Why does God's nature require freedom?

[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.

Blase,

I never said that the possibilities were real in the sense that you are implying. But I do say that a possibility is a real possibility, for example, when it involves no contradiction, or when the current state of our technological development justifies us to work on a determined project. Then we use to say that such project is really possible. It happens everyday that many of us have to deliberate between a number of alternatives, all of which are really possible but not equally convenient. Even in the case I choose to pursue X the real possibility of Y (in the sense I just have explained) is not discarded. Some other times we realize that we don’t have to choose between X and Y, because one does not exclude the other, and then we decide to pursue both. All those activities happen to be part of what we call freedom. It’s real, Blase.

But what about your notion of “simple”? Is it clearer now? It seems to me that you owe me another response, but I don’t remember which, do you?

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[PseuTonym]

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.

Using a similar argument, you can claim that no testing process can demonstrate that a person has knowledge. For example, I ask you, “Is 9 a prime number?” If you finally answer, “No”, then we cannot know if the possibility of choosing “Yes” was real. In other words, it might be that you would have answered “No” to any question. Because one particular question was asked, there is no way to know what would have happened if a different question had been asked.

 

[humble_catholic]

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?

Without the freedom to choose there can be no LOVE, and since God is LOVE itself then he must be freedom itself . Love is about choice and since we cannot choose to love without the freedom of choice this is why God is freedom itself . Without freedom there is no love ,and that is why God’s nature must be freedom as well .

 

[blase6]

Using a similar argument, you can claim that no testing process can demonstrate that a person has knowledge. For example, I ask you, “Is 9 a prime number?” If you finally answer, “No”, then we cannot know if the possibility of choosing “Yes” was real. In other words, it might be that you would have answered “No” to any question. Because one particular question was asked, there is no way to know what would have happened if a different question had been asked.

You are correct. You cannot test a person’s knowledge in that way and gain absolute certainty of their knowledge, because you do not know if they are being truthful.

 

[blase6]

Without the freedom to choose there can be no LOVE, and since God is LOVE itself then he must be freedom itself . Love is about choice and since we cannot choose to love without the freedom of choice this is why God is freedom itself . Without freedom there is no love ,and that is why God’s nature must be freedom as well .

Some kind of understanding of love can exist without freedom. Animals love themselves and their offspring out of necessity and instinct.

 

[PseuTonym]

blase6:
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.

PseuTonym:
Using a similar argument, you can claim that no testing process can demonstrate that a person has knowledge. For example, I ask you, “Is 9 a prime number?” If you finally answer, “No”, then we cannot know if the possibility of choosing “Yes” was real. In other words, it might be that you would have answered “No” to any question. Because one particular question was asked, there is no way to know what would have happened if a different question had been asked.

You are correct. You cannot test a person’s knowledge in that way and gain absolute certainty of their knowledge, because you do not know if they are being truthful.

You agree with me, but I don’t understand what you wrote. Perhaps you could rewrite that. My difficulty is understanding what you had in mind when you wrote “because you do not know if they are being truthful.”

At least two possibilities can be considered:
#1 You do not know that they intended to give a correct answer or that they intended to assert a true statement.

#2 You do not yourself know the truth with certainty. Thus, if your belief conflicts with their statement, (or if you believe that your belief conflicts with their statement!) then you might believe that they are not stating the truth, but they might nevertheless be stating the truth.

 

[blase6]

You agree with me, but I don’t understand what you wrote. Perhaps you could rewrite that. My difficulty is understanding what you had in mind when you wrote “because you do not know if they are being truthful.”

At least two possibilities can be considered:
#1 You do not know that they intended to give a correct answer or that they intended to assert a true statement.

#2 You do not yourself know the truth with certainty. Thus, if your belief conflicts with their statement, (or if you believe that your belief conflicts with their statement!) then you might believe that they are not stating the truth, but they might nevertheless be stating the truth.

Well, you do not know if they understand the question or not. They may have a different conception of what a “prime number” is which is different from the standard definition. Or they may not even know what it is, but give you an answer anyway, for whatever reason.

 

[humble_catholic]

Some kind of understanding of love can exist without freedom. Animals love themselves and their offspring out of necessity and instinct.

Sorry let me clarify . I meant to say agape love .

 

[blase6]

Blase,

I never said that the possibilities were real in the sense that you are implying. But I do say that a possibility is a real possibility, for example, when it involves no contradiction, or when the current state of our technological development justifies us to work on a determined project. Then we use to say that such project is really possible. It happens everyday that many of us have to deliberate between a number of alternatives, all of which are really possible but not equally convenient. Even in the case I choose to pursue X the real possibility of Y (in the sense I just have explained) is not discarded. Some other times we realize that we don’t have to choose between X and Y, because one does not exclude the other, and then we decide to pursue both. All those activities happen to be part of what we call freedom. It’s real, Blase.

But what about your notion of “simple”? Is it clearer now? It seems to me that you owe me another response, but I don’t remember which, do you?

Regards
JuanFlorencio

Possibilities do not make sense to me. There always seems to be a determinant reason why one option is chosen. Then the other options appear to be illusions.

 

[PseuTonym]

Possibilities do not make sense to me. There always seems to be a determinant reason why one option is chosen. Then the other options appear to be illusions.

Suppose that you live on the third floor of a twelve floor apartment building. You discover that a friend who has been visiting you has, on each occasion, walked up the stairs to the twelfth floor and then taken the elevator down to the third floor. You ask why.

Your friend asks, “What option did I have?”

You say, “Well, you could taken the stairs to the third floor and stayed on the third floor, or taken the elevator from the ground floor up two levels to the third floor.”

Your friend says, “The options that you are presenting are illusions. I did what I did, and therefore there was no alternative. Possibilities do not make sense to me.”

Would you consider that to be a satisfactory explanation? Personally, I think that a guess such as “Perhaps my friend has been using a stairmaster, but it broke and repairs are not yet completed” is a more satisfactory explanation.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Possibilities do not make sense to me. There always seems to be a determinant reason why one option is chosen. Then the other options appear to be illusions.

Yes, Blase; perhaps that is not one of your possibilities right now. However, it is one of mine. And yes too, there is always a reason why I chose one of my possibilities (well, it normally happens that I have several reasons when I make a choice, specially when it is a difficult one).

Regards
JuanFlorencio

 

[blase6]

Suppose that you live on the third floor of a twelve floor apartment building. You discover that a friend who has been visiting you has, on each occasion, walked up the stairs to the twelfth floor and then taken the elevator down to the third floor. You ask why.

Your friend asks, “What option did I have?”

You say, “Well, you could taken the stairs to the third floor and stayed on the third floor, or taken the elevator from the ground floor up two levels to the third floor.”

Your friend says, “The options that you are presenting are illusions. I did what I did, and therefore there was no alternative. Possibilities do not make sense to me.”

Would you consider that to be a satisfactory explanation? Personally, I think that a guess such as “Perhaps my friend has been using a stairmaster, but it broke and repairs are not yet completed” is a more satisfactory explanation.

He was using the stairs because that option presented itself as more desirable than the others. This is the main problem I have with freedom: it is not apparent in real life situations.

 

[PseuTonym]

He was using the stairs because that option presented itself as more desirable than the others. This is the main problem I have with freedom: it is not apparent in real life situations.

Are you relying upon your own special definition of the word “desirable”? If you are, then your statement is correct, but insignificant.

We could try to express the above in terms of symbolic logic as follows:

Define Desire(option) as follows:
if option is not used, then Desire(option)=0
if option is used, then Desire(option)=1

Now, we can easily prove:
If Use(x) and not Use then Desire(x)>Desire
However, in proving that, we accomplish nothing.

What I have said here should be so obvious, that I cannot help wondering: are you relying upon your own private definition of the word “desirable” to reach conclusions, and then going beyond the conclusions by relying upon some other definition of the word “desirable”? If that is happening, then you are equivocating.

It would be like defining:
idiot(person) means that person was born on March 14th.

Now, records show that Albert Einstein was born on March 14th.
Therefore, idiot(Albert Einstein).
In other words, Albert Einstein is an idiot.

Now, that should strike you as a bit too easy. How did we reach a conclusion about Albert Einstein’s intelligence? We didn’t. We borrowed a pejorative word for low intelligence. We can assign any meaning to any word, but when we reach a conclusion, we need to remember that the word tells us nothing beyond the meaning that we assigned.

Given that we did not actually provide any evidence about when Albert Einstein was born, we simply found an elaborate way to say that if Albert Einstein was born on March 14th, then Albert Einstein was born on March 14th. Similarly, if your friend used the stairs to go to the 12th floor, then your friend used the stairs to go to the 12th floor. Your conclusion did not go beyond that.

 

[blase6]

Are you relying upon your own special definition of the word “desirable”? If you are, then your statement is correct, but insignificant.

We could try to express the above in terms of symbolic logic as follows:

Define Desire(option) as follows:
if option is not used, then Desire(option)=0
if option is used, then Desire(option)=1

Now, we can easily prove:
If Use(x) and not Use then Desire(x)>Desire
However, in proving that, we accomplish nothing.

What I have said here should be so obvious, that I cannot help wondering: are you relying upon your own private definition of the word “desirable” to reach conclusions, and then going beyond the conclusions by relying upon some other definition of the word “desirable”? If that is happening, then you are equivocating.

It would be like defining:
idiot(person) means that person was born on March 14th.

Now, records show that Albert Einstein was born on March 14th.
Therefore, idiot(Albert Einstein).
In other words, Albert Einstein is an idiot.

Now, that should strike you as a bit too easy. How did we reach a conclusion about Albert Einstein’s intelligence? We didn’t. We borrowed a pejorative word for low intelligence. We can assign any meaning to any word, but when we reach a conclusion, we need to remember that the word tells us nothing beyond the meaning that we assigned.

Given that we did not actually provide any evidence about when Albert Einstein was born, we simply found an elaborate way to say that if Albert Einstein was born on March 14th, then Albert Einstein was born on March 14th. Similarly, if your friend used the stairs to go to the 12th floor, then your friend used the stairs to go to the 12th floor. Your conclusion did not go beyond that.

Desirable means that an option appears to be a better choice in one moment than other options. What is “good” or “better” depends on the person’s individual disposition to find some things to be good and some things to be not good. From my experience and observation, this is what determines how a person acts.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why is a lack of freedom an imperfection?

God is absolutely free.

If I were not free I would be a slave, right? If God is not free, then he is under a compulsion, and in that sense he would be a slave. And if he is a slave he cannot be God.

If the universe cannot contain freedom because it is meaningless, a God who acts necessarily would not be imperfect.

Man is free and he is part of the universe. Angels are free and they were a part of the universe. But the part of the universe lacking intellect naturally has no freedom. A God who acts necessarily acts under compulsion and is

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.

When did you start being a solipsist? What caused it?

God is absolutely free. This is Catholic Dogma.

THE VATICAN COUNCIL 1869-1870

Ecumenical XX (on Faith and the Church)

SESSION III (April 24, 1870)

Dogmatic Constitution concerning the Catholic Faith *

.

Chap. 1. God, Creator of All Things

1783 The act of creation in itself, and in opposition to modern errors, and the effect of creation] . This sole true God by His goodness and “omnipotent power,” not to increase His own beatitude, and not to add to, but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with most free volition, “immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal, namely angelic and mundane; and then the human creation, common as it were, composed of both spirit and body” [Lateran Council IV, see n. 428; can. 2 and 5]

From the Council of Florance, Ecumenical XVll

706 Most strongly it believes, professes, and declares that the one true God, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, is the creator of all things visible and invisible, who, when He wished, out of His goodness created all creatures, spiritual as well as corporal; good indeed, since they were made by the highest good, but changeable, since they were made from nothing, and it asserts that nature is not evil, since all nature, in so far as it is nature, is good. It professes one and the same God as the author of the Old and New Testament, that is, of the Law and the Prophets and the Gospel, since the saints of both Testaments have spoken with the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, whose books, which are contained under the following titles it accepts and venerates. [The books of the canon follow, cf.n. 784; EB n. 32].

Linus2nd

 

[blase6]

God is absolutely free.

If I were not free I would be a slave, right? If God is not free, then he is under a compulsion, and in that sense he would be a slave. And if he is a slave he cannot be God.

I thought the Catholic definition of freedom was “being ordered towards the good”. Why can’t God be a slave to his own goodness?

 

[blase6]

When did you start being a solipsist? What caused it?

When I realized that to know something, is to see that its counterfact must be absolutely impossible. And there is very little in the world which has absolute proof for its truth.

 

[davidv]

I thought the Catholic definition of freedom was “being ordered towards the good”. Why can’t God be a slave to his own goodness?

According to the Catechism that is not the Catholic definition.

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

 

[blase6]

According to the Catechism that is not the Catholic definition.

Since God cannot commit evil, since that is a contradiction of his nature, then he can be said to be a slave to his nature. Even if he has options for what good he will do, which I am still trying to see is possible.

 

[davidv]

Since God cannot commit evil, since that is a contradiction of his nature, then he can be said to be a slave to his nature. Even if he has options for what good he will do, which I am still trying to see is possible.

What does this have to with your attributing the wrong definition of freedom to the Church?