GOD does not have moral free will like human beings

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChainBreaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You mean that God only loves himself but creation. How there could be no tension in God if he loves creation but he doesn’t create because he is free?
God loves all that he has created because he is Goodness Itself and Goodness loves whatever is Good, himself and his creation because of his Goodness. God is the only completely free Being in existence - because in him there is no evil.

I thought you were going to start reading the material I suggested. Thomas answers most of the questions you are asking, but it is a little unreasonable to ask me to remember and quote everything he wrote, because he wrote volumes - and I am just a weak human, an ordinary man.

The works of ST. Thomas in English: dhspriory.org/thomas/ See what I mean.

Linus2nd
 
Look at it this way, evil is the absence of something good ( Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church ). Men constantly struggle because of concupiscence to do the good that they should do. The evil that they so often do, is a distortion of the good or even a complete destruction of it. It is the absence of what should be done, of what should be there. And the more men do this, the more enslaved they become and the less free they are to do the good that they should do. The Saints are the most free men among us, because they have trained themselves to do the good.

But only God is absolutely free to do good, because in him there is no evil. And part ( if we may speak so as an analogy ) of his goodness is the freedom of will he exercises by creating what is good. He is not compelled to do it, he freely does it. ( again this is the teaching of Thomas Aquinas and the Church also).

Linus2nd
Fine. I will call free action “autonomy” and your definition “freedom”.

For a person to have full responsibility for their action, it must be autonomous. There must be some equal possibility to choose an action contrary to the actual choice, without any other factors negating its possibility.

Since God is perfectly good, he is entirely free, but his responsibility for his action is lessened by his nature, which is to act in accordance with perfect good. Therefore God is not autonomous in the same way that human beings are believed to be.

If God is perfectly good, and evil is an absence of good, then for God to not act in some way begetting goodness is evil, and God cannot choose this because he cannot act against his nature. Thus, an action of God to create the world is necessary. This action is free but not autonomous, and the OP is correct in this regard.
 
If you can only will one thing due to your nature, you have to will it. There is no choice. Saying that it is “free” because it is ordered towards the good means nothing then.

I don’t know if I will ever get what you mean by “freedom”.
To begin with we will never understand the mysteries of God, the best we can do is see their reasonableness. Freedom for God is different than for men, because there is no concupiscence in God to hinder his will. Men, on the other hand, have concupiscence, the world and the Devil blocking their freedom.The more we sin the more enslaved we become, the less free we are to do good. The Saints are the most free among us because they conquered the temptations of a life time by constant training of the will and the body. But God is absolutely free. Read what I wrote to Bahman.

The Church had defined Dogmatically the God is perfectly free. And St. Thomas teaches the same in S.T., Part 1, question 19, article 3.

dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP/FP019.html#FPQ19A3THEP1

" On the contrary, The Apostle says (Eph. 1:11): “Who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will.” Now, what we work according to the counsel of the will, we do not will necessarily. Therefore God does not will necessarily whatever He wills.

I answer that, There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. 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. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

Reply to Objection 1: From the fact that God wills from eternity whatever He wills, it does not follow that He wills it necessarily; except by supposition.

Reply to Objection 2: Although God necessarily wills His own goodness, He does not necessarily will things willed on account of His goodness; for it can exist without other things.

Reply to Objection 3: It is not natural to God to will any of those other things that He does not will necessarily; and yet it is not unnatural or contrary to His nature, but voluntary.

Reply to Objection 4: Sometimes a necessary cause has a non-necessary relation to an effect; owing to a deficiency in the effect, and not in the cause. Even so, the sun’s power has a non-necessary relation to some contingent events on this earth, owing to a defect not in the solar power, but in the effect that proceeds not necessarily from the cause. In the same way, that God does not necessarily will some of the things that He wills, does not result from defect in the divine will, but from a defect belonging to the nature of the thing willed, namely, that the perfect goodness of God can be without it; and such defect accompanies all created good.

Reply to Objection 5: A naturally contingent cause must be determined to act by some external power. The divine will, which by its nature is necessary, determines itself to will things to which it has no necessary relation.

Reply to Objection 6: As the divine essence is necessary of itself, so is the divine will and the divine knowledge; but the divine knowledge has a necessary relation to the thing known; not the divine will to the thing willed. The reason for this is that knowledge is of things as they exist in the knower; but the will is directed to things as they exist in themselves. Since then all other things have necessary existence inasmuch as they exist in God; but no absolute necessity so as to be necessary in themselves, in so far as they exist in themselves; it follows that God knows necessarily whatever He wills, but does not will necessarily whatever He wills."
 
Fine. I will call free action “autonomy” and your definition “freedom”.

For a person to have full responsibility for their action, it must be autonomous. There must be some equal possibility to choose an action contrary to the actual choice, without any other factors negating its possibility.

Since God is perfectly good, he is entirely free, but his responsibility for his action is lessened by his nature, which is to act in accordance with perfect good. Therefore God is not autonomous in the same way that human beings are believed to be.
God is absolutely autonomous. It is the person who is autonomous, not the action. It is incoherent to speak of an action as autonomous. And as a free agent, God should be considered responsible. I don’t see a contradiction unless you are defining ’ responsible ’ in some negative way.
If God is perfectly good, and evil is an absence of good, then for God to not act in some way begetting goodness is evil, and God cannot choose this because he cannot act against his nature. Thus, an action of God to create the world is necessary. This action is free but not autonomous, and the OP is correct in this regard.
Read what I just sent you from St. Thomas, I think that will answer this objection. Off the cuff I would say that God’s goodness and freedom would not be lessened should he have never created anything, because creation of the world was not necessary to the achievement of his Goodness. Creatures are not necessary to God’s happiness or Goodness, but theirs. And since it is not necessary for creatures to exist, had they not existed would not be an evil. But since they do exist, what is lacking in their perfection is evil, since it is an absence of what should be present. But this absence is not the responsibility of God, whether we are speaking of morality or nature.

The only part of the O.P. which is correct is that men are allowed to choose between good and evil. God is not faced with that moral dilemma because he is Good by his very Essence. As St. Thomas says, God wills necessarily those things which are related to his very nature. ( S.T., part 1, ques 19, article 3, quoted above. ). Other things he wills freely. He does not create the world necessarily, he is absolutely free in this action, and he is totally autonomous.

There is an inherent contradiction in your statement. In the first sentence you equate ’ autonomy ’ and ’ freedom. ’ In the last sentence you treat them as opposed concepts, contraries. ?
Linus2nd
 
Now, what we work according to the counsel of the will, we do not will necessarily.
Oh boy. You should see that everything else comes from this massive assumption.

In all my pondering, reading, and arguing, I have never seen the metaphysical possibility of autonomous decision. There are always external factors which determine one’s choice. According to reason, either one’s decision is predetermined or it is random. The argument for autonomy eventually breaks down to circular reasoning or a plea to accept it without understanding it. Of course, because I am stubbornly set against reason to believe in the teachings of the Church, I just ignored the dilemma of determinism in this thread. But eventually it leads to other problems in understanding what the Church means when it says that something is “free”.

Evil is an absence, plain and simple. Any creation which is not infinite contains evil. Existence has an absence of evil and evil has an absence of existence. Therefore, it only makes sense for an infinitely good God to create an infinitely perfectly good world. But as it is plain to see, the world is not infinite or perfect. So we will never understand why God acts as he does.

It is very new to me to see that the Church has defined dogmatically (at least according to you) that God has free will. When I was younger I assumed that God did not have free will, since free will involved a choice between good and evil, and God cannot choose evil, therefore God is not free. But apparently I was wrong.
 
There is an inherent contradiction in your statement. In the first sentence you equate ’ autonomy ’ and ’ freedom. ’ In the last sentence you treat them as opposed concepts, contraries. ?
Linus2nd
By “autonomy” I mean the capability of making an unnecessary choice.
By “freedom” I mean what you said.
 
Oh boy. You should see that everything else comes from this massive assumption.

In all my pondering, reading, and arguing, I have never seen the metaphysical possibility of autonomous decision. There are always external factors which determine one’s choice. According to reason, either one’s decision is predetermined or it is random. The argument for autonomy eventually breaks down to circular reasoning or a plea to accept it without understanding it. Of course, because I am stubbornly set against reason to believe in the teachings of the Church, I just ignored the dilemma of determinism in this thread. But eventually it leads to other problems in understanding what the Church means when it says that something is “free”.

Evil is an absence, plain and simple. Any creation which is not infinite contains evil. Existence has an absence of evil and evil has an absence of existence. Therefore, it only makes sense for an infinitely good God to create an infinitely perfectly good world. But as it is plain to see, the world is not infinite or perfect. So we will never understand why God acts as he does.

It is very new to me to see that the Church has defined dogmatically (at least according to you) that God has free will. When I was younger I assumed that God did not have free will, since free will involved a choice between good and evil, and God cannot choose evil, therefore God is not free. But apparently I was wrong.
You could read the Catechism :D, it is linked below. Ott contains a more full account of the Church’s Dogmatic teachings in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a little pricy but very worth while having.

Linus2nd
 
You could read the Catechism :D, it is linked below. Ott contains a more full account of the Church’s Dogmatic teachings in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a little pricy but very worth while having.

Linus2nd
I own a printed copy of the Catechism. I have already read through the topics relevant to freedom.
 
Evil is an absence, plain and simple.
No, actually, evil is a privation of a good that ought to exist in something that DOES exist.

The non-existence of a thing is not evil in itself. If a thing exists and it lacks something it ought to have then some evil has transpired.

The fact that unicorns don’t exist is not evil.

The non-existence of Joe is not evil, but Joe having existence, (is living) who is deprived of life without a warranted reason, then a moral evil can be said to occur.

This is why evil is parasitic on the good. A good must exist for evil to be possible.

God is the fullness of existence, and God CANNOT be lessened, as such. Ergo, no evil is possible with regard to God.

However when things are brought into being, actions which unnecessarily negate the perfection of their being can be said to be evil.

God does not will the imperfection of things, so he does not will evil, but created things can cause imperfections of other created things. When those created things have moral agency, then moral evil is possible.
 
No, actually, evil is a privation of a good that ought to exist in something that DOES exist.

The non-existence of a thing is not evil in itself. If a thing exists and it lacks something it ought to have then some evil has transpired.

The fact that unicorns don’t exist is not evil.

The non-existence of Joe is not evil, but Joe having existence, (is living) who is deprived of life without a warranted reason, then a moral evil can be said to occur.

This is why evil is parasitic on the good. A good must exist for evil to be possible.

God is the fullness of existence, and God CANNOT be lessened, as such. Ergo, no evil is possible with regard to God.

However when things are brought into being, actions which unnecessarily negate the perfection of their being can be said to be evil.

God does not will the imperfection of things, so he does not will evil, but created things can cause imperfections of other created things. When those created things have moral agency, then moral evil is possible.
Ok. But non-existence and moral evil are of the same genus.

That unicorns do not exist in reality is not a moral evil, but it is still a privation of existence.
I think that God has to put persons in an imperfect world to make it possible to freely choose to accept God. But that the world is imperfect is an evil.
A perfect world, in my view, would be one where all that can exist, does exist, and exists perfectly and without privation.
It only makes sense that a perfect and infinite being would desire to create a perfect and infinite world.
 
Ok. But non-existence and moral evil are of the same genus.

That unicorns do not exist in reality is not a moral evil, but it is still a privation of existence.
I think that God has to put persons in an imperfect world to make it possible to freely choose to accept God. But that the world is imperfect is an evil.
A perfect world, in my view, would be one where all that can exist, does exist, and exists perfectly and without privation.
It only makes sense that a perfect and infinite being would desire to create a perfect and infinite world.
Excellent summation.
 
Ok. But non-existence and moral evil are of the same genus.

That unicorns do not exist in reality is not a moral evil, but it is still a privation of existence.
I think that God has to put persons in an imperfect world to make it possible to freely choose to accept God. But that the world is imperfect is an evil.
A perfect world, in my view, would be one where all that can exist, does exist, and exists perfectly and without privation.
It only makes sense that a perfect and infinite being would desire to create a perfect and infinite world.
You forget that the world is NOT complete. It is on its way to becoming complete – that is the promise.

Your above critique would sound rather hollow and pretentious if you made it of a book or movie only having made your way partly through it.

A complaint that “This story (or movie) is not perfect!” just doesn’t cut it when you issue the critique on page ten of the tenth chapter. You can’t know that until the story is completely read or the movie’s credits start to roll.
 
It may be clear to you what you are talking about, but unless the “usage of words” is in common there will be a failure to achieve clarity among all.
When people today speak of choosing between good and evil, they speak of the free-will to choose the between good and evil. I see a clear distinction between moral free-will and the freedom of God since choice implies a lack of perfection (thus i am not arguing that human freewill is a perfection). Freedom from evil is not human freewill as i define it. God does not have moral free-will if by that one means “choosing between good and evil”. I thought i made that distinction clear even if i did not use metaphysically correct rendering.

The fact is we are free in a sense to cause privation in our being. If we were not free to do so we could not have privation. It does not help to call it a short circuit as that implies lack of choice. Thus quibbling of definitions serves only to cloud what is being said. I need only to define clearly what i mean.

It is also the case that because God is perfect it follows that God does not “choose” to be good. Choice implies potency which God does not have.

Essentially that is what i am arguing.
 
God loves all that he has created because he is Goodness Itself and Goodness loves whatever is Good, himself and his creation because of his Goodness. God is the only completely free Being in existence - because in him there is no evil.

I thought you were going to start reading the material I suggested. Thomas answers most of the questions you are asking, but it is a little unreasonable to ask me to remember and quote everything he wrote, because he wrote volumes - and I am just a weak human, an ordinary man.

The works of ST. Thomas in English: dhspriory.org/thomas/ See what I mean.

Linus2nd
I am reading those stuff.

The question was whether there exist a tension if God does not create. You argue quite oppositely which is not my concern.
 
Isn’t it great.

Pax Christi
Linus2nd
Well, no, it assumes that freedom exists without explaining specifically what freedom means. And it does not sound like it was meant to be the definite lexicon of Catholic dogma like I thought it would be. It is very truncated.
 
You forget that the world is NOT complete. It is on its way to becoming complete – that is the promise.

Your above critique would sound rather hollow and pretentious if you made it of a book or movie only having made your way partly through it.

A complaint that “This story (or movie) is not perfect!” just doesn’t cut it when you issue the critique on page ten of the tenth chapter. You can’t know that until the story is completely read or the movie’s credits start to roll.
This isn’t a story. This is real life. God does not have to allow any evil to exist. And it is said that he does not want it to exist. But he lets it exist among the angels and in the physical world. And then he allows it to exist forever in hell. Even if God doesn’t want evil to exist, he isn’t stopping it from happening.
 
Well, no, it assumes that freedom exists without explaining specifically what freedom means. And it does not sound like it was meant to be the definite lexicon of Catholic dogma like I thought it would be. It is very truncated.
It contains all it should that I can think of. What does it lack specifically? Can you give an example?

Pax Christi

Linus2nd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top