Possible Worlds and Free Will

[ToddNotTodd]

A perfect God can only create beings with complete free will, meaning they can freely choose their own will and not the perfect God's will, but they can also freely choose the perfect God's will. This is the only way a perfect God can be perfectly just.

That still doesn't address post #77.

 

[Chriliman]

That still doesn't address post #77.

What purpose can you think of that a perfect infinite God would have in creating beings that can only choose to do what's right? How can an infinite God duplicate his own infinite will? He's already infinite, so what is created must be finite in that it has a beginning.

Your free will has a beginning and you will freely end it when you realize God's will is perfect and righteous. God's will, will be all you want.

Or you will never freely end your will and instead always choose what you want and not what God wants. Obviously, God does not want you to be separated from Himself forever. Nobody, alive on earth today knows what it's truly like to be completely separated from God for eternity.

 

[quatona]

What purpose can you think of that a perfect infinite God would have in creating beings that can only choose to do what's right?

The answer is obvious: Because he´s perfectly good and thus only wants good and right things to exist.
I think the more pressing question is: Why would a God not want his creatures to not do the bad, evil and wrong?

How can an infinite God duplicate his own infinite will?

Nobody here postulated that, and in particular not Ana, to whose post you are responding.
Is the armada of strawmen to your disposal endless?

 

[Chriliman]

The answer is obvious: Because he´s perfectly good and thus only wants good and right things to exist.

How is it not good and right to create beings with complete free will to do as they please?

I think the more pressing question is: Why would a God not want his creatures to not do the bad, evil and wrong?

? This is a double negative. It should be: why would a God want his creatures to not do bad, evil and wrong. The answer is because it's bad, evil and wrong.

What you said is equal to saying: why would a God want his creatures to do bad, evil and wrong? The answer is that he doesn't want that.

 

[quatona]

How is it not good and right to create beings with complete free will to do as they please?

Because, as you explained, it necessarily results in evil, bad and wrong - which a good, right, perfect being doesn´t want to exist.

? This is a double negative.

Yes, I´m sure you can handle it.

It should be: why would a God want his creatures to not do bad, evil and wrong.

Well, I am asking the question I want to ask, not the questions you want me to ask.

The answer is because it's bad, evil and wrong.

So why would a God create something that necessarily will produce bad, evil and wrong - which is completely against his nature, purposes and desires?

 

[Chriliman]

Because, as you explained, it necessarily results in evil, bad and wrong - which a good, right, perfect being doesn´t want to exist.

This is why evil itself will suffer for eternity, leaving pure good to live for eternity. Eternal positive creates an eternal negative.

Aren't you glad you have free will to choose positive over negative? I know I am.

So why would a God create something that necessarily will produce bad, evil and wrong - which is completely against his nature, purposes and desires?

The reason is so that we can freely choose good(Truth/God) over bad(Lies/Satan).

 

[quatona]

This is why evil itself will suffer for eternity, leaving pure good to live for eternity. Eternal positive creates an eternal negative.

And this addresses my post exactly how?

Aren't you glad you have free will to choose positive over negative? I know I am.

I don´t believe in "free will" (I think it´s a nonsensical term, to begin with) - but that´s another topic.
Personally, I am pretty sure for every negative I have absolutely no inclination to do, to the point of being unable to do it. I don´t consider that a loss but a privilege.

But we aren´t chatting about the preferences of mere humans. We are talking about the question what would motivate an allegedly all-good, perfect and holy entity to create something in a way that it necessarily results in "evil".

The reason is so that we can freely choose good(Truth/God) over bad(Lies/Satan).

So "free will" could solve a problem (but predictably doesn´t) that wouldn´t even exist if there weren´t "free will"?

 

[Belk]

A prominent anti-theistic philosophy is to suggest that God could have somehow created creatures in such a fashion that they would "freely choose" to obey his commands and thus not "freely choose" evil. This idea is known as the "possible worlds" hypothesis.

The idea is simple: this world must be one nearly an infinite number of "possible worlds." For example, there's a possible world where the sky is green instead of blue, and so on. Isn't there one possible world, the anti-theist asks, where Adam and Eve don't take and eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or where the vast majority of God's creatures "freely choose" to obey his commands? If so, why didn't God create that possible world? The suggestion is that God is apathetic, irresponsible, or that he is really the one to blame for his free creatures choosing evil, since he made them that way.

But there's a fatal flaw in the argument: if God deliberately creates a "possible world" in order to elicit a certain action that he wants from people (such as Adam/Eve not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) then in reality such creatures don't really have "free choice" at all. Therefore, God can't create such a world because any creatures that he created would only have the illusion of free choice! In other words, if God is involved in any way in influencing or selecting the choice of his creatures to obey or disobey his commands, then they aren't really free!

So the only way for there to actually be a free choice is for God to refrain from influencing his creatures to obey/disobey his commands or "select" anything for them from the get-go. I propose that God does exactly that: human free choice is completely independent of God, which is the way it has to be for anyone to really have free choice. If human free choice is completely independent of God, then there is no such thing as a "possible worlds hypothesis."

Could God, then, have created a world where Adam and Eve freely choose to obey him in the garden of Eden, or where the vast majority of his creatures freely choose to obey his commands? The answer, if free will is truly independent of God (and it must be), is no.

I fail to see how the all knowing creator of the universe who knows all possible outcomes before he starts could avoid this issue. So are you saying that God did not know how each and every event would turn out when he created the universe?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The reason is so that we can freely choose good(Truth/God) over bad(Lies/Satan).

And you still haven't addressed (post #77) how this could always happen without affecting the idea of free will.

 

[mmksparbud]

It's all bogus---this debate has been going on and on and there will be no answer that the Op and others like minded will accept for the simple reason that reality is not what is being sought, but their own idea of what God is, is the problem. This is not a perfect world anymore, can not be as long as Satan and his concept of who God is, is allowed to live. There will come a day when this will no longer be possible. Satan, and all those who feel that God is wicked and unjust, will no longer exist and the whole entire universe will breathe a sigh of relief. It will be sad that they have chosen such an end, but it will be their choice. The rest of the universe can then get on with a universe where we have all chosen to never sin again and who know what the end result is---separation from a loving God who has only their welfare and happiness in mind. These kind of debates are set forth by those who do not wish to choose the idea that God is love. And they will not allow that idea to foster in their heads---they might have to change their lives and they do not want that. It's like those who have decided they will no longer go to church because there are a bunch of hypocrites in there!! It's a cop out as you do not stand outside a hospital when you are sick as a dog and say "I'm not going in there because there are a lot of sick people there!!!" Of course there are!---that's where they belong---in a hospital--a church is a hospital for the sick, not a museum for the perfected. God is love, God is just, and we all choose which side to be on--God's or Satan's--there is no 3rd choice---don't like it??---too bad--that's the reality of the situation!!

 

[Chriliman]

It's all bogus---this debate has been going on and on and there will be no answer that the Op and others like minded will accept for the simple reason that reality is not what is being sought, but their own idea of what God is, is the problem. This is not a perfect world anymore, can not be as long as Satan and his concept of who God is, is allowed to live. There will come a day when this will no longer be possible. Satan, and all those who feel that God is wicked and unjust, will no longer exist and the whole entire universe will breathe a sigh of relief. It will be sad that they have chosen such an end, but it will be their choice. The rest of the universe can then get on with a universe where we have all chosen to never sin again and who know what the end result is---separation from a loving God who has only their welfare and happiness in mind. These kind of debates are set forth by those who do not wish to choose the idea that God is love. And they will not allow that idea to foster in their heads---they might have to change their lives and they do not want that. It's like those who have decided they will no longer go to church because there are a bunch of hypocrites in there!! It's a cop out as you do not stand outside a hospital when you are sick as a dog and say "I'm not going in there because there are a lot of sick people there!!!" Of course there are!---that's where they belong---in a hospital--a church is a hospital for the sick, not a museum for the perfected. God is love, God is just, and we all choose which side to be on--God's or Satan's--there is no 3rd choice---don't like it??---too bad--that's the reality of the situation!!

Amen!

 

[Davian]

A perfect God can only create beings with complete free will, meaning they can freely choose their own will and not the perfect God's will, but they can also freely choose the perfect God's will. This is the only way a perfect God can be perfectly just.

In another thread, you implied that your theology would hold one responsible for things beyond one's conscious control.

How is that just?

 

[Chriliman]

In another thread, you implied that your theology would hold one responsible for things beyond one's conscious control.

How is that just?

I never implied that.

 

[Davian]

I never implied that.

You admitted it, right here. You have yet to establish your religious opinion as true, but you said that you would hold me responsible for things beyond my control (belief). Does your theology say something different?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

God is love, God is just, and we all choose which side to be on--God's or Satan's--there is no 3rd choice---don't like it??---too bad--that's the reality of the situation!!

Apparently there isn't a Christian here that understands what a false dichotomy is...

 

[Chriliman]

You admitted it, right here. You have yet to establish your religious opinion as true, but you said that you would hold me responsible for things beyond my control (belief). Does your theology say something different?

If the truth is presented to you and you deny it, shouldn't you be held accountable for denying the truth? Wouldn't one be a liar if they deny the truth?

I said I'm not holding you accountable for what is true, I'm holding you accountable for denying what is true. There is a difference.

 

[Chriliman]

Apparently there isn't a Christian here that understands what a false dichotomy is...

Logically, false dichotomies would not exist where there is only truth.

 

[Davian]

If the truth

This may be news to you, but your religious opinion is not truth.

is presented to you and you deny it,

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying, I am not convinced.

shouldn't you be held accountable for denying the truth?

You are begging the question. Your religious opinion is not truth, and where am I denying it?

Wouldn't one be a liar if they deny the truth?

Not as typically defined, no. By how you define it, I have no idea.

I said I'm not holding you accountable for what is true, I'm holding you accountable for denying what is true. There is a difference.

Indeed. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Can you not stop yourself from misrepresenting what I have said?

You said would hold me responsible for things beyond my control (belief). How is that just?

 

[Chriliman]

This may be news to you, but your religious opinion is not truth.

I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying, I am not convinced.

You are begging the question. Your religious opinion is not truth, and where am I denying it?

Not as typically defined, no. By how you define it, I have no idea.

Indeed. That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Can you not stop yourself from misrepresenting what I have said?

You said would hold me responsible for things beyond my control (belief). How is that just?

I wouldn't hold you accountable for things beyond your control. Truth is beyond your control, but whether or not you accept the truth, is within your control.

 

[Davian]

I wouldn't hold you accountable for things beyond your control. Truth is beyond your control, but whether or not you accept the truth, is within your control.

You do sound very unsure about your theology.

If you were sure about your theology, instead of all the evasion and obfuscation you should be able to give me a yes or no answer to this:

Does your theology hold me responsible for things beyond my control, such as belief?