God is neutral otherwise does not have free will

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bahman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
To create is either good or not. If creation is good and God is good then the rest of story follows.
But God is not obligated to create.
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.
The other difference is that God is the author of the good, not the other way around. We, on the other hand, are good only if we adhere to the good things that are presented to us (i.e., by acting in a morally good way, by seeking communion with God, etc.).
That depend if retaining is good or not. What if retaining is bad?
Refraining is a non-being, so it cannot be either good or evil; it does not exist.
 
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.
Again a mistake:
The act of creation by God is always good, since all being is good (desirable is the definition of good).
The act of creation is Never Evil, since evil is a deficiency in actualizing full form of being, and therefore accidental during potency moving to full actuality in a contingent (good) being. An Acorn is an Oak Tree in potency, and is an Oak Tree in maturity, but there is evil in it because some of its branches died when lightning hit it last summer (accidental deficiency in actualizing its full form of being as a contingent being). The being is good as created, yet there is evil. Evil is “voluntarily chosen by free will” of rational creatures when they rationally choose to inordinately satisfy their various appetites (overeating, overdrinking, sex apart from its rationally created design, giving ultimate value to what is not of ultimate value - all of which is idolatry according to one of our first fathers in the Faith of Jesus Christ as Catholics (St. Paul). The person (being) is good, yet there is evil adhering to his being due to his contingent free use of his reason. It is free will because he voluntarily desires to do what he does.

God’s creation of what is only good (desirable) is Freedom because he desires to do it voluntarily. He has many other good thoughts of what could be done, but what he does create are the good things he freely wills to create and the other things he wills to merely know without creating. He freely chose and no one decided for him which ones he must create (that would be an involuntary creation by someone who is not God). And if you ask why he created some of the good things he knows yet does not create the other good things he understands, the answer is, that is what he wants (again, free will).

The only reason we consider this a question is to find an excuse to justify our inordinate choices in our being as rational, yet contingent, beings. We want to live, but we need an excuse for our wrong or evil choices that we originally called “good choices” so that we could enjoy false goodness by saying we must not have free will or that God created evil or that God has no free will, and thus there is evil in the world. But, God has freedom, and so do we in all our moral choices.
 
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 there’s a problem in your definition. Your “Free will is the ability to perform a decision knowing options in a certain situation,” seems rather a general definition of freedom, including choices of the will for either good or evil. The phrase “free will” however, used by human persons created in the image of God, implies more than mere choice. The created will has a purpose, an orientation toward God, toward the good. Man today is born with a will not free but indeed in bondage, such that man is “inclined” toward evil even while desiring good.

The Catechism, following Scripture, says this concerning freedom:

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”<Cf. Rom 6:17>

And more (note please the uses and meanings of “freedom” here - and opposing it, bondage):

1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.
1740 Threats to freedom. …
… By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.
1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. “For freedom Christ has set us free.”<Gal 5:1> In him we have communion with the “truth that makes us free.”<Cf. In 8:32> The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”<2 Cor 17> Already we glory in the “liberty of the children of God.”<Rom 8:21>
1742 Freedom and grace. The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness take away from us all that is harmful, so that, made ready both in mind and body, we may freely accomplish your will.

Extrapolating what we can know about freedom as men, and as men (to some extent, here and now) set free in Christ - extrapolating this to God who has freedom in perfection, we see that God is perfectly free to do good, in an infinite “number” of ways.
 
I think there’s a problem in your definition. Your “Free will is the ability to perform a decision knowing options in a certain situation,” seems rather a general definition of freedom, including choices of the will for either good or evil. The phrase “free will” however, used by human persons created in the image of God, implies more than mere choice. The created will has a purpose, an orientation toward God, toward the good. Man today is born with a will not free but indeed in bondage, such that man is “inclined” toward evil even while desiring good.

The Catechism, following Scripture, says this concerning freedom:

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to “the slavery of sin.”<Cf. Rom 6:17>

And more (note please the uses and meanings of “freedom” here - and opposing it, bondage):

1739 Freedom and sin. Man’s freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God’s plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.
1740 Threats to freedom. …
… By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth.
1741 Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. “For freedom Christ has set us free.”<Gal 5:1> In him we have communion with the “truth that makes us free.”<Cf. In 8:32> The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.”<2 Cor 17> Already we glory in the “liberty of the children of God.”<Rom 8:21>
1742 Freedom and grace. The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials, such as those we face in the pressures and constraints of the outer world. By the working of grace the Holy Spirit educates us in spiritual freedom in order to make us free collaborators in his work in the Church and in the world:
Almighty and merciful God, in your goodness take away from us all that is harmful, so that, made ready both in mind and body, we may freely accomplish your will.

Extrapolating what we can know about freedom as men, and as men (to some extent, here and now) set free in Christ - extrapolating this to God who has freedom in perfection, we see that God is perfectly free to do good, in an infinite “number” of ways.
The definition of “free will” is simply “the power of choice without necessity”. The Church talks about freedom as “being ordered towards goodness”, but this is not the correct definition of free will. This is just an explanation about how we feel “free” when we follow God’s will.
 
The definition of “free will” is simply “the power of choice without necessity”. The Church talks about freedom as “being ordered towards goodness”, but this is not the correct definition of free will. This is just an explanation about how we feel “free” when we follow God’s will.
Who gets to define “free will” for the universe? And why? And who says so?
 
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
Are you assuming that there is some fixed, finite number of choices that is equal to the total number of all of God’s choices? If you are not making that assumption, then you have to accept the possibility that God makes infinitely many choices.

What if there is an infinite set of choices, every choice in the set is a good choice, and there is no one choice that is the best? For example, for every choice in the set, no matter how good it is, there might be better choices in the set. If you use the label “a bad option” when there exists some other option that has a higher level of goodness, then you are giving the label “a bad option” to all of the options. However, that is incorrect. By assumption, all of the choices in the set are good.

The following is another example of how it can be that every choice in a set is a good choice, but there is no one choice that is the best. This paragraph begins with the letter “T.” How good is that choice compared to the other options? Can you write a paragraph by selecting the best possible first character, and then the best possible second character, etc? It is meaningless to speak of the goodness of the individual choice when a combination of choices creates a meaningful whole, and the individual choice is meaningless in isolation.
 
So that we are sure we are talking about the same thing.
That;s not the “why” I meant - sorry I was unclear. I realize the importance of all in a discussion accepting the same meaning for the words used! My “why” was:

Who gets to define “free will” for the universe? And why does this person get to define it? And who says that this person has the authority to define it?

This I ask of you, who rejected the sense of the word given by the Church, in preference for your own meaning. You wrote:

Originally Posted by blase6 View Post
The definition of “free will” is simply “the power of choice without necessity”. The Church talks about freedom as “being ordered towards goodness”, but this is not the correct definition of free will. This is just an explanation about how we feel “free” when we follow God’s will.

Why does your authority override the Catholic Church?
 
You are not obligated to do something when the situation is neutral.
But if God were neutral or indifferent he wouldn’t do anything, would he?
But because he is good, he is free to do what is good. And because he is free, he wills eternally to do that which is good. 🙂

Linus2nd
 
But if God were neutral or indifferent he wouldn’t do anything, would he?
But because he is good, he is free to do what is good. And because he is free, he wills eternally to do that which is good. 🙂

Linus2nd
Maybe He just sets the wheels in motion…that’s active. However. it does not mean that He preordained any of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top