Determinism and free will help

[franklinstower]

I was having a discussion with an atheist and he raised a point about free will and God and I would like some educated replies to it especially if they are catholic answers.

Assumptions about God for this are

1- God is all powerful and all knowing.
2- God is bringing all of human history to a specific end.
3- People are predestined to be saved by God and others are predestined to not be saved.

The statement is – There can be no free will if God created you the way you are and knew what you would do ahead of time. God created you the way you are and so the tendencies that make you do what you do are also God given. If this is the case there is no free will.

I could not even understand the point until I thought about it for a while and now that I get it I can see no counterargument that has weight. The point is not just that God knows what you will do the point is that God created you in a way that would make you do it.

One more question. What is the degree of God’s omniscience? Does it really mean God knows I will comb my hair at 8:15 AM Tuesday January 13th 2020? Or is there some randomness to it all that God doesn’t know even if he knows the ultimate outcome?

My question was not addressed in other threads that I have read here.

 

[Trishie]

3- People are predestined to be saved by God and others are predestined to not be saved.

Does your third pint need to be questioned before the subject can fully be dealt with?

I don’t think this fits in with what the Church actually teaches:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm

[some excerpts]
"1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

1743 Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1743 “God willed that man should be left in the hand of his own counsel (cf. Sir 15:14), so that he might of his own accord seek his creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him” (GS 17 § 1).

And
http://www.catechism.cc/articles/predestination-universal-salvific-will.htm

[some excerpts]

“In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: ‘[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim 2:4-6).” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus, n. 13)

Since God ‘wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,’ [1 Tim 2:4] the Redemption includes all humanity and in a certain way all of creation. In the same universal dimension of Redemption the Holy Spirit is acting, by virtue of the ‘departure of Christ.’ Therefore the Church, rooted through her own mystery in the Trinitarian plan of salvation with good reason regards herself as the ‘sacrament of the unity of the whole human race.’ She knows that she is such through the power of the Holy Spirit, of which power she is a sign and instrument in the fulfillment of God’s salvific plan." (Pope John Paul II, Dominum et Vivificantem, n. 64)

Therefore, no human person is unable to be saved by Christ and His Church. The offer of salvation from God to every created human person is part of the salvific plan of God. Regardless of what we hypothesize that God might have otherwise chosen, He did choose to offer salvation to the whole human race, to each and every human person.

God bless

 

[franklinstower]

Thanks everyone.

The problem with free will in this argument is this-- While God makes you, in the very act of creation, God, being all knowing, is aware that you will chose heaven or hell. So in that sense God has determine it, in a way caused it to happen. Why finish making you, why even conceive of you if the whole thing ends in Hell at some point for that individual?

Also if God makes all things but knows the end of all things while making the down to the smallest detail, then God causes all things. If God knows the end of all things and has a plan then he is making all things to fulfill that plan and even though someone has free will they really dont because God knew they would or wouldn’t in the act of creating them,all part of Gods plan. This perspective sees a kind of determinism in the universe and I can see it also from this perspective.

I am sure this is just some philosophical argument that has many counters but I dont know them.

 

[Wesrock]

1- God is all powerful and all knowing.
2- God is bringing all of human history to a specific end.
3- People are predestined to be saved by God and others are predestined to not be saved.

True, true, and pretty much in the sense that God knows where they will end up.

The statement is – There can be no free will if God created you the way you are and knew what you would do ahead of time. God created you the way you are and so the tendencies that make you do what you do are also God given. If this is the case there is no free will.

The statement that God knew “ahead of time” doesn’t really fit into our understanding of God, for God is timeless and He does not experience the passage of time.

I think the second flaw in the argument is that it sees the creative relationship between God and human beings as being the same as the relationship between a watchmaker and a watch. The watch itself has no meaning, purpose, or end beyond what the watchmaker or a user of the watch assigns to it. It doesn’t actually tell time or carry any meaning of the current time in itself, that’s just assigned to it and its parts externally by the watchmaker and the person using it. The relationship between God and the person is not the same. While we would not exist without God giving us that gift, to be human . . . to be “Wesrock”, is something that’s appropriately attributed to me. While God is needed for me to be here, and while God allows me to attain to my own ends, I have that meaning and purpose as part of myself, intrinsically. My will and my intellect are God-given and God-created, but it has its own intrinsic and voluntary powers. Where the watch only makes sense as having a purpose or design or function when being used by someone with a mind, I make sense of having purpose, design, and function in and of myself, even though those things could not be without God.

(It seems our character limit has been reduced from 6,000 to 3,200? I do not like that. Continued in next post).

 

[Wesrock]

Furthermore, I have a voluntary will. God did not create me such that I could only function in a way such that A always brings about B (that B necessarily follows A). God created me as a rational being in which B, C, or D contingently follow upon cause A, and which one follows comes from my will (this isn’t to state that every neuron firing, muscle twitch, or etc… follows in such a contingent way, but for more complex, rational decision making, it does). Now, it is true that God knows yesterday, today and tomorrow as being present to Him always, but that C followed A instead of B or D is a result of my voluntary will. That will is created by God, yes, but not in the way a watch is created by a watchmaker. That my will chose C instead of B or D is attributable to my own, intrinsic operational powers. These belong to what and who I am in myself, and not only seen by something external to myself (the way the telling of time does not actually belong to the watch or its components, as such things can’t mean anything about time in themselves, but is only interpreted out of it by the mind who programmed it and the minds who read it). So choosing C is still my responsibility and something I am culpable for. This isn’t to the exclusion of God’s creative powers, or even to an exclusion entirely of God’s responsibility (whether active or passive cause, another distinction which I will not go into here), but neither is only God responsible and me innocent. (That’s another issue, where responsibility is incorrectly interpreted as being mutually exclusive).

Free will in Catholic theology is not necessarily the same concept that floats around in pop culture. That’s another key point. Read up on Thomist or Molinist conceptions of free will and God’s providence and that will become immediately clear. But it does have to do with the actions of the will being voluntary and not necessary (even if it’s deterministic, yes, what is called Christian free will can be understood in such a way) and the powers of its operation residing in the acting object and not only extrinsically imposed upon something without any powers over itself.

It’s common in popular thought to view everything as mechanical, but classical thought does contain distinctions between intrinsic and extrinsic teleology, substances and artifacts.

 

[Gorgias]

Assumptions about God for this are

1- God is all powerful and all knowing.
2- God is bringing all of human history to a specific end.
3- People are predestined to be saved by God and others are predestined to not be saved.

These aren’t awesome assumptions.

Yes, #1 holds up.

#2, though, isn’t as clear, though. I think that I wouldn’t assert that it’s “human history” that God is bringing to a specific end. God is bringing His plan of salvation to His desired conclusion, if that’s what you mean. But, to say that “human history” is what the driving force is? I’d disagree. (This notion makes me think of those Christians who believe that the world will end when God makes the world perfect. That’s not what Catholics believe. We don’t say that the “end goal” is heaven on earth. Instead, the goal is a new heaven and a new earth, for eternity!)

The third assumption is really problematic. Calvin’s theology (often abbreviated “TULIP”) speaks of ‘double predestination.’ This view asserts that God predestines salvation to some and also predestines damnation to others. The Catholic Church strenuously rejects this theology. God predestines no one to damnation. God wishes that all might be saved. (On the other hand, God foreknows who will be saved and who will not, but that does not imply that He predestines some to hell.)

The statement is – **_There can be no free will if God created you the way you are and knew what you would do ahead of time.

Yeah. This is the (yawn) typical critique. Here’s the rebuttal: “knowledge of an event does not imply that God is the author of that event. Therefore, the fact that He knows that I’ll scratch my nose in exactly 65 seconds doesn’t mean that He makes me scratch my nose. He merely knows it will happen.”

The point is not just that God knows what you will do the point is that God created you in a way that would make you do it.

Yep. This is typical, too. Here’s the problem: the argument is arguing for determinism – that is, the notion that all things are ‘programmed in’, and there’s no deviation. However, the argument not only reaches it as a conclusion, it presumes it as an assumption! Recall the set-up: “God creates you as you are, and you can’t do anything about it.” So, what he’s doing here is setting up the conclusion as a premise, and then beating you over the head with the conclusion. This is the logical fallacy known as “begging the question.”

One more question. What is the degree of God’s omniscience? Does it really mean God knows I will comb my hair at 8:15 AM Tuesday January 13th 2020? Or is there some randomness to it all that God doesn’t know even if he knows the ultimate outcome?

God knows all things that will happen. He doesn’t learn them sequentially. He exists outside of the universe, and therefore, outside of space and time. Therefore, He knows all things immediately and simultaneously.

Does this help?

 

[franklinstower]

All of this is beginning to help me. These are new concepts and take time to absorb.

I may be missing something but it does seem that the foundational premise of the argument has not been succinctly countered, namely that in the act of creation God knew you would choose hell and so God created you to go to hell. Why even begin the act of creating a being that will go to hell? Why not only create beings that will go to heaven?

Even though I continue to write this post please answer those direct questions even if they are erroneous. Maybe God CAN NOT create beings with free will that will not go to hell but that seems an arbitrary limitation.

 

[Vico]

I was having a discussion with an atheist and he raised a point about free will and God and I would like some educated replies to it especially if they are catholic answers.
Assumptions about God for this are
1- God is all powerful and all knowing.
2- God is bringing all of human history to a specific end.
3- People are predestined to be saved by God and others are predestined to not be saved.
The statement is – There can be no free will if God created you the way you are and knew what you would do ahead of time. God created you the way you are and so the tendencies that make you do what you do are also God given. If this is the case there is no free will.

I could not even understand the point until I thought about it for a while and now that I get it I can see no counterargument that has weight. The point is not just that God knows what you will do the point is that God created you in a way that would make you do it.
One more question. What is the degree of God’s omniscience? Does it really mean God knows I will comb my hair at 8:15 AM Tuesday January 13th 2020? Or is there some randomness to it all that God doesn’t know even if he knows the ultimate outcome?
My question was not addressed in other threads that I have read here.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae > First Part > Question 19. The will of God
Article 8. Whether the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed?

I answer that, The divine will imposes necessity on some things willed but not on all. …

• Objection 2. Further, every cause that cannot be hindered, produces its effect necessarily, because, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 84) “Nature always works in the same way, if there is nothing to hinder it.” But the will of God cannot be hindered. For the Apostle says (Romans 9:19): “Who resisteth His will?” Therefore the will of God imposes necessity on the things willed.
• Reply to Objection 2. From the very fact that nothing resists the divine will, it follows that not only those things happen that God wills to happen, but that they happen necessarily or contingently according to His will.
• Objection 3. Further, whatever is necessary by its antecedent cause is necessary absolutely; it is thus necessary that animals should die, being compounded of contrary elements. Now things created by God are related to the divine will as to an antecedent cause, whereby they have necessity. For the conditional statement is true that if God wills a thing, it comes to pass; and every true conditional statement is necessary. It follows therefore that all that God wills is necessary absolutely.
• Reply to Objection 3. Consequents have necessity from their antecedents according to the mode of the antecedents. Hence things effected by the divine will have that kind of necessity that God wills them to have, either absolute or conditional. Not all things, therefore, are absolute necessities.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1019.htm#article8

 

[Vico]

… What is the degree of God’s omniscience? Does it really mean God knows I will comb my hair at 8:15 AM Tuesday January 13th 2020? Or is there some randomness to it all that God doesn’t know even if he knows the ultimate outcome? My question was not addressed in other threads that I have read here.

The Nature and Attributes of God

That God knows infallibly and from eternity what, for example, a certain man, in the exercise of free will, will do or actually does in any given circumstances, and what he might or would actually have done in different circumstances is beyond doubt — being a corollary from the eternal actuality of Divine knowledge. So to speak, God has not to wait on the contingent and temporal event of the man’s free choice to know what the latter’s action will be; He knows it from eternity. But the difficulty is: how, from our finite point of view, to interpret and explain the mysterious manner of God’s knowledge of such events without at the same time sacrificing the free will of the creature.

Toner, P. (1909). The Nature and Attributes of God. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

 

[Wesrock]

All of this is beginning to help me. These are new concepts and take time to absorb.

I may be missing something but it does seem that the foundational premise of the argument has not been succinctly countered, namely that in the act of creation God knew you would choose hell and so God created you to go to hell. Why even begin the act of creating a being that will go to hell? Why not only create beings that will go to heaven?

This is a difficult question, and I don’t know that we have, at this time, any absolutely certain answer. It would seem to follow that God would not permit such things unless it somehow better manifested His goodness, even if we have trouble grasping the how of that. It cannot be proved that this is impossible, and we have good reasons to know that God is real and that God is good. That we cannot yet provide a fully worked out response that will satisfy everyone does not contradict our knowledge that there is a God and that He is good. Therefore, it remains more rational, even so, to affirm God than to deny Him, for to deny him brings about contradictions and unintelligibility, not just seemingly-less-than-satisfactory answers based on partial knowledge. Again, that there are things we do not fully understand does not mean there is a contradiction, nor is the lack of full understanding sufficient to reject other truths we can arrive at rationally.

I would like to correct the statement, “God created you to go to Hell.” God may have created a person knowing that they would not be saved, but this does not mean He specifically made them for hell per se. If there was no good reason, and the entire and only purpose was that this particular person go to Hell, I would agree it would seem illogical that God would create such a person. But we do not affirm that people are made specifically for the only purpose of going to Hell.

Continued in next post.

 

[Wesrock]

Those who go to Hell do not merit Hell because it’s their purpose to go to Hell. We discussed the idea of having intrinsic power over one’s will versus something being only extrinsically moved by another. Those who do go to Hell, even if created by God, even if they didn’t need to be created by God, still deserve it because of how they moved their own will. They still had agency, they still made the choices, and we cannot exclude them from culpability or responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, justice is not an evil. It is good that those who do evil things are punished. That evil is punished is a show of goodness from God. It’s not a popular way of thinking nowadays, but it is logical. Furthermore, punishment to those who will evil may very well be good for those who will evil, even if they accidentally suffer some evils related to the good being done. (I’m thinking along the lines of Plato’s Gorgias here, though perhaps I go too far – but reading that dialogue was enlightening, to say the least, in showing the turns human thought has taken on the matter justice and goodness).

But still, why not only create people to go to Heaven? Again, I don’t know that I have an answer that will satisfy everyone in this life. We would need more absolute knowledge about reality, whereas we all operate on partial knowledge, and have some incorrect knowledge, and so find it impossible for everyone to agree on everything, even though there does exist absolute truth. I find Saint Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts on why there are inequalities and disparities and multiplicity in the world enlightening (Summa Contra Gentiles), but that doesn’t directly address your question. In the counter-example there are men who still do grave evils but who repent and so are still saved. But then why allow a world in which men do grave evils? Let’s say instead we’re given a world in which men never choose to do grave evils, but which minor things – the type of stuff children do in their ignorance, might still happen. But why create a world in which people choose even those minor evils? So we have a world in which people never choose evils but in which physical evils might still befall them. But why allow earthquakes? Why allow anyone to stub a toe? Why allow a person to have a nerve spasm, or to get sunburn, or to feel any discomfort? But then why does one get to be tall and the other short, one live longer and the other shorter, one live here and not there? Or one to have better tasting food than the other? A person might argue that there’s a point of triviality, but that is arbitrary and is only relative to what we consider the worse things. But the question of why is just as valid for these seemingly small things as it is for the large. It seems like a never-ending line of queries with nothing but arbitrary limits until you’re left with no multiplicity or variation at all. Is it a logical line of pursuit? Maybe there are good reasons for drawing a line here and not there. I just trust that it, in the end, our reality better manifests God’s goodness and fullness in our finite reality.

 

[Gorgias]

I may be missing something but it does seem that the foundational premise of the argument has not been succinctly countered

Actually, I think that this is precisely the lines along which I wrote my response. I didn’t engage in refuting the argument, if that’s what you mean, but that’s because the argument is fallacious.

Let me try to explain:

Let’s suppose that I’m attempting to convince you that the Pittsburgh Steelers are God’s favorite football team. In setting up my proof, I give you two presumptions: God loves football, and God loves the Steelers more than anything else. Now, how valid of a proof would it be, if I start by assuming my conclusion? That would be completely invalid of an approach!

That’s precisely what your atheist friend is doing here. He starts off with the presumption of determinism: “God created you the way you are, with the things that make you do what you do.” That’s determinism, pure and simple. So, on the face of it, he’s requiring you to buy into determinism.

What’s his conclusion, then? “There’s no free will.” (The opposite of ‘free will’ is ‘determinism’.)

Therefore, his argument boils down to “since you have no free will, therefore you have no free will.”

It’s not necessary to refute that argument. If you buy into the premise, then you buy into the conclusion. However, in order for an argument to be held as valid, there needs to be agreement on the premises. We, as Catholics, do not agree with the premise.

In other words, we don’t need to disprove the conclusion, since we do not buy into the premise.

Why even begin the act of creating a being that will go to hell? Why not only create beings that will go to heaven?

I think there are two approaches to answer this question.

The first approach is pragmatic: if we say that humans are imperfect (and therefore, are capable of sin), and that they have free will, but all the humans who are created never sin… then can we really say “humans have free will”? There’d be absolutely no evidence of it; and, in fact, the evidence that we have would lead us to decide “determinism” rather than “free will”. So, by this standard, I don’t think “creation only of those who do not sin” is possible

The second approach is philosophical: there is a question, among philosophers, of whether God possesses “middle knowledge” – that is, knowledge of counterfactuals. An example of a counterfactual might be “if Gorgias was an antelope, he’d have purple horns.” Does God know the answer to that question? After all, I’m not an antelope – that is, the premise is not factual – so does the knowledge of what I’d be like if it were otherwise possible to ascribe to God? Some philosophers say ‘yes’, and others say ‘no’. If the answer is ‘no’, then it’s not possible to assert that God could create only those who would be saved. (After all, that means that their existence – which is counterfactual – would be the only means through which He would know if they would have been saved.)

Hope this helps.

 

[franklinstower]

OK so the way to counter the argument is to not accept the premise. That makes total sense. The problem is that the premise does sound reasonable to me. I dont agree with it, that is not the problem at all, but I have to say that it does absolutely make sense and above Aquinac seemed to agree. I have been told maybe falsely that this is a problem for all of philosophy.and that there is no logical counter.

If I imagine God creating a soul while having perfect knowledge of what that soul will do, then it is difficult to avoid the premise that there is determinism. .I have only thought of two possible counters both of which I think will not be acceptable to Christian theology.

1- If God were to go back in time and re create the same soul 50 times at the exact moment under the exact same circumstances, there would be 50 different outcomes due to the free will of that soul. How does that sound?

2- God creates more like an artist and does not hold his foreknowledge in the forefront of his mind but like an artist rather than an engineer God creates from the infinite goodness of His self. It is not that God does not know it is that God does not look… till later.

 

[Gorgias]

The problem is that the premise does sound reasonable to me. I dont agree with it, that is not the problem at all, but I have to say that it does absolutely make sense

Absolute determinism sounds reasonable to you?

Or, is it just that the description is worded in a way that seems reasonable to you?

(I would hope it’s the latter. Nevertheless, the notion that God creates you in such a way that you cannot help but act deterministically runs counter to everything the Church teaches. So, if you claim to believe in Catholicism, this notion of absolute determinism is incompatible with your belief – regardless how cleverly anyone phrases is.)

and above Aquinac seemed to agree.

Not sure what you mean by this.

If I imagine God creating a soul while having perfect knowledge of what that soul will do, then it is difficult to avoid the premise that there is determinism.

So… God’s knowledge of you forces you to do things? Really??? That sounds reasonable to you???

1- If God were to go back in time and re create the same soul 50 times at the exact moment under the exact same circumstances, there would be 50 different outcomes due to the free will of that soul. How does that sound?

Not reasonable. Free will doesn’t require distinct outcomes – it just guarantees that the actor can will his outcome personally.

2- God creates more like an artist and does not hold his foreknowledge in the forefront of his mind but like an artist rather than an engineer God creates from the infinite goodness of His self. It is not that God does not know it is that God does not look… till later.

That doesn’t sound right, either. It’s almost as if you’re saying that God’s omniscience isn’t, as it were, complete.

 

[franklinstower]

I feel like you are not trying to understand my points or reading them carefully. I already stated that I dont believe in determinism but that the argument itself IS compelling.

This is THE sticking point. God makes you from scratch and knows the outcome. No one I am aware of thinks that knowing the outcome means God caused it. The part where people think God caused the outcome is that God made you the way you are AND knew the outcome. So God COULD have made you differently and the outcome would have been different.

I did not get this argument at first but once it sunk in it had some weight to it.

Aquinas-- Thomas Aquinas stated as much himself so the argument must have some merit…

By the way everyone. Shifting the burden of proof to the person who is claiming that God and his foreknowledge equates with determinism has worked quite well.
.

 

[Benadam]

2- God creates more like an artist and does not hold his foreknowledge in the forefront of his mind but like an artist rather than an engineer God creates from the infinite goodness of His self. It is not that God does not know it is that God does not look… till later.

I think this is possibly true. I keep it in the P file for ponder and wait for dots to connect.

I’ve wondered if God has to not know things so He can relate to us. Remember when He decided to flood the earth? He regretted making man? It’s like He set aside His omniscience so He could be on the level.

I’ve just always thought that in order to disappoint God, He would have to not know we were going to disappoint Him. I think maybe He has to not know alot of things He knows so He can enjoy us person to person

We can move His heart. A few passages in scripture describe someone’s actions moving Him to do something He wasn’t going to before. I think maybe God wants to relate to us in that way, He wants a back and forth between us. For that to happen He has to dumb Himself down a bit.

 

[Gorgias]

This is THE sticking point. God makes you from scratch and knows the outcome.

Did you look into my assertions vis-a-vis Molinism (that is, of ‘counter-factuals’ and the question of ‘middle knowledge’)? They provide a solution for your dilemma. (It’s a solution that I find more compelling than the argument for determinism that you’ve shared here.)

The argument goes like this: God’s omniscience entails that He knows everything that is. (For example, he knows what I’ll have for breakfast for each day of my life. He knows your great-great-great-granddaughter’s middle name and favorite food.) But, omniscience doesn’t entail God knowing things that are not. (For example, if you marry Sally and not Ann, then omniscience doesn’t require that God knows the name of the daughter you and Ann would have had, if you two had married. He doesn’t know how many teeth a unicorn would have, if they existed.)

By this standard, God does not know whether those souls that He did not create would be saved. And that’s ok – after all, it’s counterfactual that they exist. An implication of this is that He doesn’t know your ultimate salvation status unless you will actually exist. And, having created you, it would be cruel for Him to wipe you out of existence, just because He knows you will choose not to be with Him in heaven.

The implication is clear: the premise of your friend’s argument fails – God, knowing whether you’ll freely choose Him (or not), will not blot you out of existence. And, He doesn’t know this unless you will exist at some point in time. Therefore, no determinism; no “He creates you, knowing what you will do”. (That’s the other implication in your friend’s argument: that is, the implication that God knows you before the truth of your existence is known. (Note that I’m not claiming that He only knows the truth of your existence on the day you were born; no… He knows from eternity. But He only knows because you were going to exist eventually.)

No one I am aware of thinks that knowing the outcome means God caused it.

The part where people think God caused the outcome is that God made you the way you are AND knew the outcome. So God COULD have made you differently and the outcome would have been different.

You see that this is a deterministic argument, right?

(Of course, I disagree with it from a variety of perspectives, “middle knowledge” being one of them!)

Aquinas-- Thomas Aquinas stated as much himself so the argument must have some merit…

Hmm… do you have a citation from Aquinas that I might read?

By the way everyone. Shifting the burden of proof to the person who is claiming that God and his foreknowledge equates with determinism has worked quite well.

 

[Wesrock]

The part where people think God caused the outcome is that God made you the way you are AND knew the outcome. So God COULD have made you differently and the outcome would have been different.

That would be a different person, not me. God could have created (or not created at all) a different person, and that would have had a different outcome. But that’s not me (just one inch taller) or something, that is a different individual soul. Or perhaps God still could have created me but in a different scenario in which I’d have acted differently. Well, how many other people does that mean God did not create but created other people instead?

If God “made me differently,” that wouldn’t be me, but someone else.

If God made the world around me differently to produce different outcomes, well, yes he could have done that. But in either scenario, it’s still me acting to the present scenario according to my own agency, me that’s responsible and culpable.

I thought Gorgias nailed it when he said this:

Free will doesn’t require distinct outcomes – it just guarantees that the actor can will his outcome personally.

 

[Wesrock]

Did you look into my assertions vis-a-vis Molinism (that is, of ‘counter-factuals’ and the question of ‘middle knowledge’)? They provide a solution for your dilemma. (It’s a solution that I find more compelling than the argument for determinism that you’ve shared here.)

The argument goes like this…

W. Norris Clarke is a Thomist, but he makes a similar case in The One and the Many.

Edit: Just wanted to add, we seem to be presenting multiple ways of responding to the free will argument, so the response in post A might not jive 100% with the response in post B, as they’re based on different theologians’ or philosophers’ ways of addressing the topic.

 

[franklinstower]

I think our argument will be profoundly unpopular in Christian circles. I am deeply Christian but I converted from the New Age movement completely years ago. There was more of a place for creativity and a kind of knowing that is not linear in that thinking (too much of a place actually.). One of the disappointments I ran into with Christian theology is that I could read a whole book on it and intuition and creativity would not be discussed at all-- even in relation to our relationship with God.

We say we cannot assign human characteristics to God but then define him almost totally with philosophic reasoning. I am not saying we should not but it often makes me wonder why we trust so deeply in this form of reasoning and leave intuition and creativity more on the outside.

However understanding of the Trinity prohibits God having modes of being, and I think it prohibits God shifting states of consciousness so the artist argument MAY be anathema due to that. At the same time how often is that aspect of reality appropriated to God along with reason?

I am an artist (musician) and when I am creating something there is a certain nearness to the Holy Spirit, the room feels pregnant with power and the left brain is suspended. Only in contemplative prayer do I feel closer to God. Neither of these times are when my reasoning and logical mind are most prominent. I tend to think that God acts from a place prior to information and on this planet aside from contemplative prayer, artistic expression is closest to it. .