Does fatalism follow from Divine simplicity?

[belorg]

Did you call? Well, someone did who raised the exact question we have been discussing. He also raised the issue of " Russells’ Teapot. "

Linus2nd

No, I didn’t call.

 

[belorg]

Well guys, Trent Horn talked to atheists for two hours tonight on CA Radio. One of them raised the question we have been discussing and Trent agreed with us. The knowledge God has of all possible events does not mean that man’s free will determined. We all knew that but it is good to have an " outsider " agree with us. Belorg is dead wrong, his argument is illogical.

Linus2nd

Did Trent Horn argue for his position or did he just assert, like you do here, that the argument is illogical?

Who is Trent Horn anyway?

 

[belorg]

There is more than one possible future in a contemporary modality, and which future it is (insofar as it is caused by you) is determined by your choices. That is sufficient for fatalism to fail. There is one future in the respect that the actual world is all that there is.

There is only one logically possible future, but there are several epistemicalmy possible futures.

From “X is eternally true” (where X discloses some future fact that has not obtained), it does not follow that X is true now.

If X is eternally true in an absolute sense, this does follow. If it’s only eternally true in a relative sense, then it does not follow.
In the first case, God can only have knowledge of X (onto)logically prior to X’s actual occurrence if determinism is true.
In the second case, God’s knowledge of X is (onto) logically posterior to the actual event, but God’s will to cause X is prior to X, which means God’s knowledge changes, which is impossible on divine immutability.

That does not follow from what I have claimed. God’s effects can be in time without God being in time. It would only follow that what he discloses either has to have indeterminate referent (ie. “some man will do such and such”) or refer to something eternal (ie. God himself).

It doesn’t matter what He* discloses*, it matter what He can disclose. If somehow God *is capable of * disclose anything about His knowledge then He is capable of disclosing all of His knowledge, since He eternally has all of His knowledge.
That on your view of God’s knowledge, certain revelations would lead to contradictions, means that either your view of God’s knowledge is wrong, or that, given your view, God is completely incapable of revealing anything at all.

I clarified the modalities. It dissolved the point you were making. Your only response was that you care for arguments and not assertions. But I gave an argument, not an assertion.

I also gave several arguments, not assertions.

he distinction between primary and secondary causation is not a distinction between the first cause in a queue and all subsequent causes in a queue. A primary cause (ie. God) is that which makes possible the action of the elements of a series by creating them concurrently (and so is actually consistent with causal loops or infinite regresses).

Strictly speaking it is not correct to analyze “the leaf falls from the tree” as “God moves a, which moves b, which moves c, …, which moves the leaf”. The issue is that such an analysis falsely situates God as “a” being in the world, which he is not. The sort of causation that God does is on a distinct tier; his concurrent activity in a natural event “the leaf falls from the tree” is to cause the event by actualizing the existence of its members, which is why I rendered it: “God causes it to be that [the leaf falls from the tree]”, where “the leaf falls from the tree” is a secondary-causal explanation, and the “God causes it to be that [____]” operator denotes primary causation. (Aquinas’s cosmological arguments on a proper reading, in my view, yield this analysis of causation, but that is a separate issue.)

I know that is the AT-view, but this actually makes things worse for you. God actualizes the existence of its members in such a way that the members act excatly according to God’s eternal plan.

“polytropos walks” is a secondary-causal explanation. It entails “God causes it to be that [polytropos walks]”. But to get determinism here, one would have to equivocate on “cause,” since “cause” is not being used univocally between God’s causation and my causation. (A further issue is that the Thomist’s analysis of “polytropos walks” is going to implicate formal causality; I have reasons why I walk. Those reasons are my own. They most certainly do not inhere in God. So God’s actualizing me qua walking is not determinative of my walking, which is formally caused by my desire to walk.)

The reasons why you walk are your own in that they are part of the package “polytropos” that is in the eternal creative will of God.

Right, but that isn’t implied by this analysis.

If it caised by God, as you claimed, then it is not a free choice.

“Logical distinction” and “real distinction” are technical terms in Thomism. They do not mean the same thing.

There are no different “things” concerning God

God’s act of willing is the same in both cases. But since what God wills (ie. what the objects of his will are) need not be identical to God’s will, then this doesn’t follow.

First of all, to claim that God willing something to exist and God’s willing nothing to exist is the same act of will is completely incoherent, but secondly, I am not talking about the act of God’s will, but about the content of God’s knowledge ontologically prior to creation. In one case this knowledge contains a proposition “I will create X” and in the other case it contains a proposition “I will not create X”. That is not a Cambridge distinction, as the content of His knowledge is not the result of the objects of His will existing or not existing, but the objects of his will exist or don’t exist as a result of the content of His knowledge.

Didn’t say they do. God has one will and one intellective act (which are identical, and identical with him). The “else” are not identical to God; the “else” are his creatures and his knowledge of his creatures.

I made it clear above why your claim here jumps back and forth between results and causes.

I think it is time to agree to disagree here, polytropos. You can have the last word on this if you like. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

 

[tonyrey]

Premises, evidence for those premises and conclusions.

Premises and conclusions are expressed as propositions, i.e. assertions that need justification.

I have explained that. You’ll have to read it.

Your “explanation” is based on unsubstantiated assumptions:

God’s knowledge is necssary and therefore unchnaging and immutable, which means every proposition that God knows is necessarily true.

You are attempting to establish a fact on a questionable definition.

1. In what sense is God’s knowledge is necessary?
2. Why is God’s knowledge unchanging?
3. Why is knowledge confined to knowledge of propositions?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Did Trent Horn argue for his position or did he just assert, like you do here, that the argument is illogical?

Who is Trent Horn anyway?

Trent Horn is one of C.A.'s official apologists ( see at the top of this page). He tours the country debating. He has also written a book entitled Answering Atheism.

All live broadcasts of CA Radio can be heard between 5-7 P.M. Central, daily and in archive within 24 hours.

You have things a little backwards. It was the caller who made the assertion, much as you have done here. Trent merely responded that he could see no determinate causality between God’s Foreknowledge and man’s free decisions. The caller did not argue, he really had no response.

And there really is no valid response, the overwhelming opinion of man kind, from the beginning to now is that man is responsible for his actions. The entire legal and penal system of mankind assumes that all men are free to do the good and avoid the evil. Only in extreme cases does the law acknowledge that some men act irrationally due to some psychotic disorder. To place oneself in the position of denying the overwhelming opinion of mankind, is to place onesef in the category of a :" crank. "

The only determined causality between God and man’s nature is that God has given man an intellect and a will. He empowers man to act, but his Foreknowlege of man’s acts does not determine those acts. Unless we are speaking of those acts of the soul which have to do with the directing the natural functioning of the body.

God has given man an intellect which is empowered to see the good and the evil and has given him the power of judgment ( free will ) over what he sees. Of course God gives the intellect plenty of help. He has given it the power to recognize the good and the evil, the power to reason to the correct conclusion, he has given man his Divine Revelation and the Catholic Church, by which man may futher refine his judgments. But, even after all this, man is free to choose to accept or reject.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

1. 
   

   Trent Horn is one of C.A.'s official apologists ( see at the top of this page). He tours the country debating. He has also written a book entitled Answering Atheism.
   
   How is he an “outsider” to you then?
   

   You have things a little backwards. It was the caller who made the assertion, much as you have done here. Trent merely responded that he could see no determinate causality between God’s Foreknowledge and man’s free decisions. The caller did not argue, he really had no response.

 

[belorg]

Premises and conclusions are expressed as propositions, i.e. assertions that need justification.

Yes, there has to be evidence for the premises and the conclusion. Which I have given.

Your “explanation” is based on unsubstantiated assumptions:

You are attempting to establish a fact on a questionable definition.

Of course this definition is questionable. Not every theist accepts that God is simple or that He is Pure Act.

1. In what sense is God’s knowledge is necessary?

I explained that

1. Why is God’s knowledge unchanging?

I explained that as well.

1. Why is knowledge confined to knowledge of propositions?

That’s what knowledge is.

 

[polytropos]

I think it is time to agree to disagree here, polytropos. You can have the last word on this if you like. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

And thank you as well. I imagine we’ll be back at it on this subject someday…

 

[tonyrey]

Premises and conclusions are expressed as propositions, i.e. assertions that need justification.

Inadequate evidence.

Your “explanation” is based on unsubstantiated assumptions:

You are attempting to establish a fact on a questionable definition.

Of course this definition is questionable. Not every theist accepts that God is simple or that He is Pure Act.

That is beside the point. You are arbitrarily restricting God’s knowledge by asserting “If God knows only one future, there is only one future.” It is impossible for us to define God’s knowledge because we are not omniscient. We cannot always determine whether an event is knowable, as in the case of a decision which doesn’t exist. We are not entitled to assume a free decision is in the same category as physical events.The very fact that it is free implies that it is not subject to the spatio-temporal laws of nature but occurs in a spiritual dimension and transcends human understanding.

1. In what sense is God’s knowledge is necessary?

I explained that

Your argument is based on the false assumption that “given the initial conditions of a certain world, there is only one future in that world” which overlooks the factors of indeterminism and self-determinism.

QUOTE]2. Why is God’s knowledge unchanging?

I explained that as well.Your argument is based on the false assumption that “given the initial conditions of a certain world, there is only one future in that world” which overlooks the factors of indeterminism and self-determinism

1. Why is knowledge confined to knowledge of propositions?

That’s what knowledge is.

Knowledge consists of far more than propositions. It also consists of oneself, other persons, perceptions, emotions, values, events and situations that cannot always be expressed in terms of propositions. Knowledge precedes language.

 

[belorg]

Inadequate evidence.
That is beside the point. You are arbitrarily restricting God’s knowledge by asserting “If God knows only one future, there is only one future.” It is impossible for us to define God’s knowledge because we are not omniscient. We cannot always determine whether an event is knowable, as in the case of a decision which doesn’t exist. We are not entitled to assume a free decision is in the same category as physical events.The very fact that it is free implies that it is not subject to the spatio-temporal laws of nature but occurs in a spiritual dimension and transcends human understanding.
Your argument is based on the false assumption that “given the initial conditions of a certain world, there is only one future in that world” which overlooks the factors of indeterminism and self-determinism.
]Your argument is based on the false assumption that “given the initial conditions of a certain world, there is only one future in that world” which overlooks the factors of indeterminism and self-determinism
Knowledge consists of far more than propositions. It also consists of oneself, other persons, perceptions, emotions, values, events and situations that cannot always be expressed in terms of propositions. Knowledge precedes language.

You don’t seem to have any idea what my argument is about, but I am not going to repeat the whole discussion I had with polytropos, Tony, so I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

 

[belorg]

belorg;12021603:

In the sense that, as far as I know, he does not participate in these forums.

All right.

If you are speaking of Trent’s response, it is the exact response I expected. Because in the listener’s objection, there was no " there " there.

Well, Trent obviously isn’t omniscient; so, what he can or cannot see has no bearing on what is or isn’t true.

I’m glad you agree that God’s Foreknowledge does not interfer with man’s freedom.

Of course it doesn’t.

It seemed to me that is exactly what you have been arguing. I fail to see the distinction between " fatalism " and " determinism. "

You were talking about causal determinism. I made no claim as to what/who is the cause of determinism.

The difference is that the laws of mankind are not based on the " motions of the spheres " but on the laws of human nature.

And how is that a response to what I said?

Judgments of " right " and " wrong " and one’s actions based on these judgments ( my moral behavior ) have nothing to do with God’s " simplicity. " You have challenged Catholic Theology and you have not shown where it is wrong. His simplicity is not to be seen as inaction. As Thomas said, God is Eternally Active in His Simplicity. His Knowledge, Will, and Act are One Eternal Knowing, Loving, and Willing - all in the Eternal Now…

I haven’t claimed (in this thread at least) that God’s simplicity is to be seen as inaction. So, yet another irrelvant reply.

And I would respond by saying there is no connection between 1,2 and 3. Neither 1 or 2 or 1 and 2 together imply 3. Man and his actions, proceeding form potentiality to actuality, merely reflect what in God is utterly simple. We are time and material bound, God is the Eternal Now. Thomas Aquinas has argued all this in S.T., Part 1, ques 3-26. If it is your intention to challenge that, I suggest you begin with question 3 and proceed in an orderly fashion.

Linus2nd

I am not discussing this with Aquinas. I am discussing it with you. If you have an argument, then please make it here.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;12022187:

All right.

Well, Trent obviously isn’t omniscient; so, what he can or cannot see has no bearing on what is or isn’t true.

It was the caller who made the assertion, he failed to support it. Trent’s answer was perfectly reasonable. The caller did not support his assertion. What else was Trent supposed to say? And of course, he is not omniscient. None of us are.

Of course it doesn’t.

I’m glad of that since what I have read says that both fatalists and determinists reject free will.

But it seems to contradict your post # 5 where you said, " Maybe not, but since His knowledge is immutable, our ‘choices’ must also be immutable. Which means they are not real choices. "

Needless to say, I am confused. Which of these statements is true?

You were talking about causal

determinism. I made no claim as to what/who is the cause of determinism.

So you are defending fatalism then? Odd either way because, supposedly, both reject free will.

And how is that a response to what I said?

There were two things wrong with your response. First, by citing Copernius, you were attempting to make those who disagree with you guilty by association, with his " less than enlightened opponents, " especially the Roman Church. The fact is that Gallileo lied to the Church by saying he had proved Copernius correct. He futher aggrevated his position by insulting the Pope publicallly in print. And ever since those who belong to the Church are publically presented in scinece texts, lectures, college classes, etc. as " middle age rubes. "

That is rather reprehensible, it is a type of ad hominem.

The second thing wrong with your statement is that it mixes apples and oranges, which should have been obvious. The laws of astronomy have nothing to do with human behavior and its bases in freedom.

I haven’t claimed (in this thread at least) that God’s simplicity is to be seen as inaction. So, yet another irrelvant reply.

Agreed, I retract that.

I am not discussing this with Aquinas. I am discussing it with you. If you have an argument, then please make it here.

Here is your statement in post # 4, " Short answer: yes.
It’s even worse: God’s knowledge is necssary and therefore unchnaging and immutable, which means every proposition that God knows is necessarily true. If God knows that I will have corn flakes for breakfast, it is necessarily the case that I will have corn flakes for breakfast. Since I cannot change a necessary fact, fatalism is the only possibility.
It also entails divine fatalism by the way: it reduces God to an automaton.

I agree that God’s knowledge is necessary, unchanging, and immutable. But his knowledge does not determine that I have cornflakes for breakfast. It is a necessary fact that God knows what I will choose, but it is also a necessary fact that God knows that I have freely chosen to eat corn flakes. There is no fatalism here. My act was free. The fact that I freely chose to eat corn flakes destroys any fatalism, by the definition of fatalism, which denies free choice.

And it would be improper to assign fatalism to God’s necessary knowledge. since fatalism has to do with supposedly inevitable happenings in the universe. In regard to God’s actions in respect to this universe, has done and still does all things freely. Nothing has compelled him to create the particular universe he did, nothing compels him to keep it in existence. So God is not an " automton. "

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

It was the caller who made the assertion, he failed to support it. Trent’s answer was perfectly reasonable. The caller did not support his assertion. What else was Trent supposed to say? And of course, he is not omniscient. None of us are

Trent could have made an argument, e.g.

I’m glad of that since what I have read says that both fatalists and determinists reject free will.

But it seems to contradict your post # 5 where you said, " Maybe not, but since His knowledge is immutable, our ‘choices’ must also be immutable. Which means they are not real choices. "

Needless to say, I am confused. Which of these statements is true?

So you are defending fatalism then? Odd either way because, supposedly, both reject free will.

I am not defending fatalism. I am saying what the logical consequences of Divine Simplicity etc. are.

There were two things wrong with your response. First, by citing Copernius, you were attempting to make those who disagree with you guilty by association, with his " less than enlightened opponents, " especially the Roman Church. The fact is that Gallileo lied to the Church by saying he had proved Copernius correct. He futher aggrevated his position by insulting the Pope publicallly in print. And ever since those who belong to the Church are publically presented in science texts, lectures, college classes, etc. as " middle age rubes. "

That is rather reprehensible, it is a type of ad hominem.

The second thing wrong with your statement is that it mixes apples and oranges, which should have been obvious. The laws of astronomy have nothing to do with human behavior and its bases in freedom.

I responsed to your claim that,“To place oneself in the position of denying the overwhelming opinion of mankind, is to place onesef in the category of a :” crank. “”

That is what Copernicus et al. did: placing themselves in a position of denying the overwhelming opinion of mankind. So, no apples and oranges.
And nothing in my response in any way entailed that I made those who disagree with me guilty by association.

Here is your statement in post # 4, " Short answer: yes.
It’s even worse: God’s knowledge is necessary and therefore unchanging and immutable, which means every proposition that God knows is necessarily true. If God knows that I will have corn flakes for breakfast, it is necessarily the case that I will have corn flakes for breakfast. Since I cannot change a necessary fact, fatalism is the only possibility.
It also entails divine fatalism by the way: it reduces God to an automaton.

I agree that God’s knowledge is necessary, unchanging, and immutable. But his knowledge does not determine that I have cornflakes for breakfast.

I have never claimed that it does.

It is a necessary fact that God knows what I will choose, but it is also a necessary fact that God knows that I have freely chosen to eat corn flakes. There is no fatalism here. My act was free. The fact that I freely chose to eat corn flakes destroys any fatalism, by the definition of fatalism, which denies free choice.

That’s the point. A necesaary choice cannot be free. So to say that God knows that I necessarily choose (or chose) to **freely **eat corn flakes is a contradictions.

And it would be improper to assign fatalism to God’s necessary knowledge. since fatalism has to do with supposedly inevitable happenings in the universe. In regard to God’s actions in respect to this universe, has done and still does all things freely. Nothing has compelled him to create the particular universe he did, nothing compels him to keep it in existence. So God is not an " automton. "

Linus2nd

I have explained to polytropos why this is wrong. And BTW, this is not just an atheist’s opinion. Several well-respected Christian philosophers, like WL Craig, Alving Plantinga and Wes Morriston fully agree with me on this. That doesn’t mean I am right, but it does mean claiming my position is illogical requires a lot more arguments then you or anyone else has made in this thread.

 

[tonyrey]

It is impossible for us to define God’s knowledge because we are not omniscient.

Your argument is undermined by facts you cannot reasonably deny, belorg, but you are free to ignore them if you prefer to regard yourself as an automaton!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Trent could have made an argument, e.g.

Well, O.K., but he didn’t. So?

I am not defending fatalism. I am saying what the logical consequences of Divine Simplicity etc. are.

You have not been able to convince anyone here of that.

I responsed to your claim that,“To place oneself in the position of denying the overwhelming opinion of mankind, is to place onesef in the category of a :” crank. “”

That is what Copernicus et al. did: placing themselves in a position of denying the overwhelming opinion of mankind. So, no apples and oranges.

First of all, I believe it is true that the research of Copernicus was not opposed to the overwhelming opinion of mankind in the sense implied. Most of mankind simply did not know of his discoveries. However, his discoveries were not rejected by the educated who knew of them, including Churchmen, because they were regarded as theories which had not been proven. So why did you pick that particular example if you had not intended to insult the Church?

And it is indeed a case of " apples and oranges. " You can deny it all you want. The fact remains that there is no connection between the science of astronomy and the nature of the human soul and its faculty of intellect and will, and the fundamental property of the will, which is judging freely, making decisions freely. There is nothing " fatalistic " or even " deterministic " about this freedom to judge.

And nothing in my response in any way entailed that I made those who disagree with me guilty by association.

Well then, why make the comparison?.

I have never claimed that it does.

Once again. Here is your statement, " Here is your statement in post # 4, " Short answer: yes.
It’s even worse: God’s knowledge is necessary and therefore unchanging and immutable, which means every proposition that God knows is necessarily true. If God knows that I will have corn flakes for breakfast, it is necessarily the case that I will have corn flakes for breakfast. Since I cannot change a necessary fact, fatalism is the only possibility.
It also entails divine fatalism by the way: it reduces God to an automaton. "

To which I responded :
" I agree that God’s knowledge is necessary, unchanging, and immutable. But his knowledge does not determine that I have cornflakes for breakfast."

O.K. I retract that. You did not claim it meant determinism. You meant that my eating corn flakes was fatalistic, it was bound to occur because God Foreknew that I would eat corn flakes.

But God only knows this because " I have made the choice, freely, to eat corn flakes." On the other hand, if I had chosen to eat Cheerios, God would have known that as well. So by your account, my every act of free will is fatalistic, no matter what it is, on the grounds that God foreknew what I would do.

God knows from all eternity that I will make this choice. But I made the choice in time, not eternity. I am free to make any choice.

I think you are getting the definition of fatalism all wrong. Fatalism is the belief or conviction that no matter what I do, I have no control over the outcome, so why do anything. And that is clearly not what is going on here. To describe my choice as fatalistic or God as fatalistic is to confuse the issue.

If I should blindly shrug my shoulders and refuse to make intelligent decisions because the outcome is known by God, that would be fatalism. If I should refuse to strive to do God’s will because the outcome is known by God, that is fatalism. And God would rightly condemn me for such an attitudes.

And the main issue is human freedom and personal responsibility. We can choose to do God’s will and overcome evil, we can take our place in God’s order of creation as intelligent agents cooperating with his plan of redemption - for ourselves and for the universe.

It should be noted by those reading here that both " fatalism " and " determinism " are condemned by the Catholic Church.

That’s the point. A necesaary choice cannot be free. So to say that God knows that I necessarily choose (or chose) to **freely **eat corn flakes is a contradictions.

Who said my choice was necessary. I can choose to do anything. My particular choice is not " necessary. " And I did not say that God knows that I " necessarily choose " to freely eat corn flakes. He knows that I " freely " choose corn flakes.

I have explained to polytropos why this is wrong. And BTW, this is not just an atheist’s opinion. Several well-respected Christian philosophers, like WL Craig, Alving Plantinga and Wes Morriston fully agree with me on this. That doesn’t mean I am right, but it does mean claiming my position is illogical requires a lot more arguments then you or anyone else has made in this thread.

This is what you are objecting to, " And it would be improper to assign fatalism to God’s necessary knowledge. since fatalism has to do with supposedly inevitable happenings in the universe. In regard to God’s actions in respect to this universe, ( he ) has done and still does all things freely. Nothing has compelled him to create the particular universe he did, nothing compels him to keep it in existence. So God is not an " automton. "

And I reject your explanation. Further, no Catholic can agree to it. It is De Fide Catholic teaching that God acts freely. The reason why " fatalism " cannot be applied to God’s actions is that he could have created an infinite number of universes. But he created this one, and that is a fact. But to call it fatalistic is to miss the point. Futher it is impute a defect in God’s nature, that of not being free. Catholics have to reject such imputations.

Linus2nd .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am often amazed by the lack of prudence on the part of some Catholics. Lacking any foundation in solid Scholastic Philosophy and hardly knowing the contents of their own faith , they avidly devoir the wildest ideas current on YouTube, the press, or Forums and wind up loosing their faith. To be matter factual about it this Thread should never have arisen. It should have been apparent that both " fatalism " and " determinism " are condemned by the Church. And it was apparent early on that the O.P. lacked the background to follow the argument. He should not have raised it the first place. He stuck his nose into something he couldn’t handle, that is why it was raised. And that is my point. Educate yourself first, before going off slaying dragons. To be sure, there are dragons to be slain, but they aren’t going to be slain by teenagers and others not fully armed with the wisdom of the Church and her great intellectual Doctors.

Linus2nd

 

[belorg]

Well, O.K., but he didn’t. So?

You have not been able to convince anyone here of that.

First of all, I believe it is true that the research of Copernicus was not opposed to the overwhelming opinion of mankind in the sense implied. Most of mankind simply did not know of his discoveries. However, his discoveries were not rejected by the educated who knew of them, including Churchmen, because they were regarded as theories which had not been proven. So why did you pick that particular example if you had not intended to insult the Church?

And it is indeed a case of " apples and oranges. " You can deny it all you want. The fact remains that there is no connection between the science of astronomy and the nature of the human soul and its faculty of intellect and will, and the fundamental property of the will, which is judging freely, making decisions freely. There is nothing " fatalistic " or even " deterministic " about this freedom to judge.

Well then, why make the comparison?.

Once again. Here is your statement, " Here is your statement in post # 4, " Short answer: yes.
It’s even worse: God’s knowledge is necessary and therefore unchanging and immutable, which means every proposition that God knows is necessarily true. If God knows that I will have corn flakes for breakfast, it is necessarily the case that I will have corn flakes for breakfast. Since I cannot change a necessary fact, fatalism is the only possibility.
It also entails divine fatalism by the way: it reduces God to an automaton. "

To which I responded :
" I agree that God’s knowledge is necessary, unchanging, and immutable. But his knowledge does not determine that I have cornflakes for breakfast."

O.K. I retract that. You did not claim it meant determinism. You meant that my eating corn flakes was fatalistic, it was bound to occur because God Foreknew that I would eat corn flakes.

But God only knows this because " I have made the choice, freely, to eat corn flakes." On the other hand, if I had chosen to eat Cheerios, God would have known that as well. So by your account, my every act of free will is fatalistic, no matter what it is, on the grounds that God foreknew what I would do.

God knows from all eternity that I will make this choice. But I made the choice in time, not eternity. I am free to make any choice.

I think you are getting the definition of fatalism all wrong. Fatalism is the belief or conviction that no matter what I do, I have no control over the outcome, so why do anything. And that is clearly not what is going on here. To describe my choice as fatalistic or God as fatalistic is to confuse the issue.

If I should blindly shrug my shoulders and refuse to make intelligent decisions because the outcome is known by God, that would be fatalism. If I should refuse to strive to do God’s will because the outcome is known by God, that is fatalism. And God would rightly condemn me for such an attitudes.

And the main issue is human freedom and personal responsibility. We can choose to do God’s will and overcome evil, we can take our place in God’s order of creation as intelligent agents cooperating with his plan of redemption - for ourselves and for the universe.

It should be noted by those reading here that both " fatalism " and " determinism " are condemned by the Catholic Church.

Who said my choice was necessary. I can choose to do anything. My particular choice is not " necessary. " And I did not say that God knows that I " necessarily choose " to freely eat corn flakes. He knows that I " freely " choose corn flakes.

This is what you are objecting to, " And it would be improper to assign fatalism to God’s necessary knowledge. since fatalism has to do with supposedly inevitable happenings in the universe. In regard to God’s actions in respect to this universe, ( he ) has done and still does all things freely. Nothing has compelled him to create the particular universe he did, nothing compels him to keep it in existence. So God is not an " automton. "

And I reject your explanation. Further, no Catholic can agree to it. It is De Fide Catholic teaching that God acts freely. The reason why " fatalism " cannot be applied to God’s actions is that he could have created an infinite number of universes. But he created this one, and that is a fact. But to call it fatalistic is to miss the point. Futher it is impute a defect in God’s nature, that of not being free. Catholics have to reject such imputations.

Linus2nd .

Well, Linus, your last paragraph says it all: God acts freely and the argument for this is that it is De Fide Catholic teaching. I would really like to discuss this with someone who actually makes an argument. So, I bow out of this discussion.
You can have the last word if you want.

this reply shows once again that you do not seem to understand my argument, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Well, Linus, your last paragraph says it all: God acts freely and the argument for this is that it is De Fide Catholic teaching. I would really like to discuss this with someone who actually makes an argument. So, I bow out of this discussion.
You can have the last word if you want.

this reply shows once again that you do not seem to understand my argument, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Of course you are welcome to your opinions. It is not that I don’t understand your argument, it is that your argument is incoherent. Your argument is based on an incorrect understanding of " fatalism " and an incorrect understanding of God’s nature and an incorrect understanding between God’s will and human nature, which has a free will. And besides, your argument is contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

Of course you are welcome to your opinions. It is not that I don’t understand your argument, it is that your argument is incoherent. Your argument is based on an incorrect understanding of " fatalism " and an incorrect understanding of God’s nature and an incorrect understanding between God’s will and human nature, which has a free will. And besides, your argument is contrary to Catholic Doctrine.

Linus2nd

I’m sure being contrary to Catholic Doctrine isn’t a problem but being contrary to the legal principle of responsibility may well be in the future…