quote:

---

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.

---

Yep.


********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

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.

---

Yer on a roll, man...

********************************


Tom:

quote:

---

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.

---

Some things. First of all, it is important to note that omnibenevolence is not the only attribute of God that is being considered. I'm considering a God who has God's omniscience, omnipotence, infinite intelligence, perfect integrity, and a disposition toward maximizing felt aesthetic appreciation of reality. Combining all of these things leads me to my conclusions.
Second, I am saying that, given the decision to create or NOT to create, God would ALWAYS choose the decision that would maximize loving and felt aesthetic appreciation. Now, unless one would want to argue that there was absolutely NO value difference between a reality without Creation and one with Creation, all things considered, there is no point of indifference whereby God can choose in whimsy. One choice would ALWAYS be "greater" in what God values than the other. And, given what we've said about God, THAT is the option that God would choose.

********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

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.

---

If I'm right about my idea about God's attributes and their implications, then any BINARY decision presented to God, where 1) the options are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE and 2) there is no point of indifference valuewise, will result in God choosing ONE alternative over another. If we say that God only wanted to create ONE Creation and that this Creation could either be exhaustively determined or one NOT exhaustively determined...

unless someone wanted to argue that it made absolute NO VALUE DIFFERENCE whatsoever whether Creation was exhaustively determined or not, then they would have to say that God would HAVE to choose one option over the other. So, if God did think that an open view reality would maximize the felt aesthetic appreciation of reality MORE THAN one where EDF existed, then YES...God HAD to create and HAD to create an open world. Else God would be denying Godself.


********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

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.

---

Uh, nope. To argue that God COULD have created an exhaustively determined world, given everything we've said above, one would not need to deny God's omnibenevolence. One would need only argue that God didn't value an EDF world any MORE or LESS than an open view world. Then the choice would have been one of whimsy.


********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

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

---

I'm saying that God's free choice to create, or do anything else, is necessarily conditioned by God's essential existence.


********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

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.

---

Oooh. Young man, you are assigned to search the archives for the lengthy discussion on the "Glory Variable" aka the "glorification idea", in which it is demonstrated (persuasively, I think) that love and self-glory can INDEED both be the ultimate purpose. Remember, it all depends on how narrowly we define omnibenevolence and God's glory. To say that God's self-glorifying purpose can ONLY be acheived by an EDF world is fallacious. (Sorry, Calvinists!)

No supper for you until you finish this assignment! Teehee.


********************************

Tom:

quote:

---

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?

---

Man, HECK, YEAH. Remember, it was reading this book that really helped sell me on the viabilty of the open view. It's really good stuff, I thought. But hey, what do I know. Sure, you'll understand it. You have easy access to the author, right, Doc?



Can't wait to see you in person, Tom.



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

• The essential nature of a being determines the sort of freedom that being possesses and thus the options that being faces

• God is essentially omnibenevolent

• Therefore, purposing to create a world in which love is possible was the only kind of world an omnibenevolent God could have purposed to create.

quote:

---

We want to say God was equally free to exhaustively determine the world or not. But we can only say this if we define love so narrowly as to leave love, God’s love, indifferent about the value of a world in which love was possible over against a world void of all possibility of love. What have we done to love?

---

The issue is our chief presupposition about love. Once we say the love REQUIRES freedom, and put this together with essential existence we have discussed about God, then our hand is pretty much forced. I personally don't see how we CAN say that God was equally free to create an EDF world, given everything...without denying the love requires freedom. Actually, that's about the ONLY way I think it can be done. Do you have any ideas?



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

Edited by - MephEternal on 05/18/2003 01:28:59 AM

quote:

---

I think this assertion is a bit off. The problem is that it presupposes that some possible state has some inherent measurement of worth rather than "probabilistic" worth (a probability wave function). Think of Peirce's "interpretant". The "interpretant" gives meaning to the prior sign thus making a new sign which in turn needs an interpretant to give it meaning and so on ad-infinitum. Thus State A's worth is dependent on the probabilistic outcome of State B. And State B's worth is dependent on the probabilistic outcome of State C and so on.

This means that creation does not have worth in and of itself that God could somehow measure independently and then decide to go for it because it has higher worth than doing nothing. In fact, creation could have ended up so bad that God had to wipe it all out and even feel regret that He made it.

---

Let me make sure that I understand you. In order for God to ever even try to gain insight into a RANGE of possible "worth" for any potential state of reality, God would have to somehow be able to all of the probabilistic outcomes from that state, and the same for all those states, ad infinitum. Hmmm...this seems just up the alley of God's INFINITE INTELLIGENCE. And it is on this basis that I think that it stands that God truly can ascertain the "worth" of any given state of reality.

Moreover, in "Satan and the Problem of Evil", Doc himself talked about God basically believing that the creation that God chose to initiate was "worth it". The risk was "worth it" How would this statement have any meaning it God couldn't ascertain the "worth" of the risky choice??

*************************************


I:

quote:

---

I don't think that love looks at things in terms of trying to get the higher valued state as though that can even be measured. I think love seeks to express love to the beloved.

---

I would agree that love seeks to express itself. I would say that this is within God's disposition. One who loves VALUES expressing love, correct? So...

*************************************

I:

quote:

---

Here is a quick thought experiment that perhaps shows that there is some sort of absurdity going on here. We all know that God has always existed. He has existed for eternity. If God was somehow compelled to create us because this creation is a higher value state then why didn't God create us earlier?

---

Heh. "Earlier" than what? Are you saying that God waited for a long "time" before creating?? Hmmm...



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

quote:

---

My suggestion is that there is no such concept as a "best" probabilistic state. This provides the appropriate "best state indeterminacy" whereby true spontaneity can arise. Because love cannot be compelled else it is not love then probabilistic states must come into being else there is no "best state indeterminacy" that allows the true spontaneity that love requires. Seems like this is an "if and only if" sort of arrangement so it can be completely turned around as well.

---

quote:

---

Make sure you get the question. It’s not “Is an omnibenevolent God free to create or not create at all?” but “Is an omnibenevolent God free to want to create an exhaustively determined world?”

---

quote:

---

I'd like to avoid concluding #1.

---

So would I. I really haven't found a way to do so, outside of saying that God was AMBIVALENT towards creating versus not creating. That the act of creation (and all its implications) really was a point of indifference to God. But this contradicts the whole idea of God thinking Creation was "worth the risk", right?

Doc??????

quote:

---

Plus...it lands us smack dab in the middle of process theism's parking lot. You KNOW what I mean, right?

---

Yep. I know EXACTLY what you mean, Tom. Uh, peeps? Somebody'd better get on this. If I were Bruce Ware or somebody...and I could really see this point, I'd pounce on this like a starving person on a Krispy Kreme doughnut! This is NOT some unimportant side issue. This is a make or break thing, y'all. They could have a friggin FIELD DAY with this...

Yeah, Springs. You were here...at ground friggin zero.



Edited by - MephEternal on 05/19/2003 09:27:18 AM