Does fatalism follow from Divine simplicity?

[CatholicSoxFan]

You forget to mention that there is an issue with free will and God being good. Because a good God can only create good. The problem is that free will is not good since it can lead to evil. Evil however does not exist in God hence the agent with free will has to be able to be something that God could not be, namely devil.

God can create somebody with the ability to do evil (which is privatio boni) without creating them evil. God could have created robots, but He didn’t.

 

[Bahman]

God can create somebody with the ability to do evil (which is privatio boni) without creating them evil. God could have created robots, but He didn’t.

The problem is that the agent has to be God in his or her realm to do so because s/he is able to do something that God cannot. This is problematic so for a strong reason namely a person has to reach to a high level of maturity to be completely free because any person’s mind is mostly filled with many believes which dictate a decision when the person faces a situation. This mainly requires a high level of self-training. The idea is that nothing in existence is granted for free hence free will.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

The problem is that the agent has to be God in his or her realm to do so because s/he is able to do something that God cannot. This is problematic so for a strong reason namely a person has to reach to a high level of maturity to be completely free because any person’s mind is mostly filled with many believes which dictate a decision when the person faces a situation. This mainly requires a high level of self-training. The idea is that nothing in existence is granted for free hence free will.

I don’t see how that follows.
It doesn’t mean it determines the decision such that it couldn’t be otherwise, though. An explanatory reason doesn’t have to be a cause such that the thing it’s explaining couldn’t have been otherwise.

 

[Bahman]

I don’t see how that follows.

Because, first, your intellect response to external stimulus is not free unless it is self-caused. Second, external stimulus cannot define the exact state of intellect being since the state of intellect changes by any single stimulus. Third, this means that the state of intellect being is absolutely undefinable. Undefinability and the ability to cause unconditionally is definition of God in my vocabulary.

It doesn’t mean it determines the decision such that it couldn’t be otherwise, though. An explanatory reason doesn’t have to be a cause such that the thing it’s explaining couldn’t have been otherwise.

So decision in this case has to be self-caused.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Bahman,

Can you point to one legal system in the world, right back to the beginning of recorded hisory that does not assume that we are all responsible for our actions, that we freely make our own decisions. For if we are not free, then punishing people for breaking the rules is the height of injustice.

Linus2nd

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

Because, first, your intellect response to external stimulus is not free unless it is self-caused. Second, external stimulus cannot define the exact state of intellect being since the state of intellect changes by any single stimulus. Third, this means that the state of intellect being is absolutely undefinable. Undefinability and the ability to cause unconditionally is definition of God in my vocabulary.

So decision in this case has to be self-caused.

Well no, the definition of God is the greatest conceivable being Who created all reality outside Himself. And I don’t get your argument about undefinability.

 

[tonyrey]

T

he argument is invalid for two reasons:

The argument purports to be valid but it is illogical because it is based on a premise for which there is no evidence:

1. Why does knowledge entail causation?
2. How are non-existent choices known?

Pedantry does not alter the fact that a gratuitous argument is worthless.

 

[Bahman]

Bahman,

Can you point to one legal system in the world, right back to the beginning of recorded hisory that does not assume that we are all responsible for our actions, that we freely make our own decisions. For if we are not free, then punishing people for breaking the rules is the height of injustice.

Linus2nd

No, and that doesn’t meant that they are perfectly just.

As I mentioned in another thread, experience of external world, namely environment in general, is necessary condition but not sufficient for a decision making by intellect. How intellect does final decision on subject matter in the same time stays free is subject of longer discussion, which beyond the scope of this thread, but free will is the result of a phenomena so called psychological breakdown which I am currently contemplating on it.

The point is that we are free and are not since we are connected. Our actions are the partially the result of interaction with external world and partly free so to make the right judgment one has to subtract the effect of external world which in reality is very hard.

 

[Bahman]

Well no, the definition of God is the greatest conceivable being Who created all reality outside Himself.

We have created our own reality as well.

And I don’t get your argument about undefinability.

It means that the effect of experiment changes the state of intellect hence we cannot perform an experiment that exactly determine the current state of intellect hence we are always one step back from intellect in the best case scenario.

 

[belorg]

The argument purports to be valid but it is illogical because it is based on a premise for which there is no evidence:

1. Why does knowledge entail causation?
2. How are non-existent choices known?

Pedantry does not alter the fact that a gratuitous argument is worthless.

The argument is valid. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises.
A valid argument can be worthless, but you shouldn’t confuse the two.

 

[tonyrey]

The argument is valid. An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the premises.
A valid argument can be worthless, but you shouldn’t confuse the two.

Please note:

In science and statistics, validity is the extent to which a concept,[1] conclusion or measurement is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the real world.

• wikipedia

The issue is whether fatalism follows from Divine simplicity:

In a typical deductive argument, the premises are meant to provide a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion, while in an inductive argument, they are thought to provide reasons supporting the conclusion’s probable truth.%between%…

**Other kinds of arguments may have different or additional standards of validity **or justification.

• wikipedia

No such reasons have been given - and you have failed to answer the questions:

1. Why does knowledge entail causation?
2. How are non-existent choices known?

 

[belorg]

Please note:

• wikipedia

We are talking about the logical validity of an argument. the argument is definitely logically valid.
The rest of your post has to do with the soundness of the argument, IOW whether the premises are true or not. I told you I did not want to discuss that issue with you unless you came up with something new.

 

[Bahman]

1. Why does knowledge entail causation?

Because knowledge can only be understood by an intellect since it is mute to objective reality. That is in fact information which can entail causation.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, and that doesn’t meant that they are perfectly just.

As I mentioned in another thread, experience of external world, namely environment in general, is necessary condition but not sufficient for a decision making by intellect. How intellect does final decision on subject matter in the same time stays free is subject of longer discussion, which beyond the scope of this thread, but free will is the result of a phenomena so called psychological breakdown which I am currently contemplating on it.

The point is that we are free and are not since we are connected. Our actions are the partially the result of interaction with external world and partly free so to make the right judgment one has to subtract the effect of external world which in reality is very hard.

Unless we are unconscious or seriously injured, or druged all our decisions are free.

Linus2nd

 

[Bahman]

Unless we are unconscious or seriously injured, or druged all our decisions are free.

Linus2nd

No, you need the perfect knowledge to make the perfect judgment meaning that you have to be God that we are not hence our judiciary systems are subject of serious questions!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, you need the perfect knowledge to make the perfect judgment meaning that you have to be God that we are not hence our judiciary systems are subject of serious questions!

The point is that my argument proves that society has always recognized that our choices are freely made, otherwise punishment for infractions would make no sense. This does not mean that these systems are perfect, it does not mean there can be no extenuating circumstances.

Linus2nd

 

[tonyrey]

We are talking about the logical validity of an argument. the argument is definitely logically valid.

As I have pointed out you are arbitrarily restricting the term to logic.

The rest of your post has to do with the soundness of the argument, IOW whether the premises are true or not. I told you I did not want to discuss that issue with you unless you came up with something new.

An evasive, unconvincing response…

 

[Patty23]

And since God’s existence is necessary, that would mean that God’s knowledge is also necessary. But doesn’t that mean fatalism?

I don’t have my text book here, I’m using stock knowledge from more than 5 years ago. Anyway, the problem I see is with that statement. God’s knowledge of himself is simple insofar as there’s identity between his intellect and himself. Thomsists distinguishes between primary objects of God’s knowledge with himself, and secondary objects or creatures. He has absolute knowledge of secondary objects (creatures) as pure knowledge but they’re not idtentified with his immutable essence.

I think the problematic word there is the word “necessary”. I didn’t see that word on the thesis regarding God’s simplicity.

 

[DanAl]

God’s will is not contingent, either in itself or on anything else. He has willed to create a contingent universe, a universe dependent for its existence on his will.

Linus2nd

But if God’s will is non-contingent the universe would be determined and non-contingent, why? Because God had no choice in the matter.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But if God’s will is non-contingent the universe would be determined and non-contingent, why? Because God had no choice in the matter.

No. God has shown in his Revelation that he his will is free.is free. And the Church has Declared that he is free. It does not follow that the universe is " determined, " except in the sense that all has been done according to his will. He has left man free to determine his own course.

You have a habit of putting lables on things or people which is contrary to the original intent. And " determinism " has a particularly repugnant history. It is best to avoid it lest people get the wrong idea.

Linus2nd