Does God Have Free Will?

[OliviaMay]

Of course God has free will.

 

[juvenissun]

For the sake of my argument, I do not want to prove God is imperfect. Are you reading that into my intentions where it is not my intention?

That is the point. Logic gives you that extension of meaning. It does not care if you want it or not. It is automatically given. And you can not deny it.
This is the key mistake in your argument.

If you said God is perfect,
Then God can not be imperfect.

 

[Moral Orel]

That is the point. Logic gives you that extension of meaning. It does not care if you want it or not. It is automatically given. And you can not deny it.
This is the key mistake in your argument.

If you said God is perfect,
Then God can not be imperfect.

I give up. I have no idea what part of my argument you are talking about and I can't get a direct answer about it, so I give up.

 

[Gottservant]

God is smarter, than to leave Himself with free will (when His Son, has none " " " " ____)

 

[juvenissun]

I give up. I have no idea what part of my argument you are talking about and I can't get a direct answer about it, so I give up.

I guess you enjoy more nebulous talk since it allows much more room to turn and twist.
But that won't make you learn. It take precise logic thinking to catch loopholes.

 

[Moral Orel]

I guess you enjoy more nebulous talk since it allows much more room to turn and twist.
But that won't make you learn. It take precise logic thinking to catch loopholes.

I'm being nebulous? I've been trying this whole time to nail down what part of my argument is failing your "logical thinking" and I can't do it. You can't just say something is illogical and not say what it is. Since I'm not saying he's imperfect, and that's all you keep talking about, I can't fathom where the error is.

 

[Moral Orel]

1. God cannot do evil.
2. God cannot make mistakes.
3. God does not have free will to do evil or make mistakes.

Can you see the logic error of this question?

Can God make a rock which is so big that He can not lift it up?

Your lengthy question made the same mistake.

I went back to the beginning of your posts since that was the last time you did directly quote me. You seem to be hung up on these two lines as if they define the entire argument, so I'll try to give them some clarity.

What does it mean if God can't make mistakes? It means that his choices are limited. There are things that would be a mistake if he were to select them, so he can't choose them. So if there were 100 actions to choose from, but 50 of them would be a mistake, now there are only 50 actions that he can choose from.

I tied it to the concept that God is incapable of doing evil, because if you accidentally did evil, it wouldn't really be evil would it? If you put sugar in someone else's coffee, but you later found out that the labels were mismatched on the sugar and the container of deadly poison, and they died, did you murder them? No, that would be a perfectly legitimate excuse for not calling your act of poisoning coffee not evil. But since God cannot make mistakes, he can't even accidentally cause evil, so he can't choose acts that are evil without knowing that evil will result.

So this is how free will ties into the selections that would be mistakes. Does that offer some clarity? Can you see how I'm not arguing a logical contradiction because I'm not proving that God can't make mistakes because he's perfect? I'm arguing that God's choices from a limited amount of choices from a limited amount of choices are further limited by his perfection further diminishing his free will.

 

[juvenissun]

What does it mean if God can't make mistakes? It means that his choices are limited.

A (God) --> not B (mistake); Translation: God can not make mistake.
B (mistake); Translation: someone made mistake. (yes, someone has limited choice due to the mistake)
so, not A (God). Translation: so someone is not God.

In the quoted two sentences. The first one talks about God. The second one does not refers to God.
You mixed the identity to play the trick.

If A --> B is wrong (the quoted two sentences are wrongly related), then
A --> X --> Y --> Z --> B is still wrong.
You can never make it right no matter how many detours you made.

That is it. It is a simple exercise question in chapter 1 of Logic 101. Hope you get it.

 

[zippy2006]

Free will is hard to define because it can be so relative, so I won't.

I'd say it would be hard to proceed without definitions of free will. All of your arguments are implicitly defining free will.

Perhaps the most common understanding of free will is libertarian free will (LFW). Two characteristics seem especially likely to emerge when talking about LFW:

1. An act of an agent is such that the agent has the ability to do otherwise.
2. The act ultimately flows from the agent in such a way that the agent is responsible for the act.

If an agent does not have the ability to do otherwise with respect to some act, then the act was determined in such a way that freedom did not exist. Further, if an act is not truly coming from the agent in such a way that the agent is responsible for the act, then it is not a free act.

So yes, God has free will (LFW). For example, his act of creation includes both (1) and (2).

 

[Moral Orel]

So yes, God has free will (LFW). For example, his act of creation includes both (1) and (2).

Isn't creation supposed to be the ultimate good thing that God can do? To make us exist? If he is omnibenevolent, would he not be compelled to do the ultimate good thing?

Can not acting be considered an act of evil? Surely it can. If I saw someone being stabbed to death, and I just stood by and watched, that would be evil of me. Now don't go confusing the issue and claiming that I said God ought to stop all stabbings, because that isn't the point when it comes to God.

The point is that if God has the ability to make creation happen, and creation is a good thing, then choosing to not do a good thing that he is capable of doing would be doing a bad thing.

If you are claiming that creation is a neutral thing, and not a good thing, then you could state that he had a choice between doing it or not. But being omni-benevolent means doing the best thing that you are capable of all the time. Sometimes that may mean doing harm, sometimes that may mean doing nothing. But in the case of creation, creation is good so it must happen.

 

[James Is Back]

Thread cleaned of any other non Christian posts/quoted posts and moved from Philosophy to Exploring Christianity. I will remind everyone coming from Philosophy that only one non Christian member can post and that's the OP.

​

 

[Moral Orel]

1. God cannot do evil.
2. God cannot make mistakes.
3. God does not have free will to do evil or make mistakes.

In response to some corrections I received I am changing this argument in the OP for all those who aren't going to read the whole thread before posting. But I don't like just editing my posts since I want to own mistakes I made, so I am just putting this here to show what it said before I change it in the OP.

 

[zippy2006]

Isn't creation supposed to be the ultimate good thing that God can do? To make us exist?

I wouldn't say so. Angels are higher than humans, and the creation of anything is rather "small fries" for God.

If he is omnibenevolent, would he not be compelled to do the ultimate good thing?

Again, I don't think humans are "the ultimate good thing" by any measure. God is the ultimate good thing. Other than that, I wouldn't say God is compelled to do anything. What would compel him? The ultimate good for any thing is to know and love God, and God knows and loves himself perfectly.

Can not acting be considered an act of evil? Surely it can.

There are sins of omission, but as far as I can tell they would all require the ignoring of a moral obligation to prevent evil.

The point is that if God has the ability to make creation happen, and creation is a good thing, then choosing to not do a good thing that he is capable of doing would be doing a bad thing.

Some philosophers (following Leibniz) would agree and would further say that the world God creates must necessarily be perfect.

But an ability is not a duty, and infinite good already exists in God himself. God himself is perfectly good and blessed even apart from creation. Thus he has no necessary need, craving, or desire to create. It is a purely free act.

But being omni-benevolent means doing the best thing that you are capable of all the time.

Why? And what do you understand "good" to even be?

 

[Moral Orel]

Angels are higher than humans

That's a tricky one though isn't it? Because angels are higher than humans on Earth, and when a human goes to heaven he will be higher than the angels.

Again, I don't think humans are "the ultimate good thing" by any measure. God is the ultimate good thing.

Bad phrasing on my part. Creation is the ultimate good "action". Making it a vague noun like that would make God the ultimate good thing, and not his creation.

There are sins of omission, but as far as I can tell they would all require the ignoring of a moral obligation to prevent evil.

I think the most comparable thing would surround abortion actually. This is going to feel a bit like an appeal to emotion, but bear with me. Imagine that abortion could only happen before the fetus has any nerve cells to feel any pain, and that's the only kind we're talking about.

So it would still be wrong to prevent a life from coming into the world even if that life feels no pain, and feels no sorrow for missing out on what life would be, would it not? Why is killing wrong if you aren't taking something from someone that they don't really have yet?

Some philosophers (following Leibniz) would agree and would further say that the world God creates must necessarily be perfect.

I wouldn't go that far. If we start in with what God "ought" to have done, then we have to consider the fact that God knows everything and everything has a purpose. For the sake of the argument, I am stating that of course what has been done is the best thing and being less than perfect would have some purpose that we may not understand.

But an ability is not a duty, and infinite good already exists in God himself.

But if you have an unlimited supply of something, but keep it to yourself instead of sharing it, then wouldn't that be bad?

Why? And what do you understand "good" to even be?

Again, I'm just saying that what God did is good, and he couldn't have done better. I'm not getting into the "why didn't God do it this way" argument that I have been in in other threads. In the end you have to add up all the good that was done, and see what was ultimately better than if what was done wasn't done. It's more complicated than just suffering/happiness, that's why we have to use terms like good and bad, but there is still a balance that must be reached.

For instance, God can't smite someone just for fun, because that would be evil, but he can smite someone to save someone else. So we compare the smiting to the saving to determine a good act was done. Of course, we can't see every single impact of every single decision for us to make that measurement ourselves, so we are supposed to trust that it balances out on the side of good.

 

[bling]

If God does not have “free will” than how is God different from a machine programmed to act one particular way?

If a man only did the very best thing, that man would have to be controlled by some outside force (not having the ability to do otherwise), but if God does only the very best thing each and every time, it could be by His own self-control, so He could still have free will (the ability to choose to do otherwise).

God’s “love” for humans has to be out of choosing to do so, by God’s nature and not for logical reasoning.

 

[aiki]

First I'll define terms.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent, and immortal.

The Christian conception of God does not entail "omnibenevolence." God hates evil, sin, and the unrepentant sinner.

Did God, being perfect within Himself, have to create the universe? Of course not. He existed in perfection, requiring nothing, before he brought the universe into being. His act of Creation, then, was a completely gratuitous one, which He freely chose to perform.

Selah.

 

[Moral Orel]

The Christian conception of God does not entail "omnibenevolence."

I don't think that's true. That may be your conception of God, but I wouldn't say that Christians in general believe that omnibenevolence isn't a part of God's nature. Here's a link That's just one, there are plenty more.

Unless you just have a different definition of omnibenevolence than what I am using. I am stating that God is incapable of doing evil, do you believe that God is capable of doing evil but chooses not to? Or do you have a different definition of omnibenevolence?

 

[aiki]

I don't think that's true. That may be your conception of God, but I wouldn't say that Christians in general believe that omnibenevolence isn't a part of God's nature. Here's a link That's just one, there are plenty more.

Unless you just have a different definition of omnibenevolence than what I am using. I am stating that God is incapable of doing evil, do you believe that God is capable of doing evil but chooses not to? Or do you have a different definition of omnibenevolence?

I've never heard "omnibenevolence" used to describe God's perfect holiness and/or moral purity. In my experience, people use this term to refer to God's all-loving character. But, as I remarked, God is not all-loving. He hates sin.

I am incapable of possessing any more arms than the two I already have. Does that mean I don't have free will? I don't see how that would be a reasonable conclusion to make...But this is, it seems to me, to be essentially how you are thinking about God. Your question would make His perfection a liability, which is such a very human way to think of perfection.

In any case, the fact that God created the universe demonstrates pretty clearly, I think, that in fact He does have a free will. He was certainly under no compulsion to make the universe. As I said, doing so was a completely gratuitous - and thus necessarily free - act.

Selah.

 

[elopez]

1. God knows what his actions are going to be before he does them.
2. God's actions are predestined.
3. God cannot have freewill and be subject to fate.

I think that is pretty weak since there isn't necessarily a direct connection between fate and free will, but I may just be missing information.

This was partially covered in your other thread of God and time. 1 is not true as there is no "before" for God. 2 I would say is false as well. 3 is obviously false. Even if 2 were true, "predestination" seems to be theologically different from "fate." So I would agree that argument against a free will of God is weak. Though like you said there are truths to be taken away from each.

The argument deals with God's knowledge. So that is omniscience. Specifically, a type of prior knowledge, known as foreknowledge. And it is accurate that God knows of all future events. It could be more properly said, then, that God eternally knows He is going to create. His knowledge is without error and not subject to change. So if God knows He is going to create, He is going to create, and not creating would be infeasible.

That begs the question of "Was creation an inevitable action from God?" If the answer is yes we mean to say it is God's nature to create, which I find nothing awry with stating. If we say no, of course it can be claimed that God could have not created, yet what type of significance does that hold exactly?

It can be said that God was determined to create. "Determinism" meaning an event that transpires as the result of another prior event(s) or a prior factor(s). Foreknowledge of creation would be the prior factor. Foreknowledge cannot be a causal relation though, so the definition of causal determinism wouldn't apply. Nonetheless, determinism in some acceptation could still apply. Along with causal determinism there is logical determinism, the idea that all propositions about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. God being omniscient knows all propositions about past, present, and future. Therefore, foreknowledge is a logical determinent factor. God knowing He was going to create could not have done otherwise.

Now, does this mean God lacks free will? That really does turn to your view of free will. You said you wanted to avoid defining it yet to answer the question it must be defined. As another poster pointed out, in order to have LFW, the condition of being able to do otherwise must be met. If not, according to this view of freedom, one lacks it. Yet another outlook of free will, called compatibilism, maintains that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Regardless if God could not have done other than create the universe, He is still responsible for doing so. Since moral responsibility and free will are intertwined, as long as one can be held accountable, they are free.

In regards to what has been stated, a new, more valid and presumable argument can be constructed in replacement of the one in question. What this would show instead is that God is determined to create, though not that determinism is mutually exclusive of free will.

1. God has infallible foreknowledge.
2. If God knows He will create, it must be the case that He creates less He be incorrect.
3. If God must create, He cannot do otherwise.

So the initial question of God's free will I think depends on how you would answer the question in bold as well as what free will means. More so what free will means. I for one am a compatibilist, so I think God has free will even if He is determined.

 

[Moral Orel]

This was partially covered in your other thread of God and time. 1 is not true as there is no "before" for God. 2 I would say is false as well. 3 is obviously false. Even if 2 were true, "predestination" seems to be theologically different from "fate." So I would agree that argument against a free will of God is weak. Though like you said there are truths to be taken away from each.

The argument deals with God's knowledge. So that is omniscience. Specifically, a type of prior knowledge, known as foreknowledge. And it is accurate that God knows of all future events. It could be more properly said, then, that God eternally knows He is going to create. His knowledge is without error and not subject to change. So if God knows He is going to create, He is going to create, and not creating would be infeasible.

That begs the question of "Was creation an inevitable action from God?" If the answer is yes we mean to say it is God's nature to create, which I find nothing awry with stating. If we say no, of course it can be claimed that God could have not created, yet what type of significance does that hold exactly?

It can be said that God was determined to create. "Determinism" meaning an event that transpires as the result of another prior event(s) or a prior factor(s). Foreknowledge of creation would be the prior factor. Foreknowledge cannot be a causal relation though, so the definition of causal determinism wouldn't apply. Nonetheless, determinism in some acceptation could still apply. Along with causal determinism there is logical determinism, the idea that all propositions about the past, present, or future, are either true or false. God being omniscient knows all propositions about past, present, and future. Therefore, foreknowledge is a logical determinent factor. God knowing He was going to create could not have done otherwise.

Now, does this mean God lacks free will? That really does turn to your view of free will. You said you wanted to avoid defining it yet to answer the question it must be defined. As another poster pointed out, in order to have LFW, the condition of being able to do otherwise must be met. If not, according to this view of freedom, one lacks it. Yet another outlook of free will, called compatibilism, maintains that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Regardless if God could not have done other than create the universe, He is still responsible for doing so. Since moral responsibility and free will are intertwined, as long as one can be held accountable, they are free.

In regards to what has been stated, a new, more valid and presumable argument can be constructed in replacement of the one in question. What this would show instead is that God is determined to create, though not that determinism is mutually exclusive of free will.

1. God has infallible foreknowledge.
2. If God knows He will create, it must be the case that He creates less He be incorrect.
3. If God must create, He cannot do otherwise.

So the initial question of God's free will I think depends on how you would answer the question in bold as well as what free will means. More so what free will means. I for one am a compatibilist, so I think God has free will even if He is determined.

I'm not one for determinism either, that's why I agree that first argument is weak. Even your amended version hangs on "if God knows he will create" so it starts first with whether he decides he will create to determine whether he knows it or not. That was a mouthful.

I really only mentioned it because I wanted to hear other people's thoughts on determinism. I, for one, think that simply predicting someone's actions doesn't mean that destiny controls them. I know my wife pretty well. I can predict her actions based on some stimulus to about 99% accuracy (she's pretty predictable). Does crossing that last percent to 100% really mean that she didn't have a choice? I don't think so.