God is neutral otherwise does not have free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bahman

Guest
First, lets define free will: Free will is the ability to perform a decision knowing options in a certain situation.
  1. Existence of options mean that there exist at lease two choices that one differ from another
  2. God is good
  3. From (1) and (2), we can deduce that choices for God only are meaningful when the options are indifferent in quality of good because the bad option is not qualified
  4. From (3) we can deduce that God can only have free will when options are indifferent
  5. That means that all God’s decisions are neutral which means that God is neutral too since God goodness cannot manifest itself at all
  6. (2) and (5) contradict with each other hence God cannot have free will
One can assume that God is evil and reach to the same conclusion hence God is only free if it is neutral.
 
First, lets define free will: Free will is the ability to perform a decision knowing options in a certain situation.
  1. Existence of options mean that there exist at lease two choices that one differ from another
  2. God is good
  3. From (1) and (2), we can deduce that choices for God only are meaningful when the options are indifferent in quality of good because the bad option is not qualified
  4. From (3) we can deduce that God can only have free will when options are indifferent
  5. That means that all God’s decisions are neutral which means that God is neutral too since God goodness cannot manifest itself at all
  6. (2) and (5) contradict with each other hence God cannot have free will
One can assume that God is evil and reach to the same conclusion hence God is only free if it is neutral.
I think we have a problem right in your definition of freedom. There is also the freedom to act and to refrain from acting, even if there is only one option available. This, as regards creation, is always available to God: He can create more things if He wants to, or He can refrain from doing so.

Also, don’t forget that goodness comes in different degrees. God can create an elephant, but it is much better to create a man, and even better to create an angel. God, moreover, is not conditioned by pre-existing goods, the way we are: in order for us to choose anything, something desirable has to be presented to us. With God (at least with regard to creatures) that is not the case: He simply creates (or redeems, or answers prayers, or what have you) because of His great generosity.

So, in summary: point #3 does not follow, because God always retains the ability to will or refrain from willing (at least with respect to creatures). Moreover, although He can only will good things (never evils), He can choose between good and better.
 
You’re trying to define God’s will specifically, which I personally believe is impossible to grasp with complete understanding. Especially since you’re trying to understand the motives and moral “constraints” of God using a syllogism and deductive human reasoning. It’s a good start, but you have to understand its limitations when you’re trying to approach the very basis and foundation of reality.

There also exists a distinction between God’s providential will and permissive will, the full extent, meaning and purpose of which is not something we can understand here and now.
 
First, lets define free will: Free will is the ability to perform a decision knowing options in a certain situation.
  1. Existence of options mean that there exist at least two choices that one differ from another
  2. God is good
  3. From (1) and (2), we can deduce that choices for God only are meaningful when the options are indifferent in quality of good because the bad option is not qualified
Can God play a game of chess against a child who is a beginner at the game of chess? When it is God’s turn to move, is God required to always make the strongest possible move, and thus win every game against the child?

Maybe good and bad are not evaluations that can always be meaningfully assigned to an individual choice. Instead, the good might be a game that allows the child to win, if possible, while nevertheless being interesting, educational, and fun. After all, it would be possible to allow the child to win without creating any challenge at all for the child. That would soon be boring for the child.
 
What does “God is neutral” and “God’s decisions are neutral” mean?

I don’t get it.

-Tim-
 
First, lets define free will: Free will is the ability to perform a decision knowing options in a certain situation.
  1. Existence of options mean that there exist at lease two choices that one differ from another
  2. God is good
  3. From (1) and (2), we can deduce that choices for God only are meaningful when the options are indifferent in quality of good because the bad option is not qualified
  4. From (3) we can deduce that God can only have free will when options are indifferent
  5. That means that all God’s decisions are neutral which means that God is neutral too since God goodness cannot manifest itself at all
  6. (2) and (5) contradict with each other hence God cannot have free will
One can assume that God is evil and reach to the same conclusion hence God is only free if it is neutral.
Free will is actually defined as voluntary tendency of movement toward union with a desired result. In the course of that movement, optional “paths” of attaining the union can present themselves to someone who is in process of attaining the desire.

The actual “opposite” of free will would be involuntary actions (forced actions which have no relation to reaching union with a desired result). The actions of a slave to satisfy his master often fit in that description (yet even there the slave may love his master and seek his master’s wishes voluntarily).

As far as God is concerned, involuntary works would mean works which he must do of necessity, where he has no desire to do them but his nature requires it. In actuality with God, he desires everything he wills and everything he accomplishes, and he desires every step along the way to be as it is. Therefore his act is voluntary and therefore free. There is nothing with God that contingently surprises him and appears in front of him as alternatives, such that he would be faced with a decision of “better or worse choice”.

As to the meaning of “God is good”, that simply means he is desirable; it is ultimately desirable to be united to Him to fulfill our own being. “God is good” has nothing to do with God doing things that are pleasing to our sensibilities. “God is good” also means there is no deficiency in God, but he is fully actualized, and not in process of becoming. Your phrase “God is evil” is a contradiction in terms. Evil is deficiency of actualizing oneself. It means that your “being” is not conformed to your potential but is ordered contrary to your potential, your “form”.

In point of fact, God does not “decide” things, but simply “knows” all and wills all that is, in full freedom of his fulfilled desire (his love of himself and of his creation).
 
What does “God is neutral” and “God’s decisions are neutral” mean?
-Tim-
I think that, we start by saying that God is choosing among options that are equally good, but we take that level of goodness as our new baseline. So at the next step we are disappointed that God did not rise above the baseline of the best possible choices. If we are hoping for something better than the best possible, then we express our disappointment by now refusing to acknowledge that the good options are good. Good would be above the baseline. All of the equally good options are at the same level of goodness, so now we see God’s choice as being neutral because it is a choice from among options that are equally good.
 
Free will is actually defined as voluntary tendency of movement toward union with a desired result. In the course of that movement, optional “paths” of attaining the union can present themselves to someone who is in process of attaining the desire.

The actual “opposite” of free will would be involuntary actions (forced actions which have no relation to reaching union with a desired result). The actions of a slave to satisfy his master often fit in that description (yet even there the slave may love his master and seek his master’s wishes voluntarily).

As far as God is concerned, involuntary works would mean works which he must do of necessity, where he has no desire to do them but his nature requires it. In actuality with God, he desires everything he wills and everything he accomplishes, and he desires every step along the way to be as it is. Therefore his act is voluntary and therefore free. There is nothing with God that contingently surprises him and appears in front of him as alternatives, such that he would be faced with a decision of “better or worse choice”.

As to the meaning of “God is good”, that simply means he is desirable; it is ultimately desirable to be united to Him to fulfill our own being. “God is good” has nothing to do with God doing things that are pleasing to our sensibilities. “God is good” also means there is no deficiency in God, but he is fully actualized, and not in process of becoming. Your phrase “God is evil” is a contradiction in terms. Evil is deficiency of actualizing oneself. It means that your “being” is not conformed to your potential but is ordered contrary to your potential, your “form”.

In point of fact, God does not “decide” things, but simply “knows” all and wills all that is, in full freedom of his fulfilled desire (his love of himself and of his creation).
An act is not free if the desire is not free. To fairly say that God might not create the world, he would have to be able to choose whether or not to desire to create the world. But that does not make sense. It still seems that God’s act is necessitated by his nature.
 
An act is not free if the desire is not free. To fairly say that God might not create the world, he would have to be able to choose whether or not to desire to create the world. But that does not make sense. It still seems that God’s act is necessitated by his nature.
Well, think of it this way; The world, the universe, creation, we ourselves - all this is God’s imagination coming up with the idea of what he would like to see existing. He imagines something that is “Not God” (temporal and contingent) and yet something that he regards as good and desirable. He desires what he imagines and therefore it “is” just exactly as he desired (temporal and contingent being). When he imagines this, it is with the full intention (free will) of doing everything he imagines himself doing and not doing what he imagines not doing (again, freedom). His freedom is found in his thinking of what is desirable to him. And his will is found in loving what he knows and actualizing it so it is exactly what he knows (temporal and contingent). You are you, and you are here because he loves the thought of you and he loves the objective reality of you that he creates by his will. Pure freedom of creation of what you love (of what you design in your knowing).
 
An act is not free if the desire is not free. To fairly say that God might not create the world, he would have to be able to choose whether or not to desire to create the world. But that does not make sense. It still seems that God’s act is necessitated by his nature.
You know of course that the Church has declared this idea heretical. Just accept that God is free as the Church teaches and don’t try to analyze it. Pray for faith, flee from doubts, hang on to the Truth which has been revealed by God.

Pax
Linus2nd
 
You know of course that the Church has declared this idea heretical. Just accept that God is free as the Church teaches and don’t try to analyze it. Pray for faith, flee from doubts, hang on to the Truth which has been revealed by God.

Pax
Linus2nd
It would be easier to believe in free will if Catholics gave a strict definition of what it is. But it seems that even Catholics have differing ideas of what it entails.
 
I think we have a problem right in your definition of freedom. There is also the freedom to act and to refrain from acting, even if there is only one option available. This, as regards creation, is always available to God: He can create more things if He wants to, or He can refrain from doing so.
To create is either good or not. If creation is good and God is good then the rest of story follows.
Also, don’t forget that goodness comes in different degrees. God can create an elephant, but it is much better to create a man, and even better to create an angel. God, moreover, is not conditioned by pre-existing goods, the way we are: in order for us to choose anything, something desirable has to be presented to us. With God (at least with regard to creatures) that is not the case: He simply creates (or redeems, or answers prayers, or what have you) because of His great generosity.
The only thing which differ us from God is that we are presented to good but God knows them yet good concept must exist prior to creation.
So, in summary: point #3 does not follow, because God always retains the ability to will or refrain from willing (at least with respect to creatures). Moreover, although He can only will good things (never evils), He can choose between good and better.
That depend if retaining is good or not. What if retaining is bad?
 
You’re trying to define God’s will specifically, which I personally believe is impossible to grasp with complete understanding. Especially since you’re trying to understand the motives and moral “constraints” of God using a syllogism and deductive human reasoning. It’s a good start, but you have to understand its limitations when you’re trying to approach the very basis and foundation of reality.

There also exists a distinction between God’s providential will and permissive will, the full extent, meaning and purpose of which is not something we can understand here and now.
I don’t think if there is any limitation since the simplest logic, lets call it LS, is the base for the more complex logic, lets call it LC. Once something is right or wrong in LS then it has to be right and wrong in LC respectively too.
 
Can God play a game of chess against a child who is a beginner at the game of chess? When it is God’s turn to move, is God required to always make the strongest possible move, and thus win every game against the child?

Maybe good and bad are not evaluations that can always be meaningfully assigned to an individual choice. Instead, the good might be a game that allows the child to win, if possible, while nevertheless being interesting, educational, and fun. After all, it would be possible to allow the child to win without creating any challenge at all for the child. That would soon be boring for the child.
Beating a game against a kid is either good or not depending on the situation. Let assume that the right decision is R and the wrong decision is W. R could be good or evil which define the person nevertheless person is not free to do W if it is God. This means that good God is not free to do W since R is mandatory hence God is free only when the options are neutral.
 
What does “God is neutral” and “God’s decisions are neutral” mean?

I don’t get it.

-Tim-
God is creator. Creation is either good or evil. God is either good or evil. God however can only do right thing and not wrong (there is a difference between evil and wrong, and good and right). If God is good then it can only do good thing. The act creation is either good or evil. If it is good then it means that God has to do it since the otherwise is wrong.
 
Free will is actually defined as voluntary tendency of movement toward union with a desired result. In the course of that movement, optional “paths” of attaining the union can present themselves to someone who is in process of attaining the desire.

The actual “opposite” of free will would be involuntary actions (forced actions which have no relation to reaching union with a desired result). The actions of a slave to satisfy his master often fit in that description (yet even there the slave may love his master and seek his master’s wishes voluntarily).

As far as God is concerned, involuntary works would mean works which he must do of necessity, where he has no desire to do them but his nature requires it. In actuality with God, he desires everything he wills and everything he accomplishes, and he desires every step along the way to be as it is. Therefore his act is voluntary and therefore free. There is nothing with God that contingently surprises him and appears in front of him as alternatives, such that he would be faced with a decision of “better or worse choice”.

As to the meaning of “God is good”, that simply means he is desirable; it is ultimately desirable to be united to Him to fulfill our own being. “God is good” has nothing to do with God doing things that are pleasing to our sensibilities. “God is good” also means there is no deficiency in God, but he is fully actualized, and not in process of becoming. Your phrase “God is evil” is a contradiction in terms. Evil is deficiency of actualizing oneself. It means that your “being” is not conformed to your potential but is ordered contrary to your potential, your “form”.

In point of fact, God does not “decide” things, but simply “knows” all and wills all that is, in full freedom of his fulfilled desire (his love of himself and of his creation).
God is creator and the act creation is either good or evil. God does not freedom in creating if creation is good since otherwise is wrong. Simple.
 
You know of course that the Church has declared this idea heretical. Just accept that God is free as the Church teaches and don’t try to analyze it. Pray for faith, flee from doubts, hang on to the Truth which has been revealed by God.

Pax
Linus2nd
Truth if it is really is true can stand our careful analyze.
 
An act is not free if the desire is not free. To fairly say that God might not create the world, he would have to be able to choose whether or not to desire to create the world. But that does not make sense. It still seems that God’s act is necessitated by his nature.
If by “desire” you mean a natural impulse or tendency (like our desire for food or what have you), then I would disagree. We always have the option to renounce the desire.

But anyway, when we speak of God “desiring” to create the world, we are not talking about this kind of desire (as if God got lonely or something and decided to create a companion for Himself). He creates, not because he is lacking something in Himself, but because He is generous. He freely and gratuitously grants the gift of being to His creatures.
 
God is creator and the act creation is either good or evil. God does not freedom in creating if creation is good since otherwise is wrong. Simple.
But it is not wrong for God not to create.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top