What Caused God to Create the Universe?

[Prodigal_Son]

I think that is where I am stuck. How can you have the power to make any other choice if there is only one to be made???

Right now, I have a wonderful 3-year-old daughter. Let’s fast-forward 15 years, and imagine that she approaches me and says the following:

“Dad, I’m so sorry. I know I shouldn’t have … I’m pregnant.”

In this situation, there is only one choice to be made. It would (God willing) follow from my character in perfect order that I would embrace her, forgive her, comfort her, and lay my life down for her.

That said, I would have it in my power to throw her out of the house – that is part of the reason why the conversation would be so hard for her in the first place.

Human beings are capable of “breaking character”. It happens rarely, but it happens. God would never break character, but this does not mean that He is not free to do so.

If God were to decide to make the inside of any box larger than the outside, his entire universe would have to instantly vanish.

OK. But He is not thereby bound; it only becomes clear that (as Ghosty said) freedom – coupled with perfect knowledge – is precisely the freedom to do what is good.

 

[Eucharisted]

And I find it arrogant of a Catholic to make such a statement.

NA is working through reasoning initiate by Aquinas. He is not demanding anything of you. In effect, he is asking for clarification with each statement he makes.

What else would this forum be for besides letting Atheists propagandize?

NA is philosophizing, just as this forum indicates as its purpose.

I find that hard to believe given his responses to posts, using tired old arguments like “people only call that mystery when they have nothing else to say” (my paraphrase). He is not philosphizing, he is just being arrogent.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You each seem to be leaving out that anyone’s impetus for doing what they choose is based on their sense of right and wrong. Once that impetus is set (and in God’s case would certainly be fixed - “the always good”), the rest of the decision making process is already determined because there is only one “good”.

This is to say that God cannot make a choice to do the bad simply because of his own unchangeable sense of good. This means that he is predictable to anyone who also knows that good because God will always do that same thing in that same circumstance. That is what makes Science and logic actually work (when they don’t screw it up).

A moral man can be in the same situation. If a man gains, by whatever means, a sense of right and wrong and also a strong will to always do the right, then he has no choice other than to do the right. His own desire forbids him from deciding otherwise. If someone removed his sense of right and wrong or removed his desire to do right, then he might become unpredictable and actually free to go either way because he would be free from the sense of guilt or from the awareness of right and wrong (insanity - typical American).

Keep in mind that the man cannot remove those things himself. They are not of his own make nor within his own reach to alter although he can try to slowly persuade them (eventually).

God, not being one who can be altered such as to remove his sense of right and wrong, nor remove his will to do right, cannot actually do anything but the right - ever. **= **one and only one choice and absolutely no freedom from his own sense of right and wrong nor from his desire to do the right.

God still ends up being the most UN-free entity possible.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I find that hard to believe given his responses to posts, using tired old arguments like “people only call that mystery when they have nothing else to say” (my paraphrase). He is not philosphizing, he is just being arrogent.

No he was responding to a detraction from using the logic that he was proposing. It had nothing to do with arrogance. In that statement, he was expressing being “tired” of what is no more than and excuse to allude reason.

Aquinas did not defer reason to “God must exist because he is just so mystical and magical.”

I grant you that he could be more perfect in his treatment, but all in all, I find him above the average by a long shot. If you are going to criticize and condemn him, at least get your pejoratives straight.

You become the guilt you condemn.

Or as an older friend of mine put it, “Judge not lest ye be judged”.

 

[Ghosty]

Once that impetus is set (and in God’s case would certainly be fixed - “the always good”), the rest of the decision making process is already determined because there is only one “good”.

Everyone’s will is set to the “always good”; the difference between us and God is that our knowledge is faulty and our power is weak. We still will the “always good”, we just don’t know exactly what it is (or which factors will lead to it), nor do we always have the power to fully enact it.

There is not a single being in the universe who’s will is not set to the “always good”, not even Satan.

This is to say that God cannot make a choice to do the bad simply because of his own unchangeable sense of good. This means that he is predictable to anyone who also knows that good because God will always do that same thing in that same circumstance. That is what makes Science and logic actually work (when they don’t screw it up).

Nobody can make the choice to “do bad”. You’re thinking of “good” only in the moral sense, and not in the full sense of the word. The will is, by necessity, aimed towards the good. If I choose to murder, I may be falling short of the absolute good, but my will is aiming at the good (namely the good of my needs being met, whatever they may be). It is utterly impossible to “will the bad/evil” by definition.

A moral man can be in the same situation. If a man gains, by whatever means, a sense of right and wrong and also a strong will to always do the right, then he has no choice other than to do the right. His own desire forbids him from deciding otherwise. If someone removed his sense of right and wrong or removed his desire to do right, then he might become unpredictable and actually free to go either way because he would be free from the sense of guilt or from the awareness of right and wrong (insanity - typical American).

If someone removed his absolute sense of good and evil, he would still be seeking the good, but his “guidance system” would be shorted out. He would be like a blind, senseless mouse in the afforementioned maze. He may now make all kinds of choices, but his will is actually LESS free to seek the good because it is more inhibited from its natural inclination. It still seeks the good, but it has less sense of proportion, less sense of what choices lead to the ultimate good. He is stuck with a poor measuring system, and so is left grasping for any possible good that comes along, regardless of relative worth and ultimate satisfaction of the will.

Unpredictability is not freedom, certainly not for something made for a certain end (as the will is made for the good). You are not freer to travel in a vehicle that turns in random directions, and you are not freer without a sure roadmap, but rather you are lost and hopeless. The broken man that you describe might make any choice, but he would have a much harder time making the choice that best serves his will, just as the broken car can move forward in any direction at any time, but it won’t get you where you want to go.

God, not being one who can be altered such as to remove his sense of right and wrong, nor remove his will to do right, cannot actually do anything but the right - ever. **= **one and only one choice and absolutely no freedom from his own sense of right and wrong nor from his desire to do the right.

You’re still mistaking the failure of the will to fulfill itself as freedom. The will seeks the good, period. God can not do other than seek the good, and neither can we, but God has the unfettered power to hold the ultimate good, whereas we do not. We stumble and often make choices for the good that hinder us from the ultimate good, the ultimate thing our will seeks. We have a blindfold, and though our will seeks the good by necessity, we stumble in the darkness grasping at the faintest glimmers of it, rather than walking directly towards it.

The sense of right and wrong is not a constraint, it’s a fulfillment and a perfection. The lack of this sense is the constraint, just as losing the sense of sight is a constraint on moving in the proper direction. You are still substituting a straightjacket for freedom, and calling it freedom because now you have so many options for trying to escape it.

Peace and God bless!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Everyone’s will is set to the “always good”;

Emm… no. If everyone’s will was “set” to the “always good”, then no one would ever try to do bad. Anything they thought was bad (bank robbery) they would never try to do it (will).

 

[James_S_Saint]

You’re thinking of “good” only in the moral sense, and not in the full sense of the word. The will is, by necessity, aimed towards the good. If I choose to murder, I may be falling short of the absolute good, but my will is aiming at the good (namely the good of my needs being met, whatever they may be). It is utterly impossible to “will the bad/evil” by definition.

This could be a good philosophical discussion. What you are implying is that by saying that God is always good, you have said nothing because everyone is always good.

If there is a “good intention”, then necessarily, there is a “bad intention”. You cannot have one without immediately creating the other.

You seem to be reaching into the person so as to see the “inner good intent” that by mistake led to a bad action. But what the original inner intent was is irrelevant to whether the final effort was in a good direction or not.

If the outer direction is not a determining factor for good or bad, then why is the inner origin a determining factor? In effect, you are canceling the final effect as irrelevant for sake of focusing and sympathizing on the original intent.

The saying is, “judge a tree by its fruit”. You seem to be saying to judge a tree by its original intent regardless of the actual fruit. This would lead to very many “bad” events, but then we could always not call them bad because your intent was good in the beginning regardless of what came from it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You each seem to be leaving out that anyone’s impetus for doing what they choose is based on their sense of right and wrong. Once that impetus is set (and in God’s case would certainly be fixed - “the always good”), the rest of the decision making process is already determined because there is only one “good”.

This is to say that God cannot make a choice to do the bad simply because of his own unchangeable sense of good. This means that he is predictable to anyone who also knows that good because God will always do that same thing in that same circumstance. That is what makes Science and logic actually work (when they don’t screw it up).

A moral man can be in the same situation. If a man gains, by whatever means, a sense of right and wrong and also a strong will to always do the right, then he has no choice other than to do the right. His own desire forbids him from deciding otherwise. If someone removed his sense of right and wrong or removed his desire to do right, then he might become unpredictable and actually free to go either way because he would be free from the sense of guilt or from the awareness of right and wrong (insanity - typical American).

Keep in mind that the man cannot remove those things himself. They are not of his own make nor within his own reach to alter although he can try to slowly persuade them (eventually).

God, not being one who can be altered such as to remove his sense of right and wrong, nor remove his will to do right, cannot actually do anything but the right - ever. **= **one and only one choice and absolutely no freedom from his own sense of right and wrong nor from his desire to do the right.

God still ends up being the most UN-free entity possible.

Reading what you’ve written, James, I am quite sure that I agree with you about everything but the definition of “freedom”. Where you say “cannot”, I say “will not” – but they amount to the same thing: “There is no shadow of turning in Thee.”

Perhaps it would help if we considered that – to God, if not to man – evil has no possible appeal. With perfect knowledge comes perfect judgment of the good. Here is my proposal, then: If God is free, then He acts in precisely the same way he would act if He is not free. Can we agree on that?

 

[Ghosty]

Emm… no. If everyone’s will was “set” to the “always good”, then no one would ever try to do bad. Anything they thought was bad (bank robbery) they would never try to do it (will).

The problem we’re having is that we’re not using “good” in precisely the same way. I’m speaking of good in an ontological sense, not the moral sense. The moral sense is based on the ontological sense, but it is not identical. While the ontological good is fixed and absolute, the moral good is relative to the absolute good (this is not the same as moral relativism, which says that the “moral good” has no absolute reference point).

The will is oriented to the absolute good, and always seeks the absolute good, much as a compass needle always points north. Moral good refers to an action that is more firmly “pointing” towards absolute good than the alternatives, but even this is relative. For example, stealing a loaf of bread to eat is always oriented towards the good of sustinence, which itself is oriented towards the absolute good; the moral “goodness” of such an action depends on one’s relative need, and whether or not stealing the bread will hurt the original owner more than the thief will gain (stealing a loaf of bread from a store is different from stealing it from a jobless mother of five). The object of the will, namely the good of sustinence, remains the same even though the moral “goodness” of the action changes based on circumstances. This rule applies even to things as heinous as cold-blooded murder, because in such cases the will is still aiming for the good of self-satisfaction, but the action falls far short of the relative good (there is no circumstance in which such an action is morally good, but the aim of the will is still towards the absolute good, albeit in such a small degree that it is far outweighed by the negative side).

Now, since our will always seeks the good, the will is ultimately satisfied only by the ultimate, absolute good itself, which is God Himself. Every other good, from the good of sustinence to self-satisfaction, is ordered towards God Himself in some way, to a lesser or greater degree. Unfettered by limitations, the will would always seek the absolute good itself, but because our perception is clouded by weakness and sin, our “compass” is skewed. The point is that even when we make a willing choice for the “lesser good” (like cold-blooded murder), our will is still choosing good; it is fundamentally impossible for the will to choose evil, because evil is a pure privation, it is the “lack” or the “less”, a non-being apart from the good it refers to.

So God, lacking nothing in power or knowledge, always has His will fulfilled, and that will is always aimed at the absolute good. Again, this is not a limitation, but the ultimate freedom of will unfettered by sin or weakness.

Peace and God bless!

 

[James_S_Saint]

If God is free, then He acts in precisely the same way he would act if He is not free.

Can we agree on that?
Haha… Okay, truce.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Now, since our will always seeks the good, the will is ultimately satisfied only by the ultimate, absolute good itself, which is God Himself. Every other good, from the good of sustinence to self-satisfaction, is ordered towards God Himself in some way, to a lesser or greater degree. Unfettered by limitations, the will would always seek the absolute good itself, but because our perception is clouded by weakness and sin, our “compass” is skewed. The point is that even when we make a willing choice for the “lesser good” (like cold-blooded murder), our will is still choosing good; it is fundamentally impossible for the will to choose evil, because evil is a pure privation, it is the “lack” or the “less”, a non-being apart from the good it refers to.

So God, lacking nothing in power or knowledge, always has His will fulfilled, and that will is always aimed at the absolute good. Again, this is not a limitation, but the ultimate freedom of will unfettered by sin or weakness.

When someone writes wonderfully clear and perceptive prose like that, they deserve a .

 

[James_S_Saint]

Btw, this is exactly like the Atheist not wanting to admit faith in anything. - A fear of words.

 

[buffgbob]

My only point of contention is that God is His own end. Creation is not His end. Creation is necessary if His will necessarily wills it for the “greatest good”. This is wrong, however, because the “greatest good” already exists in Himself; creation is a pure act of will. Now His will may desire good generally, which makes sense of the fact He creates at all, but not will particularly created good necessarily. If this accidental creation of particular created good is “brute force”, I have absolutely no problem with that; it merely coincides with free will itself. Down with determinism!!! ;D

 

[James_S_Saint]

Down with determinism!!! ;D

That is exactly the same as saying, “Down with God and praise magic!!”

 

[Areopagite]

Summa Theologica, p.I, q.19, a.3

There are two ways in which a thing is said to be necessary, namely, absolutely, and by supposition. We judge a thing to be absolutely necessary from the relation of the terms, as when the predicate forms part of the definition of the subject: thus it is absolutely necessary that man is an animal. It is the same when the subject forms part of the notion of the predicate; thus it is absolutely necessary that a number must be odd or even. In this way it is not necessary that Socrates sits: wherefore it is not necessary absolutely, though it may be so by supposition; for, granted that he is sitting, he must necessarily sit, as long as he is sitting. Accordingly as to things willed by God, we must observe that He wills something of absolute necessity: but this is not true of all that He wills. For the divine will has a necessary relation to the divine goodness, since that is its proper object. Hence God wills His own goodness necessarily, even as we will our own happiness necessarily, and as any other faculty has necessary relation to its proper and principal object, for instance the sight to color, since it tends to it by its own nature. But God wills things apart from Himself in so far as they are ordered to His own goodness as their end. Now in willing an end we do not necessarily will things that conduce to it, unless they are such that the end cannot be attained without them; as, we will to take food to preserve life, or to take ship in order to cross the sea. But we do not necessarily will things without which the end is attainable, such as a horse for a journey which we can take on foot, for we can make the journey without one. The same applies to other means. Hence, since the goodness of God is perfect, and can exist without other things inasmuch as no perfection can accrue to Him from them, it follows that His willing things apart from Himself is not absolutely necessary. Yet it can be necessary by supposition, for supposing that He wills a thing, then He is unable not to will it, as His will cannot change.

So, in summary, God only wills things in an absolute sense if it is necessary for His divine goodness. However, anything that he wills that is not necessary for His divine goodness can be said to not be willed in an absolutely necessary sense. However, he does will those things necessarily by supposition. That is, since He wills those things, He necessarily wills them. However, those certain things are not necessary for his divine goodness, and that is why it is said He does not will them with absolute necessity.

Now, I believe that this distinction in God may be a purely logical/virtual one, because the will of God is simple and one in every sense (though … His will can take varying effects when applied to the complexity of creation … so perhaps not). Hence, the term “freedom” that we attribute to God, like all the attributes, are analogous terms when they are also applied to humans. When we say that God is “free” to do a certain action, it doesn’t mean there was a chance that He “wasn’t going to do it” but rather “He didn’t have to do it” … particularly, “He didn’t have to do it for the fulfillment of His divine goodness.”

Does that make sense? I think that’s the answer. It’s not that God could have chosen otherwise, it’s that His creation of the world is not necessary to fulfill His divine nature. He is free from creation in that sense.

 

[Sunflower15]

Whatever within Himself prompted Him…what a Great Job He did!

For example, Look at this!
youtube.com/watch?v=u7deClndzQw&feature=player_embedded