Could God have chosen not to create?

[elopez]

The title asks it all. If we answer yes, that almost seems to strip away the very implications of Creator. If we answer no, then God has no libertarian free will to do otherwise. I would be more comfortable maintaining the second idea, that God has no libertarian free will as that does not mean He has no free will whatsoever. As God had the unchangeable desire to create, and in fact executed the act of creating, He had free will.

I guess this relates to the free will of God, something I haven't really thought of before. Since we are made in the likeness of God, we would both have free will. Does that mean our free will is the same as God's, or is it different? For me I think the idea of libertarian human free will is false and so adhere to a compatible idea of human freedom, that is, that although we cannot do otherwise we are still free. According to the above then, the same would apply to God.

What are your guys thoughts?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think talking about God making a "choice" becomes somewhat odd; I prefer to think in terms of God acting. The action of God enacted by His absolute sovereignty over all things. The act of creation isn't so much a matter of "choice", as though God one day thought to Himself, "I'm going to make the universe" (this of course is intended to be hyperbolic and somewhat humorous); rather it is Sovereign action. God did not "decide" to create so much as the act of creation originates from within the Being of God, the first moment of existence isn't when God decided to say "Let there be"; rather God acts, and there is--and this is the first moment. "Let it be" is the Sovereign act of God acting as God because He is God.

Or at least, this is how I've generally pondered philosophically on the notion. It's certainly nothing I'd hang my hat on, but it's an interesting question philosophically nonetheless.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Pythons]

God can do anything except not be God - God's ways are so far above our ways....
...It would be like a maggot being charged with the task of splitting the atom X 1000000

 

[Radagast]

The title asks it all. If we answer yes, that almost seems to strip away the very implications of Creator.

Traditional Christian theology says Creation was a free act by God. As Rev 4:11 says, “You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created.”

The theologian Charles Hodge put it this way: “Creation was not necessary. It was free to God to create or not to create, to create the universe as it is, or any other order and system of things, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Systematic Theology, I, X, 1)

Catholic theologians like Aquinas said similar things: free creation is pretty much a core doctrine.

Does that mean our free will is the same as God's, or is it different?

All the things we share with God are lesser/weaker than what He has.

 

[Lion King]

God can do anything He wants. (except lie)

/end of thread.

 

[Optimax]

Yes.

God could have decided not to create.

In fact it is recorded that He had second thoughts about what He created.

Gen 6:5-7

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. KJV

God created each of us with certain boundaries.

To exit the planet takes great technology and expense just to get out of the atmosphere.

He put us in a physical body that although a marvelous and wonderful creation also limits us.

He did that in order to protect us and insure that we were redeemable unlike the devil.

We know there are more sounds and light that exist than we are able to see and hear with our physical ears.

God gave us liberty to choose within those boundaries.

The greatest liberty He granted us was to choose whether to follow Him or not.

That is a four part decision.

1. Are we going to believe God exist?

2. Are we going to chose to follow Him?

If we choose to follow Him or we going to follow Him:

3. His Way?

4. Or our way?

His way is the only way that works.

Why is His way the only way?

Cause He knows the issues involved and His way satisfies all issues.

His way is through Jesus and gives Eternal Life.

"Our ways" is through many deceptions and leads to eternal death.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I think talking about God making a "choice" becomes somewhat odd; I prefer to think in terms of God acting. The action of God enacted by His absolute sovereignty over all things. The act of creation isn't so much a matter of "choice", as though God one day thought to Himself, "I'm going to make the universe" (this of course is intended to be hyperbolic and somewhat humorous); rather it is Sovereign action. God did not "decide" to create so much as the act of creation originates from within the Being of God, the first moment of existence isn't when God decided to say "Let there be"; rather God acts, and there is--and this is the first moment. "Let it be" is the Sovereign act of God acting as God because He is God.

Or at least, this is how I've generally pondered philosophically on the notion. It's certainly nothing I'd hang my hat on, but it's an interesting question philosophically nonetheless.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed. Our human idea of choice is bound up in our understanding of the cognitive process, wherein deliberation and activity are separated by time. In God, there is not process, but rather eternal activity.

With that in mind, let me respond to the OP directly:

The title asks it all. If we answer yes, that almost seems to strip away the very implications of Creator. If we answer no, then God has no libertarian free will to do otherwise. I would be more comfortable maintaining the second idea, that God has no libertarian free will as that does not mean He has no free will whatsoever. As God had the unchangeable desire to create, and in fact executed the act of creating, He had free will.

I guess this relates to the free will of God, something I haven't really thought of before. Since we are made in the likeness of God, we would both have free will. Does that mean our free will is the same as God's, or is it different? For me I think the idea of libertarian human free will is false and so adhere to a compatible idea of human freedom, that is, that although we cannot do otherwise we are still free. According to the above then, the same would apply to God.

I'd suggest that the best way to consider this question is to move away from the question of will (divine will and human will, on which I, too, am a compatibilist), and instead consider the categories of necessity and contingency. It helps, I think, to consider the issue from the perspective of creation's contingency and divine necessity, because it allows us to get out of the temporal mode of thought implied by questions of will.

So that said, creation seems to be contingent in the sense that it is not necessarily so and its existence is eternally dependent upon a being of higher (indeed, highest) order, whose existence is necessary. I think once we recognize the contingency of creation, your view becomes a lot more palatable. It allows us to see creation (the creative act from eternity) as something God would do in all possible universes, but this lesser order, contingent creation could take a whole variety of forms once we consider it from the "inside" perspective of a temporally linear realm with a multiplicity of possibilities.

Seeing creation as a contingent but eternal action of God (such that God would always create in all possible universes, but contingent in the sense that is not part of God's own being and therefore not necessary) and having boundless possibilities when considered from a temporal, developmental perspective.

 

[elopez]

Crypto,

I see your point in saying you prefer to talk of God's action rather than desicion. Though, I think the question could be applied to that as well: Could God have not acted as to create?

 

[elopez]

God can do anything He wants. (except lie).

Can God make a square circle? It would be a mistake to ascribe the contradictory to God's ability. So to you, creating was not in God's nature?

 

[elopez]

Traditional Christian theology says Creation was a free act by God. As Rev 4:11 says, “You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created.”

The theologian Charles Hodge put it this way: “Creation was not necessary. It was free to God to create or not to create, to create the universe as it is, or any other order and system of things, according to the good pleasure of his will.” (Systematic Theology, I, X, 1)

Catholic theologians like Aquinas said similar things: free creation is pretty much a core doctrine.

I would think creation is a free act of God even if He couldn't have chosen to not create. Rev 4:11 does not say God could have not created, just that things exist because He willed them to exist. So if God has a creative will, that would only seem to support the idea that had to create, for if not, what is the point of a creative will?

We can say creation was not necessary regardless of God being unable to not create as His existence would still be self - sustainable. I have heard other theologians claim that creating is part of who God is essentially, which seems to suggest He had to create due to His nature.

 

[elopez]

In God, there is not process, but rather eternal activity.

I would have to point this out specifically in disagreement. Only for the reason that if we say God is eternally active, then there must be a sequence of events in which God experiences without the universe, in which case God must be changing. However, without the universe there is no time, and so God is timeless. If God is timeless, there can be no sequence of events, and so no eternally active state. God is thus inactive until creation.

Saying God is active without creation opens up the possibility of much more harsh criticism than one thinks.

I'd suggest that the best way to consider this question is to move away from the question of will (divine will and human will, on which I, too, am a compatibilist), and instead consider the categories of necessity and contingency. It helps, I think, to consider the issue from the perspective of creation's contingency and divine necessity, because it allows us to get out of the temporal mode of thought implied by questions of will.

So that said, creation seems to be contingent in the sense that it is not necessarily so and its existence is eternally dependent upon a being of higher (indeed, highest) order, whose existence is necessary. I think once we recognize the contingency of creation, your view becomes a lot more palatable. It allows us to see creation (the creative act from eternity) as something God would do in all possible universes, but this lesser order, contingent creation could take a whole variety of forms once we consider it from the "inside" perspective of a temporally linear realm with a multiplicity of possibilities.

Seeing creation as a contingent but eternal action of God (such that God would always create in all possible universes, but contingent in the sense that is not part of God's own being and therefore not necessary) and having boundless possibilities when considered from a temporal, developmental perspective.

Considering this, it seems that by saying God would have created in all possible worlds would be also saying that it is literally impossible for God to have not created. Of course creation is contingent on the necessary being, and that goes without saying, though that is not really the question in this case. If we claim that creating is essential to God (God would have created in all possible worlds) then He had to have created. Would you agree with that?

 

[Lion King]

Can God make a square circle?

Yes.

For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:37

 

[elopez]

Yes.

For with God nothing shall be impossible. Luke 1:37

So God is contradictory in relation to omnipotence to you, then. What makes you think God acts contradictory? Besides the obvious verse being taken out of context as it is talking about Mary's pregnancy I believe.

 

[Lion King]

So God is contradictory in relation to omnipotence to you, then. What makes you think God acts contradictory? Besides the obvious verse being taken out of context as it is talking about Mary's pregnancy I believe.

The message of that biblical passage is this: NOTHING is impossible for God. God can do anything He wants to do.

 

[elopez]

The point of that passage was to say: NOTHING is impossible for God. God can do anything He wants to do.

No, the point of the text is to show that Mary need not worry about her getting pregnet despite noy having sex, that God will take care of that. The text does not say God can do logical impossibilities.

 

[Lion King]

No, the point of the text is to show that Mary need not worry about her getting pregnet despite noy having sex, that God will take care of that. The text does not say God can do logical impossibilities.

What is impossible for God? (besides lying).

 

[Hentenza]

The point of that passage was to say: NOTHING is impossible for God. God can do anything He wants to do.

God can do anything that is possible to do. In the Luke passage, God is able to miraculously effect Mary's pregnancy. The verse does not state that God can do the illogical. God can not do what is not in His nature to do. He also can not do what runs contrary to the nature of His creation, hence, God can not create a married bachelor or a square triangle since these would be contrary to the nature of His logic and of His creation. Parallel passages such as Gen. 18:14, Matt. 19:26, Job 42:2, and Zech 8:6 illustrates the point.

 

[Lion King]

God can do anything that is possible to do. In the Luke passage, God is able to miraculously effect Mary's pregnancy. The verse does not state that God can do the illogical. God can not do what is not in His nature to do.

Anything is possible with God. There is absolutely nothing He can cannot do. This has been proven time and time again in the Scriptures; for instance:

• God turned a stick into a snake.
• God parted the sea.
• God walked on water.
• God turned water into blood.

Is it logical for a man to walk on water? Is it logical for a man to rise from the dead?

He also can not do what runs contrary to the nature of His creation, hence, God can not create a married bachelor or a square triangle since these would be contrary to the nature of His logic and of His creation. Parallel passages such as Gen. 18:14, Matt. 19:26, Job 42:2, and Zech 8:6 illustrates the point.

What is the nature of God's logic?

 

[Hentenza]

Anything is possible with God. There is absolutely nothing He can cannot do. This has been proven time and time again in the Scriptures; for instance:

• God turned a stick into a snake.
• God parted the sea.
• God walked on water.
• God turned water into blood.

Is it logical for a man to walk on water? Is it logical for a man to rise from the dead?

Anything that is possible for God to do He can do. This is what you have showed from scripture. God can turn a stick to a snake, He can part the sea, He can walk on water, and He can turn water into blood. God can not do things that are contrary to His nature. He can not lie. He can not murder. He can not covet nor can He worship images not of Himself.

BTW- Miracles are logical. In fact, since God exists and maintains His creation, and since God is supernatural, then supernatural things are His purview. But again, God can not do things that are contrary to His nature, consequently, God can not DO everything.

What is the nature of God's logic?

His creation and His nature.

 

[Rev Randy]

No, the point of the text is to show that Mary need not worry about her getting pregnet despite noy having sex, that God will take care of that. The text does not say God can do logical impossibilities.

While I am not an advocate of duel meanings to scripture, the statement was said and was true. Yes this was spoken to Mary but what was spoken was indeed fact to anyone or anything. Nothing is impossible with God.
This is an interesting topic. Like others, I've spent avery little time trying to understand the full nature of God. But I've never attempted brain surgury either as some things are beyond what I can grasp without a revelation. I take God's authority simply having faith that it is for the sake of perfect love. Whether He choise, decided or simply did can't be applied to such an Awesome creator. Those are words to describe a sinful man. His Word tells me God wills. To me that means desires but I have no idea of what that means to God. I'm assured one day I either will or simply accept that answer I could give now: It's not for to to question. He's God and I'm simply His creation. That sure seems to be unnaturally in love to me but I accept that it's perfect.
Boy! I talked a circle there and said very little.
so my answer to the OP's question: Beats me? Hope that helps