, we may say “God does not have free will”.

My only concerns with that is, what it comes off as sounding like. It almost makes it sound as if God is controlled by some “bigger” (so to speak) or external thing.

Although I suppose, that can be avoided, if I were to follow the aforementioned statement, with something like:

Free will only makes sense in the context of *created *beings, that is, beings whose existence is owed to an external authority.
 
Ana_v said:
If free will is a created reality, not an eternal one, then, we may say “God does not have free will”.

My only concerns with that is, what it comes off as sounding like. It almost makes it sound as if God is controlled by some “bigger” (so to speak) or external thing.

Although I suppose, that can be avoided, if I were to follow the aforementioned statement, with something like:

Free will only makes sense in the context of *created *beings, that is, beings whose existence is owed to an external authority.
Click to expand...
Perfect Knowledge does not need to look back in memory, nor does Perfect Will need to look forward in anticipation. All is known and willed together in the power of one subsistence. Man’s soul is naturally immortal, and by its vast range of thought and imagination can, in measure, embody all things and represent a synthesis of universal history. Man is a microcosm. But God is the Macrocosm in whom the universe of nature and of history has its original exemplar, its possibility and actuality. It is known in his eternal life as a temporal manifestation. We by direct knowledge know only finite things in their passing finitude, and thus inevitably our knowledge involves the idea of time. But finite things are not the whole of reality. The Infinite is, to itself, far more consciously real than anything can be to finite minds.
 
shaky said:
Its very hard to understand if God has free-will. With the omniscience of God he knows what we will do and what he will do for all eternity.
In our case we have free-will under the permissible will of God. but under the direct will of God there is no free-will. This was shown in the book of Job where God gave satan permission to do what he likes with Jobs life. But the direct will of God was satan could not take the life of Job.
So some things in our life is under the direct will of God and other things are under the permissible will of God.
Click to expand...
The will of God is a will to holiness. That saving will is shown by the gift of sufficient grace to all, along with the gift of freedom. God’s will is absolute, using no means, but directly willing all events in the one infinitude of power which is essential holiness. Nothing can resist that will. Man’s being and destiny are willed as one in God’s timeless volition, and what we call predestination and reprobation are but aspects to our minds of that total productivity of creation in regard to responsible creatures. God created man’s being as possessed of certain powers and the ability to act freely. God’s concurrence with man’s deliberate acts does not diminish their freedom but maintains it. Man’s purpose is the fulfillment of the Divine purpose in the manifestation of Divine power and sanctity. “We can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth” (2 Corinthians 13:8) and all human acts inevitably fulfill that purpose. Thus “in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: and every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Faather.” (Phil. 2: 10-11).
 
+JMJ+
Ana_v said:
If free will is a created reality, not an eternal one, then, we may say “God does not have free will”.

My only concerns with that is, what it comes off as sounding like. It almost makes it sound as if God is controlled by some “bigger” (so to speak) or external thing.

Although I suppose, that can be avoided, if I were to follow the aforementioned statement, with something like:

Free will only makes sense in the context of *created *beings, that is, beings whose existence is owed to an external authority.
Click to expand...
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, it is only our religion that dares to put limits on God.

As the previous posters have said, it is impossible for God (in fact, ANYONE) to go against His nature. And no, I do NOT agree that “If he should change his mind about some aspect of natural law (but that has not been his nature so far), then that change becomes the new good.” That is to misunderstand God’s nature and natural law.

Remember that God is PERFECT Goodness. That is, the definitions of good and evil as of now are the BEST they could ever be IN ANY CONCEIVABLE UNIVERSE, because they are according to His nature. Any aspect of natural law that pertains to good and evil are REFLECTIONS of His nature. It must be so, or God cannot be Perfect Goodness, since to be perfect is to be the ideal, and therefore everything else pertinent must be relative to this ideal. He could easier make a four sided triangle than redefine any aspect of good and evil, for to do so would be to change His nature.

Let me put it this way: Is it in man’s free will to choose to breathe water unassisted with any device? Is it in man’s free will to fly in the air unassisted with any device? No of course not, it is not in man’s nature to breathe water or fly in the air unassisted. If man was to do either or both, then man ceases to be man as we define him now. And so it is with God: it is not in God’s nature to do evil, therefore, the choice of doing evil is not available to God in the first place.

God love you.
 
Ana_v said:
If free will is a created reality, not an eternal one, then, we may say “God does not have free will”.

My only concerns with that is, what it comes off as sounding like. It almost makes it sound as if God is controlled by some “bigger” (so to speak) or external thing.

Although I suppose, that can be avoided, if I were to follow the aforementioned statement, with something like:

Free will only makes sense in the context of *created *beings, that is, beings whose existence is owed to an external authority.
Click to expand...
Ana:

Great topic! I like what the Father of Philosophy Socrates said:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

And I think his words apply, here. I mean, perhaps it would be good to first define what free will is before we accuse God of not having a will that is free.

🙂

At the moment it seems we are considering this definition of the words:

a. free will = having the freedom to choose between doing a good and doing an evil act.

But what if we instead define free will this way?

b. free will = having the freedom to choose between doing one act or another act.

If we define free will as (b) and not as (a), then you and I are not the only ones who are free. The Devil is also free, for he can choose between one evil act and another evil act. God is also free, because He can choose between one good act and another good act.

But if we insist on definition (a), then we must come up with a reason why that is the correct definition of free will. I prefer (b), as it resolves the issue of God and the Devil having no freedom of will.

What do you choose–(a) or (b)?

😃
 
+JMJ+
spockrates said:
Ana:

Great topic! I like what the Father of Philosophy Socrates said:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

And I think his words apply, here. I mean, perhaps it would be good to first define what free will is before we accuse God of not having a will that is free.

🙂

At the moment it seems we are considering this definition of the words:

a. free will = having the freedom to choose between doing a good and doing an evil act.

But what if we instead define free will this way?

b. free will = having the freedom to choose between doing one act or another act.

If we define free will as (b) and not as (a), then you and I are not the only ones who are free. The Devil is also free, for he can choose between one evil act and another evil act. God is also free, because He can choose between one good act and another good act.

But if we insist on definition (a), then we must come up with a reason why that is the correct definition of free will. I prefer (b), as it resolves the issue of God and the Devil having no freedom of will.

What do you choose–(a) or (b)?

😃
Click to expand...
Exactly!

That’s why the Church has always maintained that true freedom is not the ability to choose between right and wrong, but the ability to choose what is BEST freely, free from the compulsion/bondage of sin.

👍

God love you.
 
spockrates said:
Ana:

Great topic! I like what the Father of Philosophy Socrates said:

No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

And I think his words apply, here. I mean, perhaps it would be good to first define what free will is before we accuse God of not having a will that is free.

🙂

At the moment it seems we are considering this definition of the words:

a. free will = having the freedom to choose between doing a good and doing an evil act.

But what if we instead define free will this way?

b. free will = having the freedom to choose between doing one act or another act.

If we define free will as (b) and not as (a), then you and I are not the only ones who are free. The Devil is also free, for he can choose between one evil act and another evil act. God is also free, because He can choose between one good act and another good act.

But if we insist on definition (a), then we must come up with a reason why that is the correct definition of free will. I prefer (b), as it resolves the issue of God and the Devil having no freedom of will.

What do you choose–(a) or (b)?

😃
Click to expand...
I agree with Socrates (not that this matters much one way or another); however, I wonder whether there might not be another aspect of free will, in addition to defining it as the condition involving the choice between good and evil or the choice between one act and another act. And that is, the choice between a good act and a BETTER act, or between a good act, a better act, and the BEST act. A similar (though not identical) distinction may apply to evil. Further, what should we make of NEUTRAL acts, which are neither good nor evil? In a sense, choosing a good act, while being aware of better acts, might diminish the value of the good act, so long as one accepts that there are degrees of goodness. As I intimated, I believe this may work differently with respect to evil in that evil is evil, at least if we’re talking about mortal sin. In other words, while choosing good, better, best, or neutral can be defined in terms of the choice between one act and another, it seems to take on a more circumscribed meaning in this context, with more far-reaching implications.
 
Looking at (b), humans do not have free will, nor does the devil. For example, I am not able to fly, or calculate the eigenvalue of a 10^10 x 10^10 matrix in my head. Nor is the devil able to become the supreme over God. I would argue that God then is the only one who has free will.

Also, what does it mean for God to act against his nature? Do not his actions reveal his nature? People do not act in a way that is not in their nature. We might say of a human, “I’m surprised he was so mean, that is not in his nature” but it is obviously in his nature, or he would not have had the capacity to do it. If God does something “wrong,” is it more likely that our idea of what is “right” is “wrong”? Or in another way, Saying “God is righteous” is a very human way of looking at God, for we have an absolute (or at least idealistic) idea of what righteous means, and we are defining God to have the quality, when in reality, the quality is an overflowing of himself that HE DEFINES, not the other way around. When God appears to Moses in the burning bush, he defines himself as “He who is He (“I AM” in a lot of English translations).” That’s huge! The only way to properly define himself is by himself. Perhaps a better question is “Does God have the ability to make himself NOT God” which I think is a much more interesting question. 😃
 
Oh, come on. “Does I AM have the ability to become not I AM?” That’s not even a question. That’s just putting words together so they don’t make any sense.
 
Ana_v said:
If “free will” and “necessarily being good” are mutually exclusive? May we entertain the idea that they’re not? Would it be heretical to do so?

During the Fall of last year, I submitted a question to William Lane Craig’s Q&A feature on his Reasonable Faith website. Dr. Craig is a Christian (Protestant) philosopher, and he’s perhaps the face of Christian apologetics, at least as far as the atheist perception is concerned (William Craig has an exhaustive record of formally debating atheists, including the world’s leading outspoken ones, such as Christopher Hitchens).

Back to the point … Dr. Craig selects one question per week, but mine was not selected (understandably – he receives many submissions).

Below is what I had written to him. Perhaps someone here would like to take a stab at it. I have yet to resolve my question.
Click to expand...
Your question loops back on itself in a mobius strip of error.

Sin is slavery. Or better put - to sin is to not be free. Even the famous or infamous choice of “the lesser of two evils” is still an evil choice and is in fact the bottom rung or lowest limit of our freedom - inasmuch as we can still choose the greater good instead of the lesser of two evils. Once we reject the greater good for the lesser of two evils - we are no longer free except to choose to correct our wrong and do what is right…then we begin to be free again.

When we choose what is right, good and correct, we are free.

God - in whom there is never a wrong or evil decision or choice …is infinitely free. God would never contradict His own nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top