Predestination and free will

[flyingfish]

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.

God created the devil, by virtue of omniscience God knew that the devil would tempt those particular people and those particular people would choose to sin. If you read the story literally anyway.

I always saw it as more of a metaphor for the general human tendency to disobey God. Either way, it’s the same problem: if you insist on our having complete free will to choose between good and evil, then you have to ask yourself why didn’t God make a world where every human being freely chooses good, no one ends up in hell etc.?

Is hell a place and a state?

As far as I know there is no definitive teaching about this. The modern view is that it’s a state of the soul of a person who died in mortal sin. A view of hell that involved actual hellfire was more popular in the past than it is today.

 

[Thing]

God created the devil, by virtue of omniscience God knew that the devil would tempt those particular people and those particular people would choose to sin. If you read the story literally anyway.

I always saw it as more of a metaphor for the general human tendency to disobey God. Either way, it’s the same problem: if you insist on our having complete free will to choose between good and evil, then you have to ask yourself why didn’t God make a world where every human being freely chooses good, no one ends up in hell etc.?

He did. In the Garden of Eden nobody was going to hell. Because sin did not exist then. Nobody knew about sin. So that everybody freely chose good.
The devil was not part of the plan for creation. He was an abberation; Because everything God created was good. Unless you believe now that evil is good.
About omniscience; every artist knows that his work can outlive him and also knows the things that might become of it, however, the atist is concerned with making good art not with engineering an artwork against all possible attacks. The particular solution to the attack of the devil, the abberation in natures’ plans, was that God himself would enter His own Creation and defeat the abberation, He would allow the devil to kill God then He would raise Himself up to life again to show His creatures, mankind, all the next Adams and Eves, where Life actually was which they once possessed in the Garden of Eden.

 

[flyingfish]

The devil was not part of the plan for creation. He was an abberation; Because everything God created was good. Unless you believe now that evil is good.

As far as I understand Catholic theology, the devil started out good: he was an angel. Later he, and some other angels rebelled against God and fell.

Do you think God knew the devil would rebel? Why did God make the devil to begin with?

 

[Thing]

As far as I understand Catholic theology, the devil started out good: he was an angel. Later he, and some other angels rebelled against God and fell.

Do you think God knew the devil would rebel? Why did God make the devil to begin with?

He did’nt make the devil. He made an angel. The angel made himself a devil.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Is hell a place and a state?

Hell is a “state” of being or mind, and those whom have this state of being are situated in a “place”. The evil in those minds might be as such that the wickedness of such a Godless psychology will be so terrible that it will spill out into reality and thus in to their environment, making it hellish. For example you might say that a constantly untidy room, that is so untidy that mold and filth has gathered everywhere, is the expression of a untidy and disordered mind, and because that mind is disordered, that disorder communicates itself outside the mind. Thus, in the absence of Gods perfection, the wickedness of a mans heart may turn in on him and become a living reality, a living hell in the absence of Good (God). But never the less hell begins within ourselves. Hell is not a place, because hell is an expression of our hearts, not of a place; and certainly not of God. Hell is a hatred of God. God cannot create hell. But he will create a place for those in hell. And so i don’t think hell is a place. Its just easier to think of it like that;

Its a similar deal with Heaven. In Revelations Heaven is describe as a palace of precious rare rubies and stone. But these are only symbols of heaven. Its not supposed to be taken literally as if to say that God decorated his palace with rubies and gold because those things are worth lots of capital. God has no interest in such things; otherwise the implication would be that God finds his happiness in an object, which is a contradiction and a theological fallacy. Perhaps that which is hell for one person will be Heaven for others. Its not the place that makes heaven “Heaven”, but rather it is the nature of God that is heaven since God is reality; and, when we are united to Gods will, we will experience God to the degree for which we were created. We will see reality in its glory. Those in hell are not experiencing reality or living reality as it truly is and that is why they suffer, because in truth they are enemies of reality good and life, but cannot die; and this is one aspect of the hell they experience. They are running away from God (reality & Good) which is the same as running away from reality; but they cannot escape it. Reality is truly good and everything that is good. But it may be the case that God will express Gods heavenly nature through created things or a “place”; and thus perhaps we will also experience heaven through created mediums as well; just like God expresses Gods nature through the physical aspects of Jesus.

Even in this life, we all experience degrees of heaven and hell. But we do not experience it to its full extent. However; i don’t believe there is fire in hell. Hell is certainly a terrible place, but it is terrible because there is no fulfillment in Hell; only mans ego and selfishness including mans will to be God exists in hell. Hell begins in the absence of good. The concept of burning up in an eternal fire is an analogous comparison for something we can’t describe literally.

Hell is a place of eternal suffering, and to burn in fire is a close comparison and a strong repellent for anyone thinking of going there. But in reality, hell begins in the psychology of human beings. It is not caused by something exterior. It is not something that God is doing to man, although it is certainly true that true love is punishing to those who oppose it; since those without love are in hell and are living the opposite of it in all its natural forms.

My Philosophical Argument For hell:

There is nothing in hell that man hasn’t created for himself. Hell is quite literally humanity left completely to itself. God keeps men and women alive in hell because God respects their freedom and that respect for freedom can only be meaningfully fulfilled in and through existence, since freedom is an expression of love and love is fundamentally existential. Nothingness is meaningless since it is without being. Thus freedom is an expression of being and therefore is opposed to annihilation, because no being that ceases to exist can be said to have freedom. Only real beings can take responsibility for their moral free actions, and to take responsibility is an action of “existence” and moral law; not nothing. If God annihilated them from existence instead of allowing them to suffer in hell, God would not respect freedom, and thus would not respect reality or moral-law; which is a contradiction, since God is absolute reality and love absolutely respects itself and values being. Therefore it would be a contradiction to say that non-existence would be morally and objectively better than hell. Non-existence does not fulfill the meaning intrinsic to morality.

 

[flyingfish]

There is nothing in hell that man hasn’t created for himself. Hell is quite literally humanity left completely to itself.

Your argument suggests that human beings can sustain their existence without God’s help. It goes against everything else that is said about God as the creator of life. God has to keep hell going just like he has to keep earth and heaven going: insofar as he is the creator of all that is.

People on earth live in mortal sin and do not suffer, they’ve separated themselves from God and God still lets them have a decent life. No reason hell can’t be the same, unless God wants to torment people for an eternity for the sins they’ve committed in life (including stuff like missing Mass).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Your argument suggests that human beings can sustain their existence without God’s help…

How? Where does my argument imply it?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

People on earth live in mortal sin and do not suffer, they’ve separated themselves from God and God still lets them have a decent life. No reason hell can’t be the same, unless God wants to torment people for an eternity for the sins they’ve committed in life (including stuff like missing Mass).

You have not read nor understood my argument properly. If you open you eyes people do suffer in this life. But i never said that it was to the same extent that people suffer in hell or in the same sense. I basically said that we experience a degree of both good things and bad things. Hell occurs when man ultimately denies heaven. In denying heaven, they deny all the good that exists in heaven.

 

[flyingfish]

How? Where does my argument imply it?

When you say that Hell is made entirely by man. Whether you see hell as a place or a state of the soul, it can’t exist without God allowing it to exist. God can make hell something else (like say the earth), or not at all.

You have not read nor understood my argument properly. If you open you eyes people do suffer in this life. But i never said that it was to the same extent that people suffer in hell or in the same sense. I basically said that we experience a degree of both good things and bad things. Hell occurs when man ultimately denies heaven. In denying heaven, they deny all the good that exists in heaven.

People do suffer, but it doesn’t seem to depend on whether or not you’re in the state of mortal sin. It seems to depend more on which country you’re born in (like being born in the third world), how much money you have, how good your health is and so on.

If people suffer more in hell than they do on earth, it’s only because God wants it to be so.

And no one “ultimately denies heaven”. People sin. Some people have premartial sex, other use birth control, others miss mass. These same people could be helping out those in need, taking care of their families. Are they ultimately rejecting everything that’s good and holy? No reason why God can’t let these people continue to exist in hell the way they exist on earth, unless God wants to torment them.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

When you say that Hell is made entirely by man. Whether you see hell as a place or a state of the soul, it can’t exist without God allowing it to exist.

Hell necessarily exists for those who reject the nature of God. Gods perfect nature has to allow humanity the possibility of going to hell. Hell, is the state one finds themselves in after they ultimately reject Gods love. It is not something that God creates, although it is something that God allows and necessarily so because it is in Gods nature to allow it. It is logically impossible for God to choose otherwise because God would be choosing against his eternal nature.

God can make hell something else (like say the earth), or not at all.

Hell is the state that humanity finds itself in when it ultimately rejects the nature of God. Hell is a spiritual expression that is necessitated by the fact that one ultimately opposes love. It is not a place and it is not something that can be changed. Hell necessarily follows from the fact of Gods nature and and our refusal of it. If you ultimately oppose love and perfection, then it is logically impossible for you to have the things that flow from the nature of love and perfection. The only thing you will be left with is your being, and that which is intrinsic to it.

People do suffer, but it doesn’t seem to depend on whether or not you’re in the state of mortal sin.

I was fully aware of this when i made the argument. Good things and bad things can happen to people regardless of there commitment. My point is that we all experience good things and bad things. In this life, we are all in a time of growth and preparation for the next life. Most importantly this life is time of choice. In this world, where people are free to make that choice, it is possible for people to use the good things inherited by human nature for evil and oppression. Thus bad people can experience states of good and security by living off the backs of others, without deserving good.

If people suffer more in hell than they do on earth, it’s only because God wants it to be so.

No. Its only because you cannot have that which you reject. Being is fundamentally logical. You cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You cannot ultimately reject love and at the same time have the eternal fruits of love. Its logically impossible. The only time where it is possible to be evil and still experience a degree of happiness, is in the time of “choice”, which is the life we are living now. We can either choose the freedom of eternal fulfillment and love, or the slavery of unhappiness and selfishness. God cannot contradict Gods nature.

And no one “ultimately denies heaven”.

Yes they do. They might “want” heaven, but that is not the same as choosing heaven or willing the greatest good. One might want eternal life, but at the same they deny the very principle upon which it is based every time they sin and do selfish things, playing God. One cannot sit on the fence. We reject moral perfection, and moral perfection is that which is defined by Gods nature, and that is perfect love. Of course only God knows your heart, so if its true that you embrace and will the perfection of God, God will know about it. In reality, nobody is morally worthy of heaven, but the mercy intrinsic to the nature of love allows us to repent, and through the process of true repentance, God gives us the grace we need for salvation.

People sin. Some people have pre-martial sex, other use birth control, others miss mass. These same people could be helping out those in need, taking care of their families.

Love judges according to what is true of a persons heart. Some people do things in ignorance, and thus do not consciously act in rebellion to love and thus cannot be judged. Sin is a conscious action of the human heart, and it has to be if sin is to have any meaning. That is why good works are meaningless if divorced from a truly loving heart, because it is the action of the human heart in light of Gods nature that determines whether an act was truly good or not, regardless of whether that act was beneficial to someone else. Self serving righteousness for ones own moral egotistical glory, is not righteousness; even though it looks like it in appearance. If one is doing good for ones own self glory then good-works alone will not save anybody. however there are those who do good with true intentions in their heart that are not able to see truth in this life due to no fault of their own. Victims of circumstance. God will reveal himself to them when they die. If they repent, if they are truly as good as you say they might be, then they to will find happiness in the face of God; if not, they will find unhappiness. There is such a thing as invincible ignorance, and an honest heart is more worthy than a purely religious one.

Are they ultimately rejecting everything that’s good and holy? No reason why God can’t let these people continue to exist in hell the way they exist on earth, unless God wants to torment them.

I know that this is what you tell yourself to feel better, but that will not save you or fulfill your existence.

 

[flyingfish]

Hell necessarily exists for those who reject the nature of God. Gods perfect nature has to allow humanity the possibility of going to hell. Hell, is the state one finds themselves in after they ultimately reject Gods love. It is not something that God creates, although it is something that God allows and necessarily so because it is in Gods nature to allow it. It is logically impossible for God to choose otherwise because God would be choosing against his eternal nature.

The fact that people who reject God through mortal sin aren’t immediately in the state of hell (or the place of hell) proves that hell is not necessary. If people actually exist in hell for an eternity, it’s because God it’s what wants.

Not to mention that, in the context of Catholic theology everything that exists has to be sustained by God.

No. Its only because you cannot have that which you reject. Being is fundamentally logical. You cannot exist and not exist at the same time. You cannot ultimately reject love and at the same time have the eternal fruits of love. Its logically impossible. The only time where it is possible to be evil and still experience a degree of happiness, is in the time of “choice”, which is the life we are living now. We can either choose the freedom of eternal fulfillment and love, or the slavery of unhappiness and selfishness. God cannot contradict Gods nature.

It’s perfectly possible for anyone who is in mortal sin on earth. If you believe there are people in mortal sin, then it’s not just possible, but actual.

I know that this is what you tell yourself to feel better, but that will not save you or fulfill your existence.

I don’t believe in hell anymore, so I don’t need to feel better about it. What I don’t understand is why you would choose to believe these things and argue for them.

Even C.S. Lewis, a highly regarded Christian thinker viewed hell as an Earth like place anyone could leave at any time if they so chose.

 

[TheQuestioner]

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).

Neither of those rules necessarily break down the explanation. In fact combined they make the explanation even better.

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).

1 cannot apply in the same way here because a creature is obligated to do the will of its creator. Thus if “A” was created for “B” then your problem for 1 is no longer a real problem. But again, since 1 (this person was created for purpose B) and 2 (Person A will live in eternal bliss) could be combined then both problems become nullified.

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.

The actuality of evil, however, no longer becomes the fault of the creator but the fault of the creation. Also, natural evil may simply be a way for the creator to help convince His creatures to choose good (like a hurricane falling on someone’s house so the neighborhood can learn to help those in need)

 

[TheQuestioner]

Not just your opinion, it is used all over the place. No wonder, since it sounds convincing, though it is erroneous. However, it is possible to create a world where everyone freely chooses God. The proof is mathematical. In a nutshell it goes like this.

1. Suppose there is only one moral agent, and he is confronted with one moral decision. There are two possible worlds, one, in which the agent will choose morally (W1), and the other one in which he will not (W2). Due to God’s omniscience, he knows what the choice will be. God can instantiate either W1 or W2 - since neither of them contains a logical contradiction. Therefore God can instantiate W1 - where “everyone” (the only moral agent) will (always) choose the moral outcome. Consider: if either world would “somehow” lead to a logical contradiction, and thus would be impossible to instantiate, then the decision would not be “free”.
2. Now let’s add another moral decison to this world. Either the agent is confronted by two decisions, or there are two agents, each confronted by one decision. There are 4 possible worlds here: 1) both decisions are made morally (W1); 2) both decisions are made immorally (W2); 3) the first decison is made morally, but the second one is not (W3); and 4) the first decison is made immorally, but second one is not (W4). Since God knows all these 4 outcomes, and since none of them contains a logical contradiction, he can instantiate either one. And W1 is the world where everyone always makes only moral decisons.
3. You can continue from here. It is always possible to add one more decision, and select from the 2^n possible worlds the one where all agents will always choose morally. The only possible argument against this that “maybe” W1 (all moral decisons) somehow contains or leads to a logical contradiction. Of course, “maybe” is not an argument.

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”.

Wow…this is neat.

Ok. Lets see how I brush up on my “trans-world depravity”

Lets go with your first argument shall we?

We have world A (actual world) in which there is a moral decision that is made, let’s say “If an apple that is not mine is placed in front of me, I will freely choose to steal it”

Then we have W1, W2, W3, W4, varying worlds in which my decision will vary slightly, more or less. Now lets say we have W& which we can label in perfect world. Then my moral decision becomes “If an apple that is not mine is placed in front of me I will freely choose not to steal it”.

You see the problem here?

If my moral decision is based upon the world construct, then my decisions are no longer actually free. I am not really “freely choosing” to not steal the apple. It is merely a factor based upon the world I exist in. Though my decision my seem to be free, freedom is merely an illusion. If my decision to steal the apple is based upon whether or not I exist in world A or W& then I am not freely choosing anything. I cannot possibly be freely choosing to freely choose to not steal the apple in W& if I freely chose to steal it in A

In order for my decision to be free, then I must choose to steal the apple in all worlds. My sin must ring true in each world.

 

[flyingfish]

If my moral decision is based upon the world construct, then my decisions are no longer actually free. I am not really “freely choosing” to not steal the apple. It is merely a factor based upon the world I exist in. Though my decision my seem to be free, freedom is merely an illusion. If my decision to steal the apple is based upon whether or not I exist in world A or W& then I am not freely choosing anything. I cannot possibly be freely choosing to freely choose to not steal the apple in W& if I freely chose to steal it in A

In order for my decision to be free, then I must choose to steal the apple in all worlds. My sin must ring true in each world.

So you’re saying you’re free if no matter what world you’re in, in order to be free you must necessarily always choose to steal the apple? To have free will would mean being able to make any possible choice, undetermined by your environment. That includes the choice not to steal the apple.

A truly free will would be free from causation, and allow you to arbitrarily do whatever you want (within the scope of logic/physical law).

 

[TheQuestioner]

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.

Or that this is the best possible world an omnipotent God could create. Omnipotent doesn’t mean He could do what is otherwise logically impossible. God cannot create a circle-square or a triangle without three angles. These are no limitation on the omnipotence of God, but a limitation on circles and triangles.

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.

About the children in slavery, that is one argument that yes, may require some faith to believe. But your comment on hell shows where your real misconception lies. You seem to think i am arguing that the sex slavery of the children will bring about the greater good of others…maybe, but the standard Judeo-Christian outlook is that it will also bring about the greater good of the slaves themselves. The bible says God gives no one more than they can handle, but refines us through our trials. The greater the trials, the greater the reward (hence levels in heaven…if you are inclined to believe in that).

About those in hell, I never claimed that those in hell would bring about the greater good for others or even themselves. However the existence of hell will (in a weird way I do not wish to get into there is no heaven without hell, if you want to talk about it we can start another thread)

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.)

Animals are a special case. The Judeo-Christian outlook is that they have no immortal souls, so they simply end up disappearing. If that is the case then what we do to them now is in terms of their “rights” completely change since they will cease to exist one day anyway. However, since they cannot go to heaven, they also do not need heaven. In their lifetime an animal can be happy since it is totally fulfilled by seeing to its physical desires, nature and following its instinct. For humans this is not the case. Animals can have total contentment on earth (heaven), while humans cannot. As well, in order for a lion to be a lion it must be a predator. If it is not then it is no longer a lion. The same for parasites and viruses.

But I digress. Really what I am trying to get across is that since we are humans we can only speak for humans. Bringing animals into this conversation does not help us out. That may be a subject for a whole other thread.

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.

hmmmm you seem to be saying that there is a gratuitious amount of evil in the world. There is a problem with this claim though. There is no philosophical or empirical proof for this. Basically, your argument is emotional. Simply put, your argument would simply go:

P: If there was a God there would not be gratuitous evil
P2: There is gratuitous evil
C1: Therefore there is no God

However P2 is simply untestable (how can empirically determine how much evil is in the universe?), and may not even be able to be proven philosophically. Second your premises only works with part of the first premise. That being the case I can add my own premises and simply go:

P3: There is a God
C3: Therefore there is no gratuitous evil.

Granted there are no premises that necessarily lead to my conclusion either, but since neither of our vital claims have any empirical evidence behind them (and yours cannot, because how does one measure how much “evil” is in the world?) They are both simply stated on faith. (Ironically mine can eventually have philosophical evidence, though so far it is a continued battle). Basically, you have no backing on your claim that there is gratuitous evil, so I can simply state that God exist even though this has little backing as well.

 

[TheQuestioner]

So you’re saying you’re free if no matter what world you’re in, in order to be free you must necessarily always choose to steal the apple? To have free will would mean being able to make any possible choice, undetermined by your environment. That includes the choice not to steal the apple.

Yes, exactly. But if my “free choice to steal the apple” changes simply by the construction of the world around me it is no longer really free. If God could create a world where I would steal the apple or a world were I would not then my moral decision is no longer mine, but God’s. It is really He who determines whether or not I steal the apple, not me.

A truly free will would be free from causation, and allow you to arbitrarily do whatever you want (within the scope of logic/physical law).

Right again, and again if my world construct determines my decision it is no longer a free one. If my decision is free then it must be the same in every possible world, since then it would not depend upon the world around me, but my own personal and free choice.

 

[flyingfish]

hmmmm you seem to be saying that there is a gratuitious amount of evil in the world. There is a problem with this claim though. There is no philosophical or empirical proof for this. Basically, your argument is emotional.

There’s no proof, I’ll grant you that. But like I said before, a lot of suffering in the world (such as someone abducting, raping, and murdering a 7 year old now multiply that by millions) that seems gratuitous.

While that is not empirical proof, it is certainly empirical evidence.

There are victims who survive, yet become alcoholics/drug addicts, become molesters themselves. In those cases to the observer it would seem that not only was there no benefit from the suffering, but there was further harm.

Those are our observations. You don’t need faith to notice that. You do need a great deal of faith in my opinion to believe that it’s all for the best in the long run and that there are hidden benefits to the raped/murdered/tortured kids.

And so I would not say that our positions are equivalent, I am going by what I experience in this world, what I observe with my senses. And I ask, how likely is it that this is the best possible world? You are assuming (because of religious considerations), that this is the best possible world.

Yes, exactly. But if my “free choice to steal the apple” changes simply by the construction of the world around me it is no longer really free. If God could create a world where I would steal the apple or a world were I would not then my moral decision is no longer mine, but God’s. It is really He who determines whether or not I steal the apple, not me.

Right again, and again if my world construct determines my decision it is no longer a free one. If my decision is free then it must be the same in every possible world, since then it would not depend upon the world around me, but my own personal and free choice.

Would you agree that God’s omniscience is compatible with you having free will?

If so, then I don’t see how your argument works. Either way, God knows what you will do. Since you have true free will, you can do just about anything possible. (In particular, not steal the apple).

All things being equal, since you are truly free, for any world where you freely choose to steal the apple there is a world where you freely choose not to steal the apple. It is precisely the independence of your choice from your environmental circumstance that allows for this argument.

If you think that by instantiating a world where you would not steal the apple God would choose for you, then you have to believe that God’s omniscience is incompatible with your free will, in which case you have bigger problems anyway.

 

[R_Daneel]

Then we have W1, W2, W3, W4, varying worlds in which my decision will vary slightly, more or less. Now lets say we have W& which we can label in perfect world. Then my moral decision becomes “If an apple that is not mine is placed in front of me I will freely choose not to steal it”.

You see the problem here?

No, I don’t see any problem. The world you labeled W& is actually W1.

If my moral decision is based upon the world construct, then my decisions are no longer actually free. I am not really “freely choosing” to not steal the apple. It is merely a factor based upon the world I exist in.

Our decisions are never “free” in the sense that they happen in a vacuum. The proper definition of a “free will” consists of two parts:

1. The agent is the source of his decision, not someone else. This does not mean that the decison is not influenced by external considerations. If someone is afraid of being caught of stealing (for example) and this circumstance influences his decision, it is still free, since he might decide that the risk is acceptable. If, however, someone is threatened by a mafioso that his family will be killed, unless he “agrees” to commit a crime, that decision is not “free”, since the risk of refusal is not acceptable.
2. There are at least two available options, both of which can be executed by the agent. The decision making - in and by itself - is not relevant, unless that decision can be carried out. In other words, the freedom to act on one’s decison is an integral part of the “freedom”. Example: a woman is about to be raped (yes, grusome, but illustrates the issue). She has one desire: “not to be raped”. If the attacker is too strong, her desire cannot be carried out. To say that her “will” not to be raped is still “free” is nonsense (though I actually heard arguments stating exactly that). To say that she has the option of “laying back and enjoy” is unacceptably cruel (to say the least).

 

[R_Daneel]

1 cannot apply in the same way here because a creature is obligated to do the will of its creator. Thus if “A” was created for “B” then your problem for 1 is no longer a real problem. But again, since 1 (this person was created for purpose B) and 2 (Person A will live in eternal bliss) could be combined then both problems become nullified.

You simply argue that “might makes right”. The creator’s will is the measure of the morality. Sorry, this is not acceptable. Obviously, you would not want to implement such a “morality” among humans, where the stongest one declares what is “moral” and what is not. (At least I hope you would not). If you wish to exempt God from this generic rule, you commit “special pleading” - which is a common fallacy.

The actuality of evil, however, no longer becomes the fault of the creator but the fault of the creation.

The all-powerful and all-knowing creator is always responsible for the creation. Guilt by commission and guilt by omission cannot be distingushed on the highest level.

Also, natural evil may simply be a way for the creator to help convince His creatures to choose good (like a hurricane falling on someone’s house so the neighborhood can learn to help those in need)

“May” be is not argument, sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

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…

The reverse is true. Time exists in God! In Him “we live, move and have our being”…

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.

God experiences time and change “within” Himself…

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.

The ability to create square circles is an absurdity. Omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is feasible. To understand the limits of feasibility it is necessary to be omniscient…

Is God limited by logic or not?

You might as well ask whether God is limited by Himself! Or limited by truth, goodness, beauty, freedom or love? It is helpful to remember that God is the Creator, the Alpha and the Omega, the Ultimate Reality to which human definitions do not apply because the Infinite cannot be defined. All our descriptions are inadequate because God exceeds our comprehension…