Free Will

[ivebeenshown]

I had a thought very recently. It relates to free will, and, indirectly, the problem of evil:

If God is omniscient, and is eternally omniscient – always has been, is, and always will be omniscient – then there could have never been a time when God did not know what our actions, our decisions, would be.

Because of this, God never decided what our decisions would be – there must have been a time where God did not yet know what our decisions would be, for him to be able to decide them for us.

So not only did he not author the evil acts committed by men due to this, but it also cannot be said that evil was ‘created’ – good and evil simply describe actions, and the knowledge of good and evil was possessed eternally by God, alongside the knowledge of all of our decisions. Likewise, God cannot do the logically impossible, such as creating a circle square, because logic has always been present in God’s omniscience, and to defy such logic would essentially mean changing logic, or changing God’s omniscience, thereby rendering God never truly omniscient.

Anyone have any thoughts on this, how does it relate to some historic Fathers and Catholic writers, and what are some other resources in these matters that I can look into?

Thanks,

 

[davidv]

I had a thought very recently. It relates to free will, and, indirectly, the problem of evil:

If God is omniscient, and is eternally omniscient – always has been, is, and always will be omniscient – then there could have never been a time when God did not know what our actions, our decisions, would be.

Because of this, God never decided what our decisions would be – there must have been a time where God did not yet know what our decisions would be, for him to be able to decide them for us.

So not only did he not author the evil acts committed by men due to this, but it also cannot be said that evil was ‘created’ – good and evil simply describe actions, and the knowledge of good and evil was possessed eternally by God, alongside the knowledge of all of our decisions. Likewise, God cannot do the logically impossible, such as creating a circle square, because logic has always been present in God’s omniscience, and to defy such logic would essentially mean changing logic, or changing God’s omniscience, thereby rendering God never truly omniscient.

Anyone have any thoughts on this, how does it relate to some historic Fathers and Catholic writers, and what are some other resources in these matters that I can look into?

Thanks,

Since God is eternal, he has no past nor future. There is no “before” or “after” from God’s perspective. So, framing your statements in this paradigm is not accurate.

Check out the CCC article on Man’s Freedom.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Since God is eternal, he has no past nor future. There is no “before” or “after” from God’s perspective. So, framing your statements in this paradigm is not accurate.

How is that so? First, is there a dogmatic statement from the Church regarding this? Second, are we not currently, in the now, extant here on earth while God dwells in heaven? Third, would it not be contradictory to say that God has no past or future, effectively saying that we do not currently dwell in heaven alongside God, yet God currently dwells in heaven alongside us?

Check out the CCC article on Man’s Freedom.

Thank you.

 

[davidv]

How is that so? First, is there a dogmatic statement from the Church regarding this? Second, are we not currently, in the now, extant here on earth while God dwells in heaven? Third, would it not be contradictory to say that God has no past or future, effectively saying that we do not currently dwell in heaven alongside God, yet God currently dwells in heaven alongside us?

Thank you.

Baltimore Catechism:

What do we mean when we say that God is eternal?
When we say that God is eternal we mean that He always was and always will be, and always remains the same. "
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end," says the Lord God. (Apocalypse 1:8)

Time is a human construct use to measure change. God doesn’t change, therefore terms related to time, like before and after, are meaningless.

Your proposed contradiction is only a contradiction if one assumes that our existance (temporal) and God’s (atemporal) are the same. They are not the same - no contradiction.

 

[ivebeenshown]

God doesn’t change, therefore terms related to time, like before and after, are meaningless.

His “divine substance, essence or nature” is unchanging but his state as it regards actions clearly changes. God’s perspective cannot be “I have not yet created the universe, and I am simultaneously creating the universe, and have already created the universe” because that is a logical contradiction.

 

[tonyrey]

His “divine substance, essence or nature” is unchanging but his state as it regards actions clearly changes. God’s perspective cannot be “I have not yet created the universe, and I am simultaneously creating the universe, and have already created the universe” because that is a logical contradiction.

Your problem disappears in the context of “In Him we live, move and have our being”… The dynamic unity, perfection, freedom, goodness, love, creativity, necessity and totality of God do not change.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Your problem disappears in the context of “In Him we live, move and have our being”… The dynamic unity, perfection, freedom, goodness, love, creativity, necessity and totality of God do not change.

It does not disappear… I won’t settle for glossing over a logical contradiction with a ‘mystery’ until I can understand the logic of it. To me, the Trinity makes logical sense. The Eucharist makes logical sense.

Saying that NOTHING about God changes, not even his state of action, makes no sense. God cannot be simultaneously creating the universe and not creating the universe.

 

[davidv]

It does not disappear… I won’t settle for glossing over a logical contradiction with a ‘mystery’ until I can understand the logic of it. To me, the Trinity makes logical sense. The Eucharist makes logical sense.

Saying that NOTHING about God changes, not even his state of action, makes no sense. God cannot be simultaneously creating the universe and not creating the universe.

There is no contradiction to gloss over. There is nothing contradictory about an eternal unchanging God who exists simultaneously with the universe which is changing. How this is possible is the mystery. It seems like you are projecting your perception of things on God.

How is God “not creating the universe”? It is His being (“I am who AM”) that sustains the existance of the universe.

 

[shaky]

There is no contradiction to gloss over. There is nothing contradictory about an eternal unchanging God who exists simultaneously with the universe which is changing. How this is possible is the mystery. It seems like you are projecting your perception of things on God.

How is God “not creating the universe”? It is His being (“I am who AM”) that sustains the existance of the universe.

How i see things with God is that God works inside time and outside time simultaneously
This is the mystery of the trinity>The Person the Father who is the Thought knows everything. The person the Son the word does not know everything. The Son only knows what the father tells him. The person holy spirit acts on the word.

 

[davidv]

How i see things with God is that God works inside time and outside time simultaneously
This is the mystery of the trinity>The Person the Father who is the Thought knows everything. The person the Son the word does not know everything. The Son only knows what the father tells him. The person holy spirit acts on the word.

Posted in error.

 

[ivebeenshown]

There is no contradiction to gloss over.

Yes, there is a contradiction.

There is nothing contradictory about an eternal unchanging God who exists simultaneously with the universe which is changing.

Of course that is not contradictory – depending on how ‘unchanging’ applies to God. Clearly, his divine essence/substance never changes. He is unchangingly and eternally alive, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

However, if his state of action never changes, he would be eternally stuck in one state of action – performing the initial creation of the universe or NOT performing the initial creation of the universe – logic dictates that he cannot be both of those things simultaneously.

How this is possible is the mystery. It seems like you are projecting your perception of things on God.

Until the Church makes a dogmatic statement that God is simultaneously “A” and “not A”, in other words discarding logic (which is necessary for truth), I have no inclination to blindly accept such a ‘mystery’.

How is God “not creating the universe”? It is His being (“I am who AM”) that sustains the existence of the universe.

Sustaining is not the same as creating. He is (present) sustaining what he has (past) created.

 

[davidv]

Yes, there is a contradiction.

Of course that is not contradictory – depending on how ‘unchanging’ applies to God. Clearly, his divine essence/substance never changes. He is unchangingly and eternally alive, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient.

However, if his state of action never changes, he would be eternally stuck in one state of action – performing the initial creation of the universe or NOT performing the initial creation of the universe – logic dictates that he cannot be both of those things simultaneously.

God is not constrained by time. However, you are and you are projecting your constraint on God. As a consequence you are drawing the wrong conclusion. God has a perfect mind and cannot be illogical, even if you think He is.

Until the Church makes a dogmatic statement that God is simultaneously “A” and “not A”, in other words discarding logic (which is necessary for truth), I have no inclination to blindly accept such a ‘mystery’.

Who said you had to blindly accept it. A mystery is not without some explanation.

Sustaining is not the same as creating. He is (present) sustaining what he has (past) created.

Since there is no past for God, sustaining equals creating.

 

[Shike]

However, if his state of action never changes, he would be eternally stuck in one state of action – performing the initial creation of the universe or NOT performing the initial creation of the universe – logic dictates that he cannot be both of those things simultaneously.

Try for a moment replacing your sentence with this one: “performing the totality creation of the universe or NOT performing the totality creation of the universe.” There doesn’t seem to be any reason to break up creation into an initial instant on the part of God (in fact, evidence leads to the contrary).

Furthermore, God’s action state changing might actually be more problematic than you may realize: especially if God’s essence is His existence (“I am Who Am”). If God’s essence is His existence, then His actions are a part of His wholly simple nature. Therefore, it seems better to conclude that God, from eternity, is creating the universe. I am not so sure how much further one can find out on philosophical grounds, but at the very least there doesn’t seem to be any contradictions.

Also, to comment on your remark about how some on earth are now not in heaven… and that this proves some kind of change on God’s part… there’s is no problem with our relation to God changing. In fact, our relation to God changes all the time, throughout our lives. This however does not logically lead to the conclusion that God is undergoing change (change of nature, change of action ect.)

You do bring up some very important and interesting thoughts. Have you studied much of the natural theology (philosophy) of Aquinas? I have really good book recommendations if you are interested!

Ciao,
Michael

 

[shaky]

Posted in error.

Posted in error. A God that knows everything that is going to happen from everlasting to everlasting is a God that has bound up his free-will.

 

[ivebeenshown]

God is not constrained by time.

Did Jesus not have a perspective of the past and the future?

However, you are and you are projecting your constraint on God. As a consequence you are drawing the wrong conclusion. God has a perfect mind and cannot be illogical, even if you think He is.

I’m not saying God’s mind is illogical. In fact, I have been trying to say how God’s mind MUST be perfect and logical – and since perspective is active in the mind, God’s perspective could not be self-contradicting: it cannot be “I am turning Lot’s wife into salt” and “I am not turning Lot’s wife into salt” simultaneously. That would be entirely illogical.

Unless… it is not “I am turning” or “I am not turning” which indicates a present tense surrounded by a past and future tense, but rather “I turn” which is an absolute devoid of all tense…

Since there is no past for God, sustaining equals creating.

Or as I now understand it… God creates, and God sustains.

But there are a few things left to reconcile… such as Christ experiencing the perspective of past/present/future, and in heaven will we still have that perspective? The martyrs asked “How much longer until?”

 

[ivebeenshown]

Also, to comment on your remark about how some on earth are now not in heaven… and that this proves some kind of change on God’s part… there’s is no problem with our relation to God changing. In fact, our relation to God changes all the time, throughout our lives. This however does not logically lead to the conclusion that God is undergoing change (change of nature, change of action ect.)

This is the only possible problem I would still have with it – if our relative position to God changes, his relative position to us is changed… not that it changes his nature or his action. How can we solve this one?

Basically, I know that in the present, I am not in heaven with God. So God cannot have the perspective of “Derek is in heaven with me”, because that would be false – so in the present, God’s perspective must be “Derek is not in heaven with me.” Yet, in the future if I were to go to heaven, I would know I am in heaven, and God’s perspective would then be “Derek is in heaven with me.”

Not that this changes his essence – while it changes the very knowledge within his omniscience, the fact that he is omniscient has not changed. There would not have been a moment where God did not know everything.

You do bring up some very important and interesting thoughts. Have you studied much of the natural theology (philosophy) of Aquinas? I have really good book recommendations if you are interested!

No I have not! Sounds intriguing! I need to read some Augustine too!

 

[Shike]

This is the only possible problem I would still have with it – if our relative position to God changes, his relative position to us is changed… not that it changes his nature or his action. How can we solve this one?

I admit that I cannot see how this follows, namely, that if our relation to God changes, then his relation to us changes as well. It just doesn’t seem to logically follow. Sure, it does seem that way with everyday objects. But God is not an everyday object.

Not that this changes his essence – while it changes the very knowledge within his omniscience, the fact that he is omniscient has not changed. There would not have been a moment where God did not know everything.

But God’s knowledge changing is very much a problem, especially if you accept the position that God is wholly simple and that His essence is His existence. On such an account, saying that His knowledge changes would amount to saying that His nature changes.

It is very difficult to say anything close to what you seem to want to say. God’s timelessness means that while I am not now in heaven, God still knows what it’s like when I am (that is, God willing!). Of course that doesn’t really make sense to me, a creature in time. But you will find that these are necessary conclusions from necessary arguments about God.

No I have not! Sounds intriguing! I need to read some Augustine too!

Aquinas is a most excellent tutor! But I recommend that you pick up about 3 or 4 beginner books about him first. There is a lot of background that needs to be covered before you just jump in. But it is more than worth it!!!

Ciao,
Michael

 

[Shike]

Posted in error. A God that knows everything that is going to happen from everlasting to everlasting is a God that has bound up his free-will.

I will not comment on the “posted in error” or whatever that means. But I’d like to point out that an omniscient(all-knowing) God hasn’t necessarily bound up his free-will.

For instance. Say God is from eternity creating the universe. If that is the case there is no reason to make the conclusion that he also can’t be freely creating the universe from eternity. In fact, if God existed from eternity and we did not… what other entities can constrain God? Basically, God’s knowledge that something will happen doesn’t necessarily determine that the something will happen. Yes, it is guaranteed that the something will happen, but that could be for other reasons besides divine knowledge.

This might look complicated, but it’s what I learned in my philosophy of religion class:

1. necessarily God knows that p (where p is some proposition like the cat will be on the mat or something)
2. If God knows that p then p will come true.
3. Necessarily p will come true.

The conclusion, number 3, doesn’t logically follow. Basically, premise one cannot instantiate the antecedent of premise two because they are not the same.

But you do bring up an important point about God’s foreknowledge, our perspective, and the nature of free-will and freedom. Thank you. I’m sure much more could be said on this topic.

Ciao,
Michael

 

[ivebeenshown]

I guess… WHY is it necessary that God be entirely immutable and atemporal?

I have heard of two arguments for immutability: the argument from perfection and the argument from eternity.

The argument from perfection states that God could not be perfect if he changed even in something as slight as a state of action/inaction, because changes must be for better or for worse – therefore if God changes for the better, he was not perfect before, and if he changes for worse, he would then be imperfect.

The problem with this is that changes are not necessarily for better or worse. What if every change that God underwent in regards to only his state of action/inaction was a perfect change – that is, his new state of action/inaction was neither better nor worse, but just as perfect? After all, every action God does is perfect due to his unchanging nature. So I can conclude that if God’s state of action were to change, it would not in itself render him imperfect… in fact, this should be EXTREMELY clear to Christians, because the Word was just as perfect prior to incarnation as He was after incarnation.

The argument from eternity states that eternity is by definition devoid of the passage of time, i.e. timeless or atemporal, and that change requires the passage of time. Therefore, since God would exist in a state devoid of time altogether, change would be impossible, even if just changing from a state of “speaking to Moses” to a state of “not speaking to Moses.”

The problem with this is that nothing dictates that eternity be some thing which is devoid of time or the passage of time. Much like a number line, eternity may be viewed as a timeline extending into the infinite past and forward into the infinite future. An angel in heaven, for instance, would not perceive the passing of time as measured by the movements of celestial bodies, but rather by changes in action – such as singing “Hallelujah” one moment and “Glory, Glory, Glory to God” the next. Since eternity can be viewed in either of these ways, we can conclude that it is not necessary that God never changes in his state of action due to some ‘atemporality.’

Is there any valid reason that God must be entirely immutable even in regards to his state of action? Also, is there any infallible or dogmatic statement from the Church which specifies that God is atemporal or unchanging as it specifically regards his state of action?

 

[ivebeenshown]

I admit that I cannot see how this follows, namely, that if our relation to God changes, then his relation to us changes as well. It just doesn’t seem to logically follow. Sure, it does seem that way with everyday objects. But God is not an everyday object.

God is indeed no everyday object, but logic still applies – he cannot simultaneously possess the contradictory perspectives of “Derek is in heaven with me” and “Derek is not in heaven with me.” Where I am in relation to God changes, and even though God’s position does not change, God’s perspective of his position relative to mine does change. That perspective is one bit of information that comprises ‘everything’, in terms of ‘God knowing everything.’

…saying that [God’s] knowledge changes would amount to saying that His nature changes.

Just because some parts of ‘everything’ may change does not necessitate that God would, at any given time, cease to know any one thing, rendering his nature of ‘knowing everything’ changed.

So to sum up my questions thus far:
Why is it necessary that God cannot have a changing perspective or state of action?
Why is it necessary that eternity be one unchanging instant without succession?