quote:

---

...for no one has wanted to affirm that God's decision to create and interact with the world was necessary or capricious. (Satan and the prob of evil, p.70)

---

quote:

---

My question: Can't God only do the morally perfect thing? For instance, when deliberating whether to create the world or not, couldn't someone argue that God was compelled to create this world because it was better (in a moral sense) than not creating--or creating a different world? Isn't there only one course of action God could have taken, i.e., the morally perfect one?

---

quote:

---

I don't believe God "possess" freedom of the type we classify as "libertarian". In my opinion, libertarian freedom is a symptom of our finite minds. It is an expression of our limitedness, if that's a word. If God possessed it, He would not be "God".

---

quote:

---

Having acknowledged the response already offered to you, you do not appear to offer any support for your claim that the fact of God's having created indicates that the action entailed by "God having created" is morally superior to the action entailed by "not God having created"?

---

quote:

---

On the face of things it seems equally plausible that "God having created" and "not God having created" are morally equivalent.

---

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.


One can say this: Given God's nature, the creation of a non-God reality was a NECESSARY CONSEQUENT of the God's existence. This is not the same thing as saying that God was compelled to create...as if by some external or hypnotic force. Or saying that God NEEDED Creation. It is saying that Creation is an expression of God's genuine libertarian freedom as it has been described above. Far from being a COMPULSION, Creation becomes tacit EVIDENCE of God's love, moral perfection, self-determining freedom, and unflinching integrity.


Sooo....all this being said, I've said jack. Just a bunch of blah, blah, blah. But what do you think anyway? Holla back.


Later,



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

Edited by - MephEternal on 03/31/2003 12:48:59 PM

quote:

---

What I am saying is that, given the type of being we are considering, it CAN involve self-contradiction on a level of SELF-UNDERSTANDING. (Like how renewed human beings can still act by the "old man" even though they are new creations) And that existential self-contradiction is only possible for non-God beings...like us.

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that God, because of his perfection, does not experience choices like we do, since he cannot choose a morally inferior option?

---

Pretty much. If we are going to take God's nature of ALWAYS doing the "best" that God can do very seriously, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion.



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



Next, you said:

quote:

---

It seems to me you're falling into the initial problem I raised on this thread. God has "two choices" and because of his moral perfection is compelled to choose one over the other. I also don't understand how God's being compelled to create is any different from being the "necessary consequent of his existence," as you put it.

---

Ok. If by saying "God's being compelled to create", you are referring to God's total integrity with God's own natural desire, freedom, and ability to maximize felt aesthetic value of Reality, then I guess agree with you. What I just want to be sure to highlight by my statement is that:

-Creation doesn't COMPLETE God, as if God were imcomplete previous to Creation
-there was no EXTERNAL force upon God for this choice.


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


Next,

quote:

---

I think I'm tracking with you, but you need to provide a fuller and more clear explanation of how God's libertarian freedom differs from human libertarian freedom. I think you're on to something here.

---

Cool. Basically what I'm saying is that the freedom that God has is the SAME freedom that we have. The only difference is in the modes of operation...and this is because of the difference that humans have from God in essential existence.

As I see it, the main thing that libertarian freedom wants to assert is that the volition and influential power of agents lie FUNDAMENTALLY within said agents on ALL levels. In such a manner that certain decisions and actions (not all, of course) can only be known as DEFINITE or CERTAIN, temporally AFTER they have taken place in the real world. This reality of one OF possibilities, as Tom has stated. In this way, both God and humans are self-determining loci of influential power in a world of options.

But what I believe doesn't get much thought is that this freedom is NECESSARILY constrained by the essential existence of the being that exhibits it. And what this means is that differences in that essential existence will DEFINITELY mean differences in how this freedom is expressed.

For example, let's say this about God...

1) God is omniscient.
2) God is infinitely intelligent.
3) God is perfectly integrous with Godself.
4) God is morally perfect.
5) Biggie: God always seeks the maximization of aesthetic appreciation in Creation at all times. (This is basically saying that, at all times)


Because of who God is, God actually BEING Godself entails some important things. God knows, from the jump, the actual value of all things actual and possible. And, with his infinite intelligence, can easily determine optimal ways of aesthetic maximation in reality, given all the revelant factors present. And God has the power to work towards those ways. And God does this all the time.

[Digression: All this assumes that it is God's nature to ALWAYS "do the best that God can do" in all situations. I know that some people want to argue that this is limiting God's choices, that God should be able to choose LESS-THAN-optimal ways of behaving, if God so chooses. That the ability to choose less-than-optimal options is what defines genuine freedom. I suppose that one could argue that. However, I just hope that these people understand that arguing this eventually causes a very REAL problem when it comes to theodicy. And we've dealt with that extensively here before...ain't that right, Doc? ]


Humans doen't have any of the 5 things that I've said about God. And this has the effects of us possibly being inaccurate and fragmented on many levels. And this will surely affect HOW we use our freedom. And that way will be different from God's use of the same type of freedom.

Basically, God's libertarian freedom would be limited by GOD'S nature, just like our freedom is limited by OUR nature. We cannot choose to turn into cherry vanilla ice cream and turn right back in 10 seconds. And the reason why is obvious. But this doesn't NOT say that we don't have libertarian free will. In like manner, God cannot choose options that will NOT further the maximization of aesthetic appreciation in Creation...and still be God. And this doesn't mean that God doesn't have libertarian free will. SeewhutI'msayin'?


Hope this helps. If not, I'll try again.