Predestination and free will

[tonyrey]

Being timeless does not make the slightest difference to whether it make sense to believe that a free choice is knowable. Omniscience does not imply the power to know what cannot be known but the power to know that is within the scope of knowledge. If you claim to know that free choices are knowable you are in effect claiming to be infallible in that respect. How do you know that free choices are knowable? Do you know exactly what omniscience entails?

The fundamental nature of God does not change but He is not static. Love is dynamic. God causes change; otherwise He would not create anything. He also responds to change and loves us to the exact extent that we love others:

“Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”…

Being timeless means you can’t find something out. You either know it or you don’t.

How do you know what being timeless means - without having been in that situation?

So God either knows what you choose or he doesn’t. He can’t find out unless he experiences the passage of time.

If God is “outside” time He knows everything that is knowable. There is no need for Him to “experience” the passage of time. It would be much simpler to admit that our limited intelligences cannot fully comprehend the nature of God.

God could prevent every single accident, disease and disaster by working miracles but it would defeat the purpose of creating an orderly universe. It would be obvious that He existsand we would no longer be free to choose what to believe and how to live.
You could make that kind of an argument in favor of ours being the best possible world.

There is plenty of evidence that our world is the best possible physical world in which there are** billions of beings pursuing different goals**. You need to give a detailed description of a better one so that we can examine whether it is feasible…

Still, why couldn’t God have made an orderly universe that didn’t have genetic defects, for instance? That would seem to place limits on God’s omnipotence.

God could have created a universe without genetic defects but it would be unimaginably different. The entire evolutionary system would have to be changed. All the causes of genetic defects would have to be absent. Every single harmful coincidence would have to be eliminated. No gene would ever be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everything would go completely according to plan in an imperfect, finite world! It is very easy to make the suggestion but to implement it demands an amount of knowledge and wisdom which are far beyond the scope of minute intelligences such as ours.

Which is another solution to the problem. A God who is not omnipotent may want to give us a better world, but be unable to do so.

The idea of a finite God has been suggested by philosophers like John Stuart Mill but it raises far more problems than it solves… What imposes limits on the Creator?

I

don’t know how I would feel about existing for an eternity, whether hell or heaven. I would definitely like to live longer than the 80 years I’m expected to. But frankly as I think about it, I don’t think I would want to exist forever without the option of suicide into nonexistence. Even in heaven. It seems scary to me.

Good! Now you are coming to grips with reality - which is oversimplified by materialists. It is not surprising that you find eternity scary because we have no experience of existing forever. It exceeds our imagination. But have you never been so happy you wished it could last forever? Do really believe you would ever wish to disappear utterly with no hope of ever seeing all those you love again? That you would ever have fulfilled all your ambitions and exhausted all the possibilities of existence? It really amounts to wishing you had never been born in the first place! That is a far simpler solution than a short-lived experiment like a short life which eventually leads to nothing more than a death-wish…

 

[flyingfish]

its funny. I thought that you would have figured this out with your earlier comment.

Right, all the things you’ve said in your post argue that this is the possible world.

A variant of this argument would be that this is the best possible world a non-omnipotent God could create. Or simply that God had no choice in creating the world as it is, so he would be off the hook for the bad stuff.

The problem with all the things you say, is that while they are possible arguments you do have to have quite a bit of faith to accept them. You can argue all you want that millions of children sold into sex slavery bring about a greater good, or millions of souls in hell bring about a greater good but I still find it difficult to accept these arguments.

Your arguments are stronger for suffering that does seem to bring about a greater good, but there is also a lot of suffering in this world that seems completely senseless. (For instance, the suffering that animals experience, the very system of predation, disease, parasitism as it applies to animals.)

There are a lot of specific examples of suffering that don’t seem to bring about any greater good or keep away a greater evil, that you would need to have a lot of faith to believe that it’s there.

This also smells of the utilitarian argument of the greatest good for the greatest number, and since the faithful are typically opposed to this style of argument with respect to moral choices in general I do find it somewhat ironic.

Its different when you realize free will is involved. Then its not so much people being tormented by their creator so much as people who ended up putting themselves in a position they knew full well was not the best (you cannot sin without knowing it) out of pride and envy.

It really isn’t different, because people on earth live in mortal sin and yet are not in torment. There is no reason God couldn’t make hell be like earth, maybe even better than earth. If hell is painful, it’s because God chose to make it so. Personally I don’t believe anything a finite creature can ever choose merits eternal torment, but that’s just me.

Again, hard to believe it’s the best possible scenario.

 

[flyingfish]

The idea of a finite God has been suggested by philosophers like John Stuart Mill but it raises far more problems than it solves… What imposes limits on the Creator?

Arguments about God frequently mention that it is a logically necessary being, for me this would imply God would have a certain “necessary” nature. And in this nature would lie the limitations of God. Just like it’s impossible to draw a square circle, God could find it impossible to create anything but the world as is. God might not have a choice in creating.

 

[flyingfish]

But it goes deeper than that. Let’s look at the second problem, the world with 2 decisons. If its W1 would lead to a logical contradiction, then the two decisions would not be “free”. One of them would determine of the other. Since we already know that it is possible to create a one-agent-one-decison setup, we have a starting point. God creates the one with the moral decison, and tries to add another free decison. If he cannot, it means that the second decision is contingent upon the outcome of the first one, and so it cannot be free.

Q.E.D. It is always possible to create a world with an unlimited number of morals agents with an unlimited number of moral decisons, where every one will always freely choose the moral outcome. The nature of these decisions is not specified. You can say that the decision is to “love or reject God”.

That’s an interesting argument.

It does seem to rely on free will being independent of the environment, does it not? I guess that would be the definition of the anything can be chosen, arbitrary free will that many believers insist we have.

It would not work if our choices are either fully determined by our environment, or if they are partially determined by our environment. You could have a kind of a free will with choices partially determined by the environment. As you added more agents in your scenario, you wouldn’t necessarily have 2^n possible worlds, you’d have less.

The best possible world argument seems to have a hidden assumption that our choices would be restricted by our environment, and the choices of an agent in a system of other agents would be reduced compared to the sole agent environment.

 

[Thing]

This is only one possible explanation, and indeed it is frequently brought up.

However, it quickly breaks down when one considers the pain and suffering of animals and little children - which ends in death. They will not experience any greater good from their suffering here in this existence. Two possible answers to that: 1) the gretaer good will happen to others, and the animals and children are the tools to bring this good forth; and 2) the children will be amply rewarded in heaven (though the animals will not).

Problems here: 1) to allow the suffering of “A” to bring forth greater good to “B” is morally unjustifyable; and 2) if the reward is not a logical corollary of the suffering then the suffering was gratuitous (it is not necessary in the logical sense).

And this is the point when the greater good defense is abandoned. At this point the “unintended consequence” type of argument is brougt up: “God gave us free will, and the unavoidable (but unintended) consequence is the existence of evil”. The problem with this is that only the possibility of evil is the logical corollary of free will, but not its actuality. A secondary problem is the existence of the so-called “natural evil”, which cannot be blamed on free will.

I thought that evil, and suffering, were a consequence of ‘the fall’, as they say. These things did not always exist.

 

[flyingfish]

I thought that evil, and suffering, were a consequence of ‘the fall’, as they say. These things did not always exist.

Think about what “the fall” means. The claim is that at some point people, and the world, were good, but later human beings chose to disobey God and become bad.

If the good humans freely chose to sin, weren’t they already fallen?

You’d be brought back to the question of why didn’t God make human beings such that they did not choose to “fall”?

 

[Thing]

Think about what “the fall” means. The claim is that at some point people, and the world, were good, but later human beings chose to disobey God and become bad.

If the good humans freely chose to sin, weren’t they already fallen?

You’d be brought back to the question of why didn’t God make human beings such that they did not choose to “fall”?

To think about this you have to accept three parties; God, the devil, and mankind.

Without the devils prompting mankind would not have fallen. And yes, God created man perfectly innocent and free. It required a free outside agent to interfere with Gods plan.
The humans chose to sin by being offered supposedly ‘a greater good’ which required an act of disobedience to God. So they were not fallen until they were persuaded to fall.

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s an interesting argument.

It does seem to rely on free will being independent of the environment, does it not? I guess that would be the definition of the anything can be chosen, arbitrary free will that many believers insist we have.

You see it correctly. The existence of “free will” - meaning that we have the freedom to choose either a moral choice or an immoral one - is essential to the argument. If the circumstances prevent someone to make this choice, then the choice was not “free”. An example would be: “someone threatens your family and demands that you do an immoral (or unlawful) act. No one would say that your submission to the demand was “freely” chosen.”

It would not work if our choices are either fully determined by our environment, or if they are partially determined by our environment. You could have a kind of a free will with choices partially determined by the environment. As you added more agents in your scenario, you wouldn’t necessarily have 2^n possible worlds, you’d have less.

Corrrect. Now, obviously, our choices are always constrained by the environment to some degree. We are not “totally” free to do whatever we fancy. The point is that if there is no freedom to make either a moral or immoral choice, then the required freedom is simply not there - at least according to the apologists.

Personally, I think it is enough to make “some” choice for having sufficient freedom, it does not have to have a moral aspect to it. That is, if we never had the freedom to commit something “evil”, but we had freedom to choose between “good” and “indifferent” outcomes, that freedom would be sufficient, and it would be better than being able to do “evil” things, too. This is something that the dogmatic believers deny, but they cannot bring up any argument to support their stance. (What else is new?)

 

[tonyrey]

Arguments about God frequently mention that it is a logically necessary being, for me this would imply God would have a certain “necessary” nature. And in this nature would lie the limitations of God. Just like it’s impossible to draw a square circle, God could find it impossible to create anything but the world as is. God might not have a choice in creating.

The fact that God is a logically necessary Being does not imply that He is static - as “necessary” implies. The Creator is necessarily dynamic, creative and original. It also follows from the fact that He is the Ultimate Being that He is perfect and has no limitations.
It does not make sense to think God might not have a choice perhaps he is the Source of free will. We could say that He chooses whether to choose! What I really mean is that there are obviously limits to the extent to which we can comprehend the nature of God…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If God is all knowing, then that means he created us knowing we are going to go to hell or heaven. If our souls are made with a destiny towards heaven or hell, then does that kind of take away from our free will? Why would God create people who were just gonna go to hell? or get aborted?

If God created people who freely chose to go to hell, then i don’t see why Gods knowing it would be a problem. It would be a contradiction for God not to create that which he knew he would create. If God doesn’t create the person, not only do we enter into a contradiction, it would be to take away the dignity of a persons freewill and their value as persons. God being love does not take back what God gives in Love on the account that we will abuse Gods love. That we choose to ruin it is not caused by God, although it is God that actualizes the reality of it.

 

[flyingfish]

To think about this you have to accept three parties; God, the devil, and mankind.

Without the devils prompting mankind would not have fallen. And yes, God created man perfectly innocent and free. It required a free outside agent to interfere with Gods plan.
The humans chose to sin by being offered supposedly ‘a greater good’ which required an act of disobedience to God. So they were not fallen until they were persuaded to fall.

I don’t know, isn’t the definition of fallen having a tendency to sin/disobey God? Human beings chose to listen to the devil and disobey God, just like fallen human beings today choose to disobey God. I don’t see what changed.

An example would be: “someone threatens your family and demands that you do an immoral (or unlawful) act. No one would say that your submission to the demand was “freely” chosen.”

Right, though it would seem the traditionalists would insist that even in a dire situation a person would still have the logical capacity to choose good. And if they insist on this definition of free will, then your argument would destroy the idea that it’s impossible for there to be a world where everyone freely chooses good. (Though such a world might require unrealistic/unexpected albeit logically possible decisions.)

The fact that God is a logically necessary Being does not imply that He is static - as “necessary” implies. The Creator is necessarily dynamic, creative and original. It also follows from the fact that He is the Ultimate Being that He is perfect and has no limitations.
It does not make sense to think God might not have a choice perhaps he is the Source of free will. We could say that He chooses whether to choose! What I really mean is that there are obviously limits to the extent to which we can comprehend the nature of God…

It seems that talking about God in general leads to contradictions. If you insist that God can be dynamic (i.e. can experience a process, can experience change), then you suggest God exists in time.

But at the same time theists will often insist God is outside of time, and is timeless. You can’t experience change without the passage of time, that is a logical contradiction.

There are also issues with omnipotence, such as limits placed on God with respect to his ability to create square circles. But that suggests that logic is above God, and that God can’t arbitrarily change logic. Is God limited by logic or not?

 

[Mamanurse]

Don’t you think your son would live a fuller life if he had the full use of human faculties? It’s all well and good that he makes others happy, but how do you think it is for him that he will never be able to live a full life?

Are you honestly saying that if you could take away his disorder you wouldn’t because he brings joy to others?

What about people who have life threatening allergic reactions, what about people who have MS, what about people who are born with unsightly physical deformities, and so on? You don’t think they’d be better off healthy?

The only thing that I can answer with is that you have obviously not been blessed to know anyone with special needs. If you had, you wouldn’t even consider asking me these questions.

 

[Thing]

I don’t know, isn’t the definition of fallen having a tendency to sin/disobey God? Human beings chose to listen to the devil and disobey God, just like fallen human beings today choose to disobey God. I don’t see what changed.

?

Another anology;
Imagine you are an infant - a pure innocent straight from the Garden of Eden. And in your chubby little hand is an ice-pop. Its all yours. From now on life is perfect until the end of time - if there is even an end of time.

Now, just a minute; we shall rewind a bit. There you are as innocent as could be with your ice-pop. And there in fromt of you is the devil. Now, he should’nt be there. He is’nt meant to be there - but there he is all the same.

See what happened. Do you get the idea, without the devil, man - the infant, would be unchanged from his original state. For it was the devil who tempted, it was not mans’ nature which tempted man.

Hes a crafty one, the devil, and in your innocence as an infant, which was not designed to combat the devil as he did not exist in the Garden always, and in your innocence he persuades you to hand over your ice-pop. Which you do, and now you have lost your ice-pop.

• There you have it, your ‘fall’ or original sin, is the loss of gifts, your ice-pop, which were yours and now your children also will be without them.
• Secondly, you were not designed originally to be tempted nor to combat attacks from outside the plan of Creation, you were designed for life.

 

[R_Daneel]

Right, though it would seem the traditionalists would insist that even in a dire situation a person would still have the logical capacity to choose good.

Oh, they “insist” on many things. But this “insistence” is not supported by any evidence, nor can they bring up examples just what those “good” options might be.

And if they insist on this definition of free will, then your argument would destroy the idea that it’s impossible for there to be a world where everyone freely chooses good. (Though such a world might require unrealistic/unexpected albeit logically possible decisions.)

Indeed so. However those worlds are still “possible worlds”. The concept of a possible world merely presupposes that the world would be “somewhat similar” to ours. Even a world with one moral agent confronted by one moral decision is a possible world - simple as it may be. Therefore the “free will” defense fails. It is discouraging to see that they are unwilling to discard it, even in the face of the proof to the contrary.

 

[flyingfish]

Another anology;
Imagine you are an infant - a pure innocent straight from the Garden of Eden. And in your chubby little hand is an ice-pop. Its all yours. From now on life is perfect until the end of time - if there is even an end of time.

Now, just a minute; we shall rewind a bit. There you are as innocent as could be with your ice-pop. And there in fromt of you is the devil. Now, he should’nt be there. He is’nt meant to be there - but there he is all the same.

See what happened. Do you get the idea, without the devil, man - the infant, would be unchanged from his original state. For it was the devil who tempted, it was not mans’ nature which tempted man.

Hes a crafty one, the devil, and in your innocence as an infant, which was not designed to combat the devil as he did not exist in the Garden always, and in your innocence he persuades you to hand over your ice-pop. Which you do, and now you have lost your ice-pop.

• There you have it, your ‘fall’ or original sin, is the loss of gifts, your ice-pop, which were yours and now your children also will be without them.
• Secondly, you were not designed originally to be tempted nor to combat attacks from outside the plan of Creation, you were designed for life.

Do you think pre-fall man had free will? If so, then man freely choose to listen to the devil. It still brings it back to why didn’t God create a world where everyone would freely choose to live a holy life, where everyone would freely choose heaven etc.

 

[Thing]

Do you think pre-fall man had free will? If so, then man freely choose to listen to the devil. It still brings it back to why didn’t God create a world where everyone would freely choose to live a holy life, where everyone would freely choose heaven etc.

Yes, prefall man had freewill.
Yes, man freely chose to listen to the devil.
Yes, God created a world where everyone would freely choose to live a holy life, where everyone would freely choose heaven etc.

So, whats the problem?

 

[AndyF]

Samoana:

Unbaptized babies experience the maximum natural happiness contentment that could ever be experienced in their state. So they are not “hurting”.

Baptized babies experience a state of beatification and happiness and in heaven see God to some degree, but never to the degree of the Faithful who have been born again. Jesus said that is reserved to them.

This is why it is sad that babies are born and destinies determined out of the foolishness of obstinate parents who wish to limit this benefit to their helpless children. It becomes one of really testing of the sincerity of the expressed caring of children. Told that their unbaptized children won’t go to heaven, one would think they would leap at the opportunity, but pride gets in the way. At the last judgment the child becomes the parent’s accuser.

Andy

 

[flyingfish]

Yes, prefall man had freewill.
Yes, man freely chose to listen to the devil.
Yes, God created a world where everyone would freely choose to live a holy life, where everyone would freely choose heaven etc.

So, whats the problem?

Not a problem provided everyone ends up in heaven. If there are people who choose hell, then God didn’t create a world where everyone freely chooses heaven.

 

[Thing]

Not a problem provided everyone ends up in heaven. If there are people who choose hell, then God didn’t create a world where everyone freely chooses heaven.

Nobody in the Garden of Eden was going to hell until the devil appeared in the Garden.
He saw all that He created, and it was good.

 

[Samoana90]

Is hell a place and a state?