quote:

---

I think your main problem is that divine/creation RECIPROCAL relationships would be illusionary to God, in that Creation WOULD be influencing God...but only in the direction that God himself wanted to go anyway. I really don't see a problem with this. The sense of libertarian freedom that has YOU affecting God by YOUR action or inaction would still be there. The urgency for prayer. The need for personal responsibility. Spiritual warfare. Even your personal FELT relationship with God. All that would still exist for you. What would essentially change?

---

Let it be given that God exhaustively determines the world to proceed in an open manner, as you say.

This would require that among the things determined by God would be our inability to live meaningfully while believing we are determined, for OUR living in a manner WE believe is open requires this. Thus, God would determine us to believe ourselves to be libertarianly free. Again, this is what “proceeding in an open manner necessarily involves. If you know of a way for us to proceed with our lives in an open manner while consciously denying we possess the power to the contrary, lay it on me.

The problem is that believing God determines us to live in an open manner is self-refuting, for living in an open manner by definition is living a life not exhaustively determined by wills other than my own. We BELIEVE we possess libertarian freedom. We LIVE our lives believing this. I can only do this meaningfully so long as I do NOT believe myself exhaustively determined. The “sense” of freedom and relating mutually and personally to God you acknowledge (is necessary?) would require that I remain ignorant of the truth that God has determined everything about this relationship, including my believing God has not determined everything about it. But as soon as one agrees to believe that God has determined her “open view” on life, it’s not an “open” view any longer, nor can it be. My sense of affecting God is a “personal” one. I don’t believe I’m a bat in his hand. There is mutuality there, but it’s unidirectional, just as all causal relationships are. Proceeding with life in an ‘open manner’ requires rejecting the belief that the divine-human relationship is a causal one. It requires believing it to be mutually personal.

I hate to ask for it, but you wouldn’t happen to have an ANALOGY that would help me understand what it would mean for a person to live in an open manner while believing God has determined everything, would you? I could believe myself to be living in an open manner while being ignorant that God has determined the manner in which I live, or while denying that God has determined the manner in which I live. But I cannot believe myself to be living in an open manner while also believing myself to be exhaustively determined by God to believe I live in an open manner. Not possible.

I actually thought you had recognized this at one point? No?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 05/15/2003 05:37:55 AM

quote:

---

A thing is not less than free if it is incapable of being other than it is. So I’d say, no, the Son is not “free” to hate the Father. Love is not “free” to be hatred. But this concerns the manner in which God is related to himself, something I think we ought to talk about, but something which may not tell us much about whether or not God’s choice to create the world (or not) was a free one. God exists necessarily and is necessarily related to himself. The world does not exist necessarily. So I don’t think a necessary God’s freely creating a contingent world is the same as a necessary God of love relating lovingly to Godself. God is NOT free from relating lovingly to himself (this would amount to his ceasing to be God). But God IS free from creating the world. So the Son’s loving the Father is categorically different than God’s choosing to create, I would think.

---

Alright! You touch on what I wanted to hit dead on. Basically you note (rightly, I might add) that when talking about freedom, it is VERY important to note the type of ESSENTIAL EXISTENCE of the being that we are talking about. God is a necessary being, which ends up having some interesting implications. If God is all-loving, then this is a NON-NEGOTIABLE and UNCHANGABLE attribute about God. For the necessary, all-loving God to NOT LOVE would have the effect of God ceasing to be God, as you have said. But wait a second...

What about the dictum "Love REQUIRES Freedom"????

When this is said, there is usually a specific understandings behind it...which Iconoclast talks about. First of all, love BY DEFINITION must be FREELY CHOSEN. One cannot just ooze out love, as it were, from one's ESSENCE. If this were to occur, then it would not be freely chosen, and therefore not love. In other words, for love to be influential AS LOVE, it MUST be free. But as you've probably already guessed, it is not possible for a NECESSARY, all-loving being to be other than what said being is. A necessary, all-loving God will love as it exists BECAUSE God exists. No DELIBERATIVE choice to love involved. Now, sure, this being can EXPRESS this love in different ways and choose on that basis, which is what Doc says, but the "love" itself is a NON-NEGOTIABLE aspect of who God is.

Now I don't know about you, but the only way, I felt, of getting around the conclusion that there was significant disjunct between "love" and "freedom" was to define freedom in terms of a being's essential existence. Hence what I said in the other thread:

quote:

---

As I see it, the exercise of libertarian freedom is the particular EXPRESSION of a thing's essential existence (borrowing Doc's terminology) where volition and power to influence are the primary domains.

---

It was the only way, I felt, to say that God had libertarian freedom in terms of love. So, even though God CANNOT HELP BUT be loving, this was not necessarily a tacit assertion that God was not free.

So, why all this? The question and all that. What I basically wanted to do, y'all, is to USE the idea of love to show that it is possible that God's essential existence makes God's mode of volitional action MUCH DIFFERENT than ours. And this happens with different things that God does.





So, what we end up admitting is the following...

The choice to love, like any other choice, is NECESSARILY conditioned by the essential existence of the being presented with the choice. And this occurs with ALL beings, including God.

Now, what happens when we apply this type of thought to God's creating? If we look at what was said on the "Does God possess libertarian free will?" thread, we see that it can have HUGE implications. Putting everything together (as it was on the other thread), we end up with two choices:

1) Creating was seen by God as ON THE WHOLE being a more aestethically pleasing option than not creating, and because of God's essential existence of being all-loving, infinitely intelligent, and constantly maximizing felt aesthetic appreciation, "God was compelled" by that essential existence to create.

or...

2) There was absolutely NO DIFFERENCE ON THE WHOLE of God's aesthetic appreciation of reality with or without a creation. In other words, God would have to perceive that Creation would add ABSOLUTELY NO MORE FELT AESTHETIC VALUE to God's own experience, positively or negatively, than God had in the absence of Creation. This would mean that Creation made no difference to God. God's choice to create was PURELY from whimsy.

What this is saying is that the "decision" to create is ALSO conditioned by God's essential existence...JUST LIKE God's loving. Now, unless someone wants to say that God valued a reality devoid of Creation COMPLETELY EQUIVALENT to a reality with Creation (thus creating a point of indifference), one would have to say that God's nature "compels" to create...JUST LIKE we would say that God's nature "compels" God to always love. If one has NO PROBLEM with God's love being conditioned by his nature, then I don't see why they would feel differently when it comes to God's creating.

[LONG Digression: This is really important to understand. As I see it, in Doc's dissertation, Doc said that God didn't need creation and was completely satisfied with the unsurpassable love that God had within Godself...and that Creation was basically just another EXPRESSION of God's love that God FREELY choose to accomplish. But, from my perspective, the question was never asked "WHY did God decide to do this?" The question was implicitly answered when the discussion of God's "disposition" came up. Basically, part of God's disposition is to express itself in the pouring out of love. And I suppose that theoretically, it was possible for an inexhaustible being to express that love to itself INEXHAUSTIBLY. But I thought about something. If it was in God's essential existence (centered around the disposition) that God keeps pouring out love in myriad ways, wouldn't the next logical step to fulfill this dispositional yearn be expressing love to NON-GOD CREATURES??? Heck, yeah. And it would also make sense that God, being infinitely intelligent and omniscient would already have "measured" the felt aesthetic appreciation that God AND the potential non-God beings would acquire...and make the "decision" to create accordingly. Now, unless someone wanted to say God felt ABSOLUTELY NO INCREASE in his felt aesthetic appreciation AT ALL from Creation, it would seem that God's "decision" to create tacitly shows that, given divine evaluation, a reality WITH Creation was seen as "better" to God than reality WITHOUT a Creation. Whew...]


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

Tom:

quote:

---

I hate to ask for it, but you wouldn’t happen to have an ANALOGY that would help me understand what it would mean for a person to live in an open manner while believing God has determined everything, would you?

---

SWEET! I think I have something...

Analogy: THE MATRIX

Just try to go with me here. Okay, what is the Matrix? Basically a INTERACTIVE virtual reality where human minds interact with one another and the computer, right? For the most part, people are QUITE IGNORANT of the Matrix and they proceed to live normal lives. But some other people get "free" of the Matrix, ultimately realizing what it is. And they actually use this freedom of mind to end up doing some really cool stuff in the Matrix (like high jumping and what not) that the ignorant ones cannot do.

But here's the thing. Don't the freedom fighters of the Matrix STILL ESSENTIALLY act like the Matrix is the REAL WORLD?? Think about it. They may walk around in the Matrix claiming "Sham, sham. It's all a sham!", but the fact remains that when they run, fight, speak to each other (AND the agents), they naturally act as if they are in the REAL WORLD. They know that their inactions and inactions will be PERCEIVED as real. And perception IS reality!!! They have all the sensations of the REAL WORLD. Now, what good would it do one of them to say "Hmph. None of this is real...so I'm just going to sit down right here in this dark room and do nothing." He will just be a damn doofus in there ACTIVELY PERCEIVING himself to be sitting in a dark room doing nothing. He will NEVER perceive the actuality of the situation while in the Matrix...his dirty, crusty butt sitting with a digital jack in the back of his head on some rusty tin can of a hovership. So, it does him absolutely NO GOOD to try and act like the Matrix isn't "real". He may as well do what all the rest of the freedom fighters do...live, walk, and talk ABOUT the Matrix IN the Matrix.

Bottom line: The construction of the Matrix AND the perspectival perception of individuals makes it 1) impossible to try to ACTIVELY perceive the known actual state of things while IN the Matrix and 2) impractical to ATTEMPT to do so.

Just thought of something to hammer the point. What if a person could be MADE KNOWN of the Matrix's existence...but COULD NOT ESCAPE. All of the above would still apply. It would be UTTER IDIOCY for the person to try and ACT like the Matrix wasn't real. He'd be better off following his PERCEPTION and INTERACTING with the Matrix, even though he "knows" it's not real.


SAME THING APPLIES WITH HUMANS AND THEOLOGICAL DETERMINISM!

It may be the case that theological determinism is true. And we can walk about screaming "Sham, sham..." all we want. But at the end of the day, we are IN this reality and cannot get out. Our perception is our reality and, as we well know, our perception does NOT have to completely mirror reality. For all practical intents and purposes, we interact with God and each other. We pray. God answers. We express love to God. We PERCEIVE God expressing love back. We cry. We perceive God empathizing with us.

So...what's...the...big...deal????

If you think about it, if theological determinism were true, it would be the ULTIMATE Matrix. A deterministic reality created by a God, where most of the people inside REALLY believed that things were as completely open for God as it was for them. HA!

Oh, and for those people who are like "Then God would be lying to us, for God's misrepresenting himself." Think about it. God must not be misrepresenting Godself THAT bad. How many theological determinists do YOU know? God must be getting SOME of the point across. LOLOL!

Peace out,


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

Edited by - MephEternal on 05/15/2003 08:41:00 AM

quote:

---

You said: "I know it's possible for God to get along JUST FINE without it, but do you think just maybe that God would appreciate it's existence in the God/world relationship?"

Ah, but COULD he get along just fine without it. If "God would appreciate the existence of spontaneity," if it would add anything to "God's aesthetic appreciation of reality," then wouldn't God be "compelled" to create such a world?

---

That's my dawg. That's my DAWG!!! You go, boy! Good one!!

quote:

---

Couldn't you also argue that theological determinism also cannot provide moral culpability for human behavior? That it also cannot provide an adequate explanation of the existence of evil with an all loving perfect God?
(I believe there are some answers to those, but I think they are legitimate objections that an OVer might raise)

---

quote:

---

Couldn't you also argue that theological determinism also cannot provide moral culpability for human behavior? That it also cannot provide an adequate explanation of the existence of evil with an all loving perfect God? (I believe there are some answers to those, but I think they are legitimate objections that an OVer might raise)

---

quote:

---

Isn’t spontaneity just as much of a denial of free will as determinism? Love is willful. Spontaneity is accidental.

Spontaneity might make something seem more lovable insofar as it less boring, but it has nothing to do with whether or not we are loving.

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous

Spontaneity does not just have to do with randomness. It may deal with IMPULSIVE, VOLUNTARY responses or interactions with another. The love factor would be what drives the action.

Remember. We are dealing with LOVING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. Loving INTERACTION. Can you imagine loving interpersonal interaction without spontaneity of ANY kind?




Edited by - MephEternal on 05/15/2003 11:10:27 AM

quote:

---

Ah, but COULD he get along just fine without it? If "God would appreciate the existence of spontaneity," if it would add anything to "God's aesthetic appreciation of reality," then wouldn't God be "compelled" to create such a world?

---

Mephi: That's my dawg. That's my DAWG!!! You go, boy! Good one!!

Tom: Eh, let me rephrase myself a bit, to this: "...wouldn't God be 'compelled' to create such a world IF he decided to create at all?"

I was actually trying to trip YOU up Mephi. If you liked the argument, then it would seem to that you'd be logically required to reject the POSSIBILITY that God could have created an exhaustively determined world? No?

Tom

Edited by - TGB on 05/15/2003 11:18:11 AM

quote:

---

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous

Spontaneity does not just have to do with randomness. It may deal with IMPULSIVE, VOLUNTARY responses or interactions with another. The love factor would be what drives the action.

Remember. We are dealing with LOVING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS. Loving INTERACTION. Can you imagine loving interpersonal interaction without spontaneity of ANY kind?

---

quote:

---

I think sponteneity can be understood in a way that affirms libertarian free will.

---

Let me help. Spontaneity, by definition, arises from something that is NOT EXHAUSTIVELY DETERMINED by internal or external stimuli. There is an element of SELF-GENERATION (which presupposes self-detemination) there that is irreducible...and ultimately unpredictable. Sound familiar? And again, "spontaneous" is DISTINCT from "random"

quote:

---

Tom: Eh, let me rephrase myself a bit, to this: "...wouldn't God be 'compelled' to create such a world IF he decided to create at all?"

I was actually trying to trip YOU up Mephi. If you liked the argument, then it would seem to that you'd be logically required to reject the POSSIBILITY that God could have created an exhaustively determined world? No?

---

Trip me up how? I applauded the way that you extended my thought. You're right. If God DID see a world filled with potential for spontaneity as being "better" than one without it, and God ALWAYS works for maximization in this regard, then it would stand to reason that it would NOT be possible that God could have created an EDF world...for doing so would have contradicted would divine evaluation would indicate.

But all this only hangs on whether or not God really thought that a spontaneity filled world was INDEED better than a spontaneity DEVOID world.

Remember, Tom. I have no existentially felt problem with EITHER VIEW. So how would this trip me up?