Ok, let’s clarify a few things first. There is no reason to talk past each other.
A couple of notes here: first, I’m not certain that it follows that, if you can enumerate a potential definition of a world, then that makes it a ‘possible world.’ It might be a ‘conceivable world’, but it does not follow, it seems to me, that it is necessarily ‘possible.’
The definition of a “possible world” is this: a state of affairs, which differs from this existing world in some respect or other. The only restriction is that it cannot contain a logical contradiction, like a “married bachelor”.
Since God’s omnipotence is defined to have the ability to actualize any state of affairs, which does not contain a logical contradiction, it is self-evident that any possible world can be actualized. Are we in synch so far?
Secondly: even if a world is both conceivable and possible, it does not follow that God is obligated to instantiate that world. At best, you can make an argument that world X is ‘better’ in some sense than world Y, and therefore, God should choose X over Y.
Here we may run into some problem. Let’s say that there are two possible worlds, “A” and “B” which are identical in all respects, except one, and in that respect “A” is better than “B” according to God’s value system (whatever that might be).
It is assumed that God is a rational being. And a rational being will not choose an inferior option - all other things being equal. There is no “obligation” here. To choose something inferior when one can choose something superior would be a sign of irrationality.
I offer this as a basic principle. If you disagree, we can finish this conversation here and now. This is not something that you could classify as “freely asserted, freely denied”.
As it turns out, we’re debating precisely this ‘world value function’. Until we concur on this value judgment – and, in fact, agree that our shared opinion is the opinion of God, as well! – there’s no compelling force to your argument that God must choose a particular world over another.
Very well. I did not touch upon it, because it should be obvious. According to Christian (Catholic) theology, God’s top level desire is to have everyone with him an heaven. This is not something I invented, it is what your theology says.
Are we still is synch? Or should we depart here?
Here’s where your argument starts to fray badly. In order to make this assertion, you’ll need to describe how and why all people, in all places and times in this world always freely choose to ‘love and obey God’.
Certainly. Two remarks. First to have a person, who freely and volitionally stays “sinless”, is a logically possible state of affairs. You believe in at least one example (some people offer more) and that is the Virgin Mary. Observe, that according to your theology Mary was purposefully created to stay sinless and she retained her free will, she did not become a “robot”. As such to be deliberately created with free will and staying sinless is NOT logically impossible.
There is no reason to assume that other people cannot share this “sinless state”. To say that Mary could have stayed sinless because she was the designated mother of Jesus makes no sense. God’s omnipotence cannot be curtailed by such auxiliary restrictions. There is nothing logically impossible to have a deliberately created sinless person, therefore God could create any number of such beings.
Are we still on the same page?
Many of us in this thread have asserted that the only way that this is possible for a created rational being is if these beings have no free will – that they are created without the possibility of failing to ‘love and obey’. If you disagree, please let us know how you feel this is possible.
I just did directly above. But I will recap. Mary was deliberately and purposefully created to have her free will intact, and also stay sinless. She could not fail to “love” and “obey”. Yet, she did not become a “robot”. So your objection does not stand.
A short summary. It is possible to have a world where all the inhabitants are free and stay sinless - despite being created deliberately to stay that way. In such a world everyone would be “promoted” into heaven, which is - allegedly - God’s ultimate aim. Such a world is possible, and therefore can be actualized by God. This world is clearly inferior compared to that. Therefore God deliberately created an inferior world - so God is irrational. Having arrived at a logical contradiction your theology is logically inconsistent. No rational person can subscribe to it.
I will stop here and await your reply.
