God's free will and immutability

[Gwlstimler]

I struggled with this and still do. Ultimately I come down to the “God is God and I am not” perspective, but want some help. In a nutshell: I read the summa on God’s free will and it still seems like a contradiction (but, then again, what is eternity a and God’s nature really like…). The issue is this: God is free absolutely from any constraint in His will, He wills the Good in Himself eternally and absolutely perfectly, without change. We exist, so He wills us, and again His will to do so was from all eternity and did not change. Yet, how is He free to do so in this, since His will did not change. The analogies fail for me on the idea of supposition, for we are talking about God. Can someone grant me some greater (if there is any) insight here? I believe the faith, as I know I have free will and the world would not have any evil w/o free will or defect, nor would time and space or anything else like change exist if God created out of forced necessity, which our reality does. I just need to know that there is no contradiction here.

 

[Vico]

… I just need to know that there is no contradiction here.

The Holy Trinity has created mankind with free will and desires all to share in the Beatific Vision however that can logically only occur after confirmation of the charitable free will in each. Therefore those that freely choose love are saved through cooperation with grace and the others are lost through free choice of malice.

 

[Gwlstimler]

The issue is at the God level and not the human level (or is it?). I agree with you here, though, as that would be the purpose of free will. Not the info I am seeking (unless I am asking wrong questions?)

 

[quaestio45]

I had the same problem friend. If you want to see what the conclusion of my conversation was, check out the thread Can God be philosophically compatible with free will?

 

[Vico]

The issue is at the God level and not the human level (or is it?). I agree with you here, though, as that would be the purpose of free will. Not the info I am seeking (unless I am asking wrong questions?)

It is difficult to understand your question. Perhaps less words would be better.

 

[Wesrock]

God knows all things at once, including everything of all of our times. His knowledge doesn’t change.

God is also voluntarily acting on all times in one eternal action. Again, this act is voluntary.

If God were to hypothetically change his will, that would imply an imperfection on his part. A change in judgment means a re-evaluation of the same situation. This couldn’t be from new knowledge, for his knowledge was never lacking. And if he changed his will he’d be contradicting himself.

The basis of free choice is that the will is directed voluntarily following a being’s knowledge. Having a capacity to will one thing at time 0 and another thing at time 5 isn’t a necessary part of free choice. It only follows that this happens to material, temporal beings due to deficits of knowledge, changes to knowledge, and changing of appetites. That is, from us not already being perfect, from us being mixtures of act and potency.

God is not “stuck” in his choice like an automaton that can’t re-evaluate. He is perfectly knowledgeable and capable of executing his will perfectly as he intends. He was, is, and ever shall be so. He has no lack of fulfillment that, once fulfilled, means he’d make a different judgment.

Since God’s will was determined by himself following upon his knowledge, and not caused by anything external to himself, it is said to be free And from this standard it is the most free example of a choice ever.

 

[quaestio45]

Heres my question to such responses, @Wesrock; could God be accurately concieved as having not created the universe (as Christians hold, for we say he may have created differently or not at all)?

 

[Wesrock]

The other part of this reflection is to ask whether God is required to create by his nature. Consider that there is no unfulfilled part of God’s nature that is only fulfilled by our creation. God is already perfectly fulfilled in himself. Therefore creating is not required by God’s nature. The only thing that he necessarily wills (required by his nature to will), therefore, is his own goodness. (If he didn’t it would create an absurd contradiction in which he is perfect yet wills being not perfect.)

So God is not required by his nature to will creation, but it follows from his nature that whatever he does voluntarily will necessarily is. This is what Aquinas means by “necessary by supposition.” For example, Socrates’ nature does not require that Socrates is in a sitting position. But as long as Socrates is sitting it necessarily follows that he is in a sitting position.

 

[Wesrock]

Based on my understanding, I think the final part I should reflect on is that, in us, our intellect and will in a sense follow from our nature. In God his intellect and will are his nature and indivisible from it. So in God there is not really a sense in which his nature precedes and determines his intellect and will in the way it does for us. In fact, if it were the case for God that his nature preceded his intellect and will, we would seem to be violating Divine Simplicity and we’d be making a special pleading exception to the Fifth Way. God’s intellect and will determine God, and his intellect and will are God, and to determine something by will based on intellect is what it means to self-direct and have free choice.

Edit: In the long term I want to work on my phrasing of this train of thought. I believe I’m speaking to a real and cogent point, but not sure I’ve expressed it perfectly.

Edit 2: Given the next post, I’ll clarify that my concern is in regards to human freedom and will.

 

[quaestio45]

Based on my understanding, I think the final part I should reflect on is that, in us, our intellect and will in a sense follow from our nature. In God his intellect and will are his nature and indivisible from it. So in God there is not really a sense in which his nature precedes and determines his intellect and will in the way it does for us. In fact, if it were the case for God that his nature preceded his intellect and will, we would seem to be violating Divine Simplicity and we’d be making a special pleading exception to the Fifth Way. God’s intellect and will determine God, and his intellect and will are God, and to determine something by will based on intellect is what it means to self-direct and have free choice.

And thats exactly the problem, it seems. For if God is his will, his intellect, and his knowledge (as any being whose essence explains their existence must be) and if God must be immutable (to which any being of pure actuality must be) then it had to follow that the will, intellect, knowledge, and all such things of the God of our universe must be the exact same as one of a conceptual universe where God doesn’t create. Now, because God is his essence, and the essence of God is unchanging, it follows that to say something is God is to always necessarily think of the exact same entity with the exact same qualities. But any effect to which may be different must have its possible difference explained by the possibility of change in the cause or its surrounding conditions. But God cannot change his intentions nor will, not intellect, nor plan, as an extent (for a plan is an extension of will anf knowledge). It cannot be that surrounding conditions changed the effect, for there were no surrounding conditions to which can effect the outcome of an almighty pure act God. Therefore, we must either say that no, there can never be a change in effect, or the effect is random, both of which must deny the agency of the cause to tailor the effect in any other way then the given way. As such, God cannot have created differently, or not create, it seems to me unfortunately.

 

[Wesrock]

As such, God cannot have created differently, or not create, it seems to me unfortunately.

That God created is evident. As to whether God could have created differently, I am not going to concede to you point, yet.

However, for the sake of argument, let’s say I did concede on that front. I’d still feel secure that I have the war in hand. Even if your point were true, it doesn’t overturn the points of my previous three posts. It merely shifts the focus onto a different conception of free choice. The following would still be true:

• God’s action perfectly executes his will following his intellect.
• God is not lacking in any way that is fulfilled by creation.
• God self-determines his own action.

It does not make sense to say, "God involuntarily made “this” because of his intellect and will. That would be nonsense even in humans. For to act based on intellect and will just is what it is to act voluntarily, what it is to self-determine.

Furthermore, to voluntarily act on one choice from your knowledge when in your knowledge you have many possible choices is just what is is to have free choice. Even if it is always true that the same choice will always be picked when having the same knowledge and same appetites, that would be a demonstration of agency, not a refutation of it. If the choices differed each time the clock was turned back (in a human, for example) that would suggest that my intellect and appetites were not sufficient to explain my action, and so undermine free choice.

In the most meaningful way, and in the way that is the root and core of the notion of free choice and voluntary action, God acts freely and voluntarily even if I were to make a concession to your argument.

 

[quaestio45]

In the most meaningful way, and in the way that is the root and core of the notion of free choice and voluntary action, God acts freely and voluntarily even if I were to make a concession to your argument.

Well, the problem Wesrock is that God’s appetite must always be the same, which is the highest good (or himself, as they are thevsame thing of course).

Now, if God cannot change but instead must always act in alignment with essence then it means that the only requirement of God is to will and sustain his goodness. But we know thats not the only thing he does; he also went and created the universe, to which we may agree did not add to the goodness of God (for a pure act being is complete in goodness in himself).

Now, if God is forever unchanging and must be the same in all conceptual universes, then God should seem to only pursue his good for thats the only thing required of him. The fact that he does that which is seemingly unrequired poses the question of whether or not it was voluntary. But if it was voluntary then we can imagine two worlds: one where he did and did not create. But that necessitates a difference in the conscious of God to yield different results (which cannot be, as I’ve said). As such, we can only ever imagine him as creating, which means it must be of necessity he creates.

But a being of pure actuality cannot necessarily commit to act in a way that does not sustain himself, as a purely act being is forever complete and needing of nothing but himself. So the fact that there is creation either can mean one of three things: either one, this God that created cannot be a pure act God, two, that there is no God, or three, that the universe needed not the will of a pure act God to exist.

As such, the question of whether or not a pure act God could have created differently is very much an important topic that does play into the idea of his freedom.

 

[johnnykins]

Ahhhh…the mystery of God, Free Will and Predestination.

The operative word is “mystery.” All the opinions offered, here and otherwise, are pretty lame, but I always enjoy seeing folks proclaiming authoritatively on all 3 of those things, as if they really had much of any idea.

I suggest the struggle is because it’s fundamentally beyond us to understand God except in a very limited way, and the other two issues flow from that inability.

The answer is faith…Oh, you are welcome to muse upon it as many have done, but there’ll be no definitive answer - just guesses.

 

[Inquiry]

Are you asking if the fact that we have a start point means that God must have changed to create us when He did as opposed to another time?

If so, here is your issue: there is no before or after with Him. From our point of view there was clearly a time before us, but that is not His time. Our world is a thing He created and that He always will create. Before and after are things within it, not things from without.

 

[Gregcheckley]

How would this be a contradiction? God doesn’t change, and therefore He has no free will? There is a difference between God’s immutable nature and God’s ations, you know. God doesn’t have the free will to powerless, since that is nonsense.

 

[Gorgias]

Wait… two threads on the same question, @Gwlstimler? Maybe we can get someone to merge the threads. So far, I think, I’m the only one to have responded in the other one…

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

In the most meaningful way, and in the way that is the root and core of the notion of free choice and voluntary action, God acts freely and voluntarily even if I were to make a concession to your argument.

Well, the problem Wesrock is that God’s appetite must always be the same, which is the highest good (or himself, as they are the same thing of course).

I may have been mixing terms used in discussion of human will, as well. But regarding God, he is his own end.

Now, if God cannot change but instead must always act in alignment with essence then it means that the only requirement of God is to will and sustain his goodness. But we know thats not the only thing he does; he also went and created the universe, to which we may agree did not add to the goodness of God (for a pure act being is complete in goodness in himself).

A word of caution, here. You wrote “f God cannot change but instead must always act in alignment with essence…” Be careful of placing his essence prior to his intellect and will. We are used to thinking that way about things, but as his intellect and will are his essence they are also primary and not determined by his essence, as if that is a separate thing. It feels alien to think that way at first, but God is different in this respect because of his Simplicity. “Nothing is the cause of the Divine Will.” That isn’t just a de fide claim, that follows necessarily from knowing that there is no distinction between God’s essence and his existence, from Divine Simplicity, from even the Fifth Way, and so on. But our minds naturally want to think of it in a more anthropomorphic way.

As to the rest, God’s action is all directed towards his own end: his own goodness. He wills his own goodness necessarily. While other things willed are ordered to his own goodness, they are not necessary for his goodness.

 

[Wesrock]

Now, if God is forever unchanging and must be the same in all conceptual universes, then God should seem to only pursue his good for thats the only thing required of him. The fact that he does that which is seemingly unrequired poses the question of whether or not it was voluntary. But if it was voluntary then we can imagine two worlds: one where he did and did not create. But that necessitates a difference in the conscious of God to yield different results (which cannot be, as I’ve said). As such, we can only ever imagine him as creating, which means it must be of necessity he creates.

Possible worlds analyses are not be all, end all ways to look at essence, and indeed come with some baggage and criticism, nor are accepted as informative by some philosophers. Creating is not necessary for God to achieve his teleological end. Insofar as God self-determines his will towards creating, it is necessary that he is creating. This is called necessity of supposition, not absolute necessity. Whether or God would ever self-determine himself to another end giving the same knowledge and end is rather moot. God is, in a sense, indifferent to different possibilities, as God’s will (God) is not caused towards one or the other, and neither is necessarily related to the Divine Goodness compared to the other. In terms of accomplishing his end (willing his own goodness), there is no inclination towards one over the other.

But a being of pure actuality cannot necessarily commit to act in a way that does not sustain himself, as a purely act being is forever complete and needing of nothing but himself. So the fact that there is creation either can mean one of three things: either one, this God that created cannot be a pure act God, two, that there is no God, or three, that the universe needed not the will of a pure act God to exist.

This isn’t tracking in my mind. His act does not include creation by absolute necessity.

As such, the question of whether or not a pure act God could have created differently is very much an important topic that does play into the idea of his freedom.

Depends on what you mean by could, really. I still think the real issue is that you’re treating the will as caused and not self-determined. As caused by the essence. Or as being a cause in itself distinct from God and determining God.

 

[quaestio45]

Possible worlds analyses are not be all, end all ways to look at essence, and indeed come with some baggage and criticism, nor are accepted as informative by some philosophers.

Yeah, thats good a point. I think a better way to phrase it would be something like this:
P1) In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)
P2) These two states of being must be distinct from one another
P3) God cannot be concieved as being in distinct states of being
C1) Thus, God cannot act by voluntude

This isn’t a possible worlds claim, but rather a recognition that for one of two possibilities to be enacted, their initiators must be in different states of being, which I think is absolutely true (take eating a candy bar over not eating one; those two actions require two different modes of being to initiate).

Creating is not necessary for God to achieve his teleological end.

Agreed. Thats why if creation does end up being necessary it would contradict God’s existence.

Insofar as God self-determines his will towards creating, it is necessary that he is creating. This is called necessity of supposition, not absolute necessity.

I agree to this too. Creation can only be necessary because God wills it to be, and thus it must exist. Not through any power in and of itself.

In terms of accomplishing his end (willing his own goodness), there is no inclination towards one over the other.

Yes, I would absolutely agree.

This isn’t tracking in my mind. His act does not include creation by absolute necessity.

Yes, I understand that, and thats where we hit the contradiction. For if we delve deep enough into the being of God we see a modal collapse (as I’ve shown) to where all acts are not just possible but necessary for God to do. If a supposed entity leads inevitably to contradiction, then its safe to say they don’t exist.

 

[Gorgias]

In order for something to be voluntary you must have the ability to be in a commited state of being (where you do the voluntary act) or uncommitted state of being (where you don’t do the voluntary act)

I think you’re mixing modes here, and (intuitively), I think it hurts your analysis. Moving from “a thing that’s voluntary” to a personal “you must have the ability” to the notion of a certain state-ful-ness, is just too much handwaving for it to function as a premise.

Wesrock:

Creating is not necessary for God to achieve his teleological end.

Agreed. Thats why if creation does end up being necessary it would contradict God’s existence.

God does not “achieve a teleological end.” The rest of the assertion, therefore – the “if creation does end up being necessary…” part – falls apart.