Why does God's nature require freedom?

[blase6]

I tried asking this in an earlier thread which didn’t work.

We start by examining Church teaching on the nature of God. The Church claims that God has freedom. As in, God does not have to do that which he wills.

From God’s nature as the necessary being, we can conclude that all that is part of God’s basic nature is necessary. So if God has freedom, then freedom is a necessary part of God’s nature.

But why? Why does personal existence require freedom? Can not God be a mechanistic creator of the rest of the universe, which by extension would also exist necessarily? Would not that be more reasonable, than to believe in self-deterministic causality, which cannot be understood in comparison to all other forms of causality?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I tried asking this in an earlier thread which didn’t work.

We start by examining Church teaching on the nature of God. The Church claims that God has freedom. As in, God does not have to do that which he wills.

From God’s nature as the necessary being, we can conclude that all that is part of God’s basic nature is necessary. So if God has freedom, then freedom is a necessary part of God’s nature.

But why? Why does personal existence require freedom? Can not God be a mechanistic creator of the rest of the universe, which by extension would also exist necessarily? Would not that be more reasonable, than to believe in self-deterministic causality, which cannot be understood in comparison to all other forms of causality?

If he was not free we would conclude that he was not perfect and therefore not God. We could also say that his limitation was caused by another because a perfect being would not limit himself. And if he is so limited, he is not God. Therefore we must look for another being which is perfect. And this being would be God.

Whenever we find an absolutely perfect, unlimited being, we have found God.

Are you sure this conversation is not an illusion?

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

If he was not free we would conclude that he was not perfect and therefore not God. We could also say that his limitation was caused by another because a perfect being would not limit himself. And if he is so limited, he is not God. Therefore we must look for another being which is perfect. And this being would be God.

Whenever we find an absolutely perfect, unlimited being, we have found God.

Are you sure this conversation is not an illusion?

Pax
Linus2nd

Why is a lack of freedom an imperfection? If the universe cannot contain freedom because it is meaningless, a God who acts necessarily would not be imperfect.

No, I am not absolutely sure that this conversation is an illusion or not, but assuming that it is real works out well for me.

 

[PseuTonym]

God has freedom. As in, God does not have to do that which he wills.

Are those the same thing? Isn’t it possible for God to hope that somebody will do something? If God hopes that some ordinary human being will make a particular choice, but God allows the ordinary person to make his or her own choice, then God keeps open the possibility that the ordinary person will make the choice that God prefers.

What good would it do for God to remove the person’s free will and force a specific physical action? That would be a bit like a professor, during an examination, walking through the examination room and whispering word-for-word answers for students to copy into their examination papers without understanding the answers, and all receive grades of 100%. Why bother testing students if the test will be conducted in such a manner?

Can not God be a mechanistic creator of the rest of the universe

No, I don’t think so.

How would you answer if somebody asked you, “Cannot a washing machine at my local laundromat be like the corporation Google, including all of the people who work at Google? Why not?”

I would begin my answer by pointing out that even a single person who works at Google has something that a washing machine does not have: an inner world of conscious awareness. If you disagree, then perhaps you should establish an organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to washing machines.

 

[blase6]

Are those the same thing? Isn’t it possible for God to hope that somebody will do something? If God hopes that some ordinary human being will make a particular choice, but God allows the ordinary person to make his or her own choice, then God keeps open the possibility that the ordinary person will make the choice that God prefers.

What good would it do for God to remove the person’s free will and force a specific physical action? That would be a bit like a professor, during an examination, walking through the examination room and whispering word-for-word answers for students to copy into their examination papers without understanding the answers, and all receive grades of 100%. Why bother testing students if the test will be conducted in such a manner?

This has nothing to do with whether or not God has freedom.

No, I don’t think so.

How would you answer if somebody asked you, “Cannot a washing machine at my local laundromat be like the corporation Google, including all of the people who work at Google? Why not?”

I would begin my answer by pointing out that even a single person who works at Google has something that a washing machine does not have: an inner world of conscious awareness. If you disagree, then perhaps you should establish an organization dedicated to preventing cruelty to washing machines.

I don’t believe that it is absolutely necessary for a conscious being to have freedom.

 

[PseuTonym]

First part:

The Church claims that God has freedom.

Second part:

As in, God does not have to do that which he wills.

Is the second part your interpretation of freedom, or is the second part what the Church claims?

Also, when you speak of what God wills, are you talking about future circumstances or specific actions that God contemplates performing?

If it is God’s will that I choose a particular option, but I am the one who actually makes the choice, then it must be possible for God to refrain from directly causing the occurrence of what God wills.

 

[blase6]

First part:

Second part:

Is the second part your interpretation of freedom, or is the second part what the Church claims?

Also, when you speak of what God wills, are you talking about future circumstances or specific actions that God contemplates performing?

If it is God’s will that I choose a particular option, but I am the one who actually makes the choice, then it must be possible for God to refrain from directly causing the occurrence of what God wills.

Freedom is a sort of “personal indeterminism”. As in, a person can initiate an action without the action being necessitated by a precedent factor. Granted, indeterminism is a kind of randomness which does not sound like freedom, but that is another topic.

God is eternal and has one eternal act which encompasses all that we experience him doing. So it would make sense that a God that by nature loves, would be necessitated by his nature to act. But according to the Church that is not the case. Because the Church holds that a person must possess freedom, or it is not a person.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why is a lack of freedom an imperfection? If the universe cannot contain freedom because it is meaningless, a God who acts necessarily would not be imperfect.

Do you realize how many logical errors you just made here? Are you just playing games? I am beginning to think you are a troll and that is against the rules here.

No, I am not absolutely sure that this conversation is an illusion or not, but assuming that it is real works out well for me.

Not worthy of comment.

Linus2nd

 

[PseuTonym]

I tried asking this in an earlier thread which didn’t work.

Perhaps this time it would be helpful to try to make explicit some things that you hinted at in the first post of this thread. In other words, unless you want to repeatedly try without succeeding, it might be a good idea to have some discussion about the initial message of this thread. To what extent does it stand on its own, and to what extent is it incoherent unless either you or the reader inserts some things that are not there?

I have created a separate thread for that discussion:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=942230

 

[blase6]

Do you realize how many logical errors you just made here? Are you just playing games? I am beginning to think you are a troll and that is against the rules here.

No, you will have to show me where I made logical errors.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I tried asking this in an earlier thread which didn’t work.

We start by examining Church teaching on the nature of God. The Church claims that God has freedom. As in, God does not have to do that which he wills.

From God’s nature as the necessary being, we can conclude that all that is part of God’s basic nature is necessary. So if God has freedom, then freedom is a necessary part of God’s nature.

But why? Why does personal existence require freedom? Can not God be a mechanistic creator of the rest of the universe, which by extension would also exist necessarily? Would not that be more reasonable, than to believe in self-deterministic causality, which cannot be understood in comparison to all other forms of causality?

Blase,

What would be the other attributes of the god that you are conceiving here?

 

[Bahman]

If he was not free we would conclude that he was not perfect and therefore not God. We could also say that his limitation was caused by another because a perfect being would not limit himself. And if he is so limited, he is not God. Therefore we must look for another being which is perfect. And this being would be God.

Whenever we find an absolutely perfect, unlimited being, we have found God.

Are you sure this conversation is not an illusion?

Pax
Linus2nd

What you want the freedom for when you are perfect?

 

[Bahman]

Why is a lack of freedom an imperfection? If the universe cannot contain freedom because it is meaningless, a God who acts necessarily would not be imperfect.

No, I am not absolutely sure that this conversation is an illusion or not, but assuming that it is real works out well for me.

Very well said.

 

[blase6]

Blase,

What would be the other attributes of the god that you are conceiving here?

First of all I cannot directly experience God because God is defined as an external reality. Second of all my belief in God comes from the Church I believe in, but my belief does not change my absolute uncertainty. So I can come up with some attributes of God which agree with my reasoning.

God is simple existence. Existence being the simplest concept which is present in all.

God is ulterior. A thing does not exist before something which is part of God’s being.

God is omnipresent. Since God is simple existence his presence lies in all things. The separate things may have an identity not the same as God, but their simple existence in and of itself is God. I am trying to avoid sounding like pantheism which claims that the identity of all things is God.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

First of all I cannot directly experience God because God is defined as an external reality. Second of all my belief in God comes from the Church I believe in, but my belief does not change my absolute uncertainty. So I can come up with some attributes of God which agree with my reasoning.

God is simple existence. Existence being the simplest concept which is present in all.

God is ulterior. A thing does not exist before something which is part of God’s being.

God is omnipresent. Since God is simple existence his presence lies in all things. The separate things may have an identity not the same as God, but their simple existence in and of itself is God. I am trying to avoid sounding like pantheism which claims that the identity of all things is God.

Hi again Blase:

Interesting…

Do you know that the attribute of freedom is derived from the attribute of simplicity in the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas?

Please, describe to me what do you mean with the word “simple”.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[blase6]

Hi again Blase:

Interesting…

Do you know that the attribute of freedom is derived from the attribute of simplicity in the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas?

Please, describe to me what do you mean with the word “simple”.

Best regards
JuanFlorencio

Simple means not having as many parts or aspects as something else. Actually for animals, which are simpler creatures than human beings, they do not have freedom, while human beings are said to have freedom. For me freedom is just logically incoherent because it the act itself, and its motive, cannot be examined apart from the agent that performs it. I hope that makes sense.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Simple means not having as many parts or aspects as something else. Actually for animals, which are simpler creatures than human beings, they do not have freedom, while human beings are said to have freedom. For me freedom is just logically incoherent because it the act itself, and its motive, cannot be examined apart from the agent that performs it. I hope that makes sense.

Something is simple or not simple. Simple means not having parts, and it is a negative idea. Strictly speaking, there is not a thing simpler than other. If you think of animals and human beings as pieces of matter and conceive matter as a continuous, then animals and human beings will be indefinitely divisible. If, on the other hand, you conceive matter as an aggregate of corpuscles, then you will need to acknowledge that there are animals bigger than humans and, therefore, are formed of more parts than them.

Aspects! Aspects arise from our intellectual activity. They do not belong to things.

Freedom is not an argument (logically coherent or incoherent), but an experience. It is the experience of your possibilities. Haven’t you had such experience? There might be, of course, a disparity between your experience and the way you verbalize it, but what would it mean?

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[blase6]

Something is simple or not simple. Simple means not having parts, and it is a negative idea. Strictly speaking, there is not a thing simpler than other. If you think of animals and human beings as pieces of matter and conceive matter as a continuous, then animals and human beings will be indefinitely divisible. If, on the other hand, you conceive matter as an aggregate of corpuscles, then you will need to acknowledge that there are animals bigger than humans and, therefore, are formed of more parts than them.

Aspects! Aspects arise from our intellectual activity. They do not belong to things.

Freedom is not an argument (logically coherent or incoherent), but an experience. It is the experience of your possibilities. Haven’t you had such experience? There might be, of course, a disparity between your experience and the way you verbalize it, but what would it mean?

Regards
JuanFlorencio

An experience of possibilities does not mean that those possibilities are real. You may think that you can choose between X and Y, but when you finally choose Y, you can’t know if the possibility of choosing X was real.

 

[davidv]

An experience of possibilities does not mean that those possibilities are real. You may think that you can choose between X and Y, but when you finally choose Y, you can’t know if the possibility of choosing X was real.

If this post from me to you is your illusion. How can you gain any knowledge from this exchange? You already know what you know. How can an illusionary discussion with yourself gain you anything the you don’t already know? Why bother? It seems like a waste of time?

 

[blase6]

If this post from me to you is your illusion. How can you gain any knowledge from this exchange? You already know what you know. How can an illusionary discussion with yourself gain you anything the you don’t already know? Why bother? It seems like a waste of time?

I don’t know if you are an illusion or not. So if I don’t definitely know, then it is still worthwhile to attempt to communicate with you.