Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Free will

Forum Quick Jump

178 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/13/2003 11:03 AM (GMT -6)

Tom, was God truly EQUALLY ABLE to create or not create? Check this out...

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1898&ARCHIVE=&whichpage=1

ESPECIALLY this part:

quote:
How about we put the question like so:

Is God's choice to express his love to OTHER EXISTENTS morally equivalent to God's opposing choice to NOT make other existents, while enjoying God's triune love by Godself?

THIS question is thorny as heck. Why? Because if the person says "No", then it would seem that the person would HAVE to say that God's moral perfection AND complete integrity DEMANDS some type of Creation event. And if the person say "yes", then the person has to admit that Creation was merely a product of WHIMSY, and not valuation of any type...which is tantamount to saying that Creation was arbitrary. Eenie meenie miney moe type stuff.

Hmmm...there may be a price to pay for your well-executed logic, Tom.

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/13/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6)

Well I don't presume to know why god created the universe, whether he had to or not. What I've been trying to argue is that God is the start of the causal chain. That God is the only entity outside that chain- so then I guess you could say he had "freewill" in deciding to create.
Arguing that God is the first cause of course gets you nowhere w/ atheists; they say if you argue that there has to be a "first" cause of the universe, God, who created God- who caused God? Why does the universe have to have a cause at all? I suppose it's logical, if God doesn't need a cause, really why would the big bang need a cause either - and Occam's Razor would seem to point to the big bang having no cause as being more parsimonious.

Tom, you said "So, there was a moment (if even a logical one and not a temporal one) when God knew the proposition “I MIGHT create” was true. This means that the proposition “I WILL create” was FALSE. In the absence of creation, there was a moment when God believed he was free to NOT create the world. And if God was free NOT to create, then the proposition “God WILL create” was false EVEN THOUGH GOD ENDED UP CREATING.

What’s the point? The point is: God is capable of facing possibilities. And God, at least prior to creating this world, faced an open future."

I don't buy this. I think this is something that we can't comprehend as humans. There was a point in time that the universe was created. But time was created at that same moment! B/f the universe was created, there wasn't any such concept as time. We can't comprehend that God has no beginning and no end. But he says that in scripture. So that has to mean he doesn't operate within 24 hour days as we do. So saying "there was a moment when God..." Before the universe was created, there WERE no "moments" as we humans know moments to be. In order to argue what you're arguing - you have to have God operating outside of time, deciding when he was going to create time. We can't say, " At x time, God believed the proposition 'I might create' was true. At y time, God created."
B/c this was before the creation of time!

And this part: "And if God was free NOT to create, then the proposition “God WILL create” was false EVEN THOUGH GOD ENDED UP CREATING."

I don't follow this either. Say there is a way to comprehend this - if at some point before creation- God was faced w/2 choices. He could do either. He knew what he would do, however, so God will create was true. I don't see the problem. If he chose NOT to create, he would have known that the proposition was false.
Again, though, this just doesn't work b/c we can't talk meaningfully about "moments" outside of created time.

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/13/2003 5:51 PM (GMT -6)

MephEternal

...then the person has to admit that Creation was merely a product of WHIMSY, and not valuation of any type...which is tantamount to saying that Creation was arbitrary.

Iconoclast

An arbitrary act of pure love. Whimsically, freely, created out of pure love. Love must be freely, gratuitously, chosen else it is not love.

How else could God possibly create the world as an act of pure love if it were not arbitrary and whimsically free - gratuitous even.

I guess I just don't see any problem with this.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/13/2003 5:55 PM (GMT -6)

Didn't Charles Sanders Peirce say that it is absolutely impossible to convince a true skeptic of anything? That the only way to come to any agreement is based on some mutually agreed upon belief and then using logic from there?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seesaw
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70

Posted 5/13/2003 6:29 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Under the OV, God is "learning"- basically, is surprised as some things occur. As the truth value changes, he is learning of the change.

This statement strikes me as bizarre. Maybe it is just the way I am reading it? God knows all things so how can he be learning new things? Or surprised? Nothing takes God by surprise. Why would he be surprised? It is difficult to envision God being taken by surprise. RD has some good insight and comments. I understand why she's not buying it; there are some things we can't comprehend as finite beings. Does the OV perhaps go too far in explaining God? Just a thought.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/14/2003 12:37 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Meph

Hmmm...there may be a price to pay for your well-executed logic, Tom.

An ounce of theological humility, is worth....

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/14/2003 3:56 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast:

quote:
An arbitrary act of pure love. Whimsically, freely, created out of pure love. Love must be freely, gratuitously, chosen else it is not love.

How else could God possibly create the world as an act of pure love if it were not arbitrary and whimsically free - gratuitous even.

I guess I just don't see any problem with this.

Doesn't work, Iconoclast. Two things:

1) If God is all-loving, then ANY choice that God made would have been made IN pure love...because it was made by an all-loving being.

2) When I say "whimsy" here, I mean it in the strictest sense. It would be like me truly having NO REAL PREFERENCE between chocolate and vanilla ice cream...and ARBITRARILY choosing one over the other, when given the choice between them. I wouldn't make the choice by way of thinking that one option was better than the other. Same thing here. To say that Creation was a product of pure whimsy is to say that God valued the option of reality with Creation COMPLETELY EQUIVALENT to the option of reality without Creation. It is also to say that God's choice to create was NOT motivated by God feeling that creating was a "BETTER" expression of love than God's then-current state of being. God might as well as said "Oh, well, what the heck..." and there you go. Eeenie meenie miney moe. In saying that Creation was from whimsy, one implicitly DENIES the main intentionality behind the creative act...and to some that's a big problem. Some people don't like the idea of Creation being an afterthought.

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/14/2003 4:49 AM (GMT -6)

PoW-

I have to say that I simply don’t share your concern. This is your problem and I wish you luck in solving it. But for what it’s worth let me say that I think it would be preposterous to believe we have independent access to God’s thoughts or that we can examine God uninvited. This is impious. But I get the feeling from Scripture that God invites investigation of herself and is happy to know we’re spending our time stretching our brains and imaginations in pondering her rather than other things.

We can certainly know whatever thoughts of God’s God wishes to share with us. And, if we’re careful and humble, we can I think use the noggin the good Lord gave us to reason on from there to other things not explicitly revealed about God in the Bible. For example, one is not attempting to “put one’s self inside of God’s head” by reasoning that among the many thoughts God has is one which looks very like “2 + 2 = 4 is true” though this is not specifically revealed in the Bible.

I think the more speculative we become the more tolerant and forgiving, and the less judgmental and demanding we must be. Thinking and talking about the nature of God’s freedom may be more speculative than, say, talking about the Ten Commandments, but it’s far from impious provided our interest is to live out the truth we find.

If I’m correct in understanding your comments to mean you can no longer accompany us on this particular impious quest of ours, I totally respect your feelings and hope to see you on another thread.

Mephi-

I think I found the topic of discussion for my October visit to St. Paul! Thanks for the link to the other thread. I need you to help think through it. So take me deeper bro! Seems to me for the moment that there is no problem in believing the decisions not to create and to create are morally equivalent. I think Allan was right. There’s no reason to believe love, or goodness, is by definition always faced with only one option; that there is universally only one omnibenevolent thing to do.

If the options for an omnibenevolent God narrow considerably after creation and then (for the sake of argument) narrow even more after the fall—even to the point of it being true that love never has more thanone option in any given situation—I would still want to argue that prior to creation (or, if Bill Craig is watching, in the absence of creation), where God’s choices and options aren’t limited by prior covenants or rules of engagement with other free will beings, God was equally free to create or not create. This doesn’t mean the decision to create was arbitrary (= “based on chance”). Maybe Icon is using “arbitrary” differently. Not sure. God can have equally good reasons FOR creating and for NOT creating without either choice (and God must make a choice between these two mustn’t he?

) being arbitrary.

RD-

I can’t do much more to help you see the problem.

You’ve stretched me to the limits, which doesn’t take much PoW can tell ya!

Maybe others can approach it from an angle that’ll work for you.

Peace and love people!

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 05/14/2003 10:41:22 AM

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/14/2003 11:59 AM (GMT -6)

MephEternal

1) If God is all-loving, then ANY choice that God made would have been made IN pure love...because it was made by an all-loving being.

Iconoclast

I agree. Did I say something different than this, or somehow imply this was not true?

MephEternal

2) When I say "whimsy" here, I mean it in the strictest sense. It would be like me truly having NO REAL PREFERENCE between chocolate and vanilla ice cream...and ARBITRARILY choosing one over the other, when given the choice between them. I wouldn't make the choice by way of thinking that one option was better than the other. Same thing here. To say that Creation was a product of pure whimsy is to say that God valued the option of reality with Creation COMPLETELY EQUIVALENT to the option of reality without Creation. It is also to say that God's choice to create was NOT motivated by God feeling that creating was a "BETTER" expression of love than God's then-current state of being. God might as well as said "Oh, well, what the heck..." and there you go. Eeenie meenie miney moe. In saying that Creation was from whimsy, one implicitly DENIES the main intentionality behind the creative act...and to some that's a big problem. Some people don't like the idea of Creation being an afterthought.

Iconoclast

I didn’t mean to imply that there was NO intentionality behind God creating. In fact, quite the opposite I was trying to say that the intentionality was all about love. But love must be freely chosen, it cannot be compelled. You seem to want to say that God was compelled by love to create out of love. This is self-contradictory to the definition of love. You seem to say that God is compelled by his love. But if love compels then it is not love.

I think this comes from the filter of the “legal view”. Let’s look at that quote again:

quote:

How about we put the question like so:

Is God's choice to express his love to OTHER EXISTENTS morally equivalent to God's opposing choice to NOT make other existents, while enjoying God's triune love by Godself?

THIS question is thorny as heck. Why? Because if the person says "No", then it would seem that the person would HAVE to say that God's moral perfection AND complete integrity DEMANDS some type of Creation event. And if the person say "yes", then the person has to admit that Creation was merely a product of WHIMSY, and not valuation of any type...which is tantamount to saying that Creation was arbitrary. Eenie meenie miney moe type stuff.

Notice the presupposition that the words “morally equivalent” call out here. This is asking the question from the perspective of the “legal view”. The “legal view” IS the whole problem to begin with. No wonder asking such a question leads us to a self-contradictory answer.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/14/2003 5:01:36 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 5/14/2003 5:34 PM (GMT -6)

Tom: If I’m correct in understanding your comments to mean you can no longer accompany us on this particular impious quest of ours, I totally respect your feelings and hope to see you on another thread.

PoW: Tom is "wishing outloud."

One Love
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888

Posted 5/14/2003 6:02 PM (GMT -6)

Question for Iconoclast: Do the members of the Trinity FREELY CHOOSE to love one another? Asked another way. Is it possible for the members of the Trinity to freely choose NOT to love each other?

Hmmm...is it really true that love NEVER compels certain actions???

The answers to these will be VEEEEERY important later!

"Smile. It could be worse." --from a good friend.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/14/2003 6:21 PM (GMT -6)

MephEternal

Is it possible for the members of the Trinity to freely choose NOT to love each other?

Iconoclast

Krishnamurti: Freedom from something is no freedom at all: it is a reaction, a resistance, which only breeds further opposition.

This question contains the false presupposition that the Trinity is not one.
It also contains the false presupposition that the contradiction of love and "freedom from" implies that love compels.

It is a question that is impossible to directly answer without implicitly agreeing to these false presuppositions.

MephEternal

Hmmm...is it really true that love NEVER compels certain actions???

Iconoclast

I don't know. It certainly seems true to me that if love is compelled then it is not love.

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/15/2003 4:52 AM (GMT -6)

I just thought of something. What about hate? Is it possible to be compelled to hate? Or does that too have to be freely chosen? The reason I ask is the Bible teaches that we are to hate sin. Is that a command- and if so, it must be able to be compelled.
Same way with being told that we must love our neighbor as ourselves. That we must forgive our brother in order to be forgiven by God. These seem like commands to me.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/15/2003 12:14 PM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

I just thought of something. What about hate? Is it possible to be compelled to hate? Or does that too have to be freely chosen? The reason I ask is the Bible teaches that we are to hate sin. Is that a command- and if so, it must be able to be compelled.

Iconoclast

If God compelled us to do something would it be necessary for Him to command us to do the same thing? And if He commands us to do something and yet some of us don't do it, isn't that proof that God is not compelling us to do it?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Seesaw
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70

Posted 5/15/2003 8:39 PM (GMT -6)

Great questions RD! You make me think! Yes, being told to hate sin and told to love others certainly sound like commands. In fact, there are consequences for not obeying those commands. Interestingly, while we have a choice to either obey or disobey, there are outcomes predetermined by God. How does this fit in with open theism?

God speaks alot of blessings and punishment, rewards and consequences. He obviously has predetermined what will result in blessing (obedience) and what will result in consequences and/or punishment (disobedience). Does this align with teachings re: free will?

While we are free to choose, are we truly free since we reap what we sow and cannot escape God's punishment or on the other hand, God's blessing. We could apply the same to choosing salvation or rejecting it. While we are free to choose, we do not choose the outcome of our choice. If we reject, we will not receive eternal life with God. If we accept, we receive the Holy Spirit and eternal life with God. This is a promise. So, while we have the free will to choose salvation, God has already chosen the promise of that choice. And while we have the free will to chose to reject Christ, God has already determined the result of that choice as well.

Can open theism explain free will in the light of this? The term "free will" seems to be a catch-all phrase used in many ways with various understandings but with many gliches when reasoned the way it is in open theism.

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/15/2003 8:49 PM (GMT -6)

Seesaw

So, while we have the free will to choose salvation, God has already chosen the promise of that choice. And while we have the free will to chose to reject Christ, God has already determined the result of that choice as well.

Can open theism explain free will in the light of this? The term "free will" seems to be a catch-all phrase used in many ways with various understandings but with many gliches when reasoned the way it is in open theism.

Iconoclast

I understand free will to mean exactly what you suggest here. We are free to choose result A or result B. God does not compel us to choose result A (salvation). He influences us but He does not compel us. Nor does He predetermine what choice we make. If He did what would the meaning of the word "choice" be?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/16/2003 12:33 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Great questions RD! You make me think! Yes, being told to hate sin and told to love others certainly sound like commands. In fact, there are consequences for not obeying those commands. Interestingly, while we have a choice to either obey or disobey, there are outcomes predetermined by God. How does this fit in with open theism?

Seesaw-

It fits perfectly IF the CONSEQUENCES are predetermined but the CHOICE is not. For example, God says, "Choose you this day who you will serve: God or Satan." God alone predetermines what the CONSEQUENCES of each choice are to be. This is everywhere acknowledged by open theists. What is not predetermined is our CHOICE to serve God or not.

You worded it alright:

quote:
So, while we have the free will to choose salvation, God has already chosen the promise of that choice. And while we have the free will to chose to reject Christ, God has already determined the result of that choice as well. Can open theism explain free will in the light of this?

This IS libertarian free will, pure and simple. We're free to love or reject God but NOT free to determine for ourselves what the consequences of loving and rejecting God will be. God determiens that.

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 05/16/2003 05:36:48 AM

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/16/2003 4:18 AM (GMT -6)

My point was that there's been much talk about how love has to be freely chosen in order to be love. I said, why would God command us to love one another, or to hate sin, or do anything, if he wanted us to freely choose it? A command is just that - a command. Whether you want to do it or not. Just as we are commanded to forgive one another - how hard is that, and how many people REALLY want to do that? It's a struggle.
The first commandment - God is basically saying- you will have no other Gods before me- you must follow me over any other god or thing. He's not saying, I want you to love me, and I hope you will, and you get to freely choose that. To be blunt- you are ORDERED to do so.
It seems to me - to make an earthly analogy - a friend of yours who is much more powerful than you- says- I want you to freely love me, but I'm not going to force you to. But know that if you don't freely love me, I'm going to eternally torture you.
What kind of relationship is that? Is that more of a friend to a friend, or of a king to his subject?

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/16/2003 4:41 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

quote:

I said, why would God command us to love one another, or to hate sin, or do anything, if he wanted us to freely choose it? A command is just that - a command. Whether you want to do it or not.

Huh? Because He commands us to do it shows it's our option. If it wasn't possible for us to choose something, He couldn't command us to do it. He commands, we either choose to obey or choose to disobey.

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/16/2003 4:41 AM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

My point was that there's been much talk about how love has to be freely chosen in order to be love. I said, why would God command us to love one another, or to hate sin, or do anything, if he wanted us to freely choose it?

Iconoclast

Because God loves us and He wants us to choose to love one another. A command is a form of INFLUENCE based on authority. It does not COMPEL. If a person is compelled then there is no need for a command. A command presupposes that there is a choice. The prison guard does not command the prisoner to stay in the jail cell – he compels him.

Why do parents command their children to look both ways when crossing the street when they want them to freely choose to do this when they are not around?

ReasonableDoubt

It seems to me - to make an earthly analogy - a friend of yours who is much more powerful than you- says- I want you to freely love me, but I'm not going to force you to. But know that if you don't freely love me, I'm going to eternally torture you.
What kind of relationship is that? Is that more of a friend to a friend, or of a king to his subject?

Iconoclast

Seems more like a totalitarian megalomaniac sociopath dictator sort of relationship to me. This is the “legal view” of what is going on. It is so entirely false that it is absurd.

Would you eternally torture your child for getting hit by a car because they failed to choose to look both ways when crossing the street?

Mat 7:9-11
Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/16/2003 10:10:38 AM

Seesaw
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 70

Posted 5/16/2003 4:51 AM (GMT -6)

I think it's both king to subject -beloved "subject"- and friend to friend. The whole purpose for God's commands is to protect us. He knows the destruction of sin- whether it be the guilt or physical consequences or the destroying of our witness or our sanity or our family. All sin has detrimental consequences- some more severe and irreversible than others. So while it's king to subject, it is still done in love because he wants to protect us. But yes, it is a command. And it is also friend to friend because Jesus is our friend.

I don't think God looks at hell by saying- I'm going to eternally torture you, but rather it is a place where he does not and cannot exist. It is only through the blood of Christ that the wall of sin separating us with God is broken. Until one accepts forgiveness through Christ (not works), our sin separates us from God- both on earth and after death. A person who chooses to reject God has basically also chosen thier "destiny." A person who chooses to receive Christ has in the same manner chosen their destiny.

God commands us and tells us to submit because we "like sheep, have all gone astray." Basically, He knows better! He is our shepherd who has promised to guide, teach, help, protect, and encourage us. However, us humans see commands as rules and regulations that are stifling. Satan has deceived us to believe this. He did that with Eve. Oh, no, it won't hurt you. It's good. And look at the result!

I am not sure if I strayed from your questions RD. But you make some fine points. Keep asking!

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/16/2003 5:53 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast - so you deny the classical view of hell then?

This stuff is a lot easier if there is no hell, or if there is just annihilation. B/c then the choice really doesn't matter too much. But if there really is an eternal torment in hell to contend with, yes, God will send you there if you don't follow him. Whether it's God "allowing" you just to go there b/c you want to, or it's him literally tossing you into the Lake of Fire (which God has prepared for the devil and his angels) as it says in Revelation, the result is the same.

Laika
Registered Member

Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433

Posted 5/16/2003 6:01 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Iconoclast - so you deny the classical view of hell then?

I talked to him about this once. He prefers the jazz view of hell.

Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/16/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

Iconoclast - so you deny the classical view of hell then?

Iconoclast

I deny the "legal view" of hell which I understand to say that God (who is love) tortures us eternally for littering.

ReasonableDoubt

This stuff is a lot easier if there is no hell, or if there is just annihilation. B/c then the choice really doesn't matter too much.

Iconoclast

This seems to suggest that there is no real difference between the choice of eternally joyful life in loving union with our Creator and having the consciousness of a rock.

ReasonableDoubt

But if there really is an eternal torment in hell to contend with, yes, God will send you there if you don't follow him. Whether it's God "allowing" you just to go there b/c you want to, or it's him literally tossing you into the Lake of Fire (which God has prepared for the devil and his angels) as it says in Revelation, the result is the same.

Iconoclast

Seems to me that there is a huge difference between God allowing us to choose to go there versus God choosing to send us there against our will.

Is there a difference between you sending your child away from you forever and your child choosing to stay away from you forever?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 5/17/2003 4:53 AM (GMT -6)

Still here Mephi?

Let me see if I’ve got this. The kind of freedom a being exercises (and thus, the options that being enjoys) follows from the essential nature of that being.

Humans possess an essential nature which is finite and peccable. So libertarian free will (power to the contrary) for us means we can choose to love or not love God. We can do evil and good.

God possesses an essential nature out of which flows a unique exercise of freedom. As omnibenevolent, God always (naturally = must; but the must of essential nature and not the must of command) does the most loving thing. Being by nature omnibenevolent, doing what is less than maximally loving is NOT an option. Thus, an omnibenevolent God could not avoid creating if creating would add anything of value to God. Since God (an omnibenevolent God) values being freely loved by others, this valuation means not creating the world was NOT an option for God. He had to create, given the sort of essential nature God has. This is what Meph is saying.

I find myself uncomfortable with this. Having fought for figuring God’s love into the equation for so long, I now find myself wanting to champion God’s freedom!

Meph, if I follow you correctly, then all the open theist talk about God being able to create an exhaustively determined world if that’s what he wanted doesn’t wash, because omnibenevolence means God is incapable of wanting this. God could NOT have created such a world. Given his essential nature as omnibenevolent, God HAD to create and HAD to create the sort of world open theists argue he did create, an open one.

On the other hand, to argue God could have created an exhaustively determined world for the purpose of displaying the glory of his sheer power, one has first to accept that God is not omnibenevolent. Once that is done, it still follows that God HAD to create, but that he HAD to create an exhaustively determined world.

An omnibenevolent God could not but create an open world, while a less than omnibenevolent God, say, one who ultimately wills to display the glory of his power, could not but exhaustively determine all things, since that most efficiently displays his power.

Either way, God is not free to not create. This is what you’re saying?

Remember you agreed that our arguing what sort of world God created depended first on knowing what God’s purposes in creating were? Point was, once God decides what his purpose in creating is, his options are limited. He can only create a world which most fulfills THAT purpose. You’ve already stated this. But there’s more, namely, wouldn’t God’s essential nature limit God to one PURPOSE in creating as well? Yes it would. An omnibenevolent God cannot purpose to create a world in which our freely loving him is NOT possible, one exhaustively determined for example. Likewise, if it’s true that God’s ultimate purpose in creating was the glorification thing, then what’s that tell us about his essential nature? That he’s omnibenevolent? No. Love and self-glory cannot BOTH be the ultimate purpose for God’s creating. Gotta pick one.

I’m uncomfortable concluding that an omnibenevolent God HAD to create and HAD to create only one kind of world. It entails that God was less than perfect and loving without creation.

It’s time to shell out the sixty bucks for Doc’s thesis. Rats. You know me, Meph; if I bought it, could I understand it?

Tom

178 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:41 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual