Free will and God's will

[rivera01]

I have been thinking alot lately as far as how much of our free will really affects God’s divine plan or vice versa. I know that some may argue that God’s plan or desire, is for all men to be saved, and to be fair that is true. This is where I start to question how much does our free will affect God’s plan. I’ll use this example, a friend of mine said on Friday that she forgot to get the key to an office for our weekly meeting, and then said well if this happened its because that is how God wanted it to happen. After the meeting was over, I stayed over with her to talk with another of our close friend. My friend, who forgot the key, said that she was embarrased because she forgot the key. I told her, you didnt forget the key because God wanted for you to forget the key, you forgot the key because you gor upset earlier in the day. And she consented to my remark and said that it was true. For me to hear that she forgot the key and attributed to God’s will was something hard for me to swallow. To me, situations like these just don’t sound right, it makes it seem that God micro-manages our lives. I won’t disagree that God does allow things to happen to us for a greater purpose, or doesnt allow soemthing to happen; thats fine, I get that. But to attribute something so miniscule in our lives and attribute it to God’s will is hard for me to accept.

If in deed God micro-manages our lives in this way, then we do not have free will. I know that free will is used to choose between what is right or wrong, but I think we can apply that to doing something that is completly morally nuetral to our lives. Like choosing what to eat for lunch.

Now, if God does not micro-manage our lives, He knows everything, past present and future. He knows what decision we are going to take because He is omniscient. How does our will affect His over all plan?

 

[theblindlead]

I won’t disagree that God does allow things to happen to us for a greater purpose, or doesnt allow soemthing to happen; thats fine, I get that. But to attribute something so miniscule in our lives and attribute it to God’s will is hard for me to accept.

book of job, the ways of God are inscrutable…nuff said

 

[Sair]

book of job, the ways of God are inscrutable…nuff said

What this means, essentially, is that a religiously-inspired belief in determinism is really not so different, in practical terms, to a belief in naturalistic or physical determinism. We think we have free will either because we don’t know what God is up to, or because we are not consciously aware of all the physical processes that go on in our brains and bodies.

But here is where the difference between determinism and fatalism might come to bear. I have been reading some of Daniel Dennett’s work lately, and his claim is that physical determinism does not entail inevitability, or a single trajectory of events over the course of time, to the exclusion of all other theoretically possible events. It seems to me that this can only be true if there is not an omniscient mind that already knows how the future will pan out. If God knows what is to happen, then the future is fixed, no matter what we do. If physical determinism is true, the future is dependent upon the outcome of a multitude of possible and in some cases competing causes, any of which may win out over another - we often cannot know until it happens.

 

[tonyrey]

What this means, essentially, is that a religiously-inspired belief in determinism is really not so different, in practical terms, to a belief in naturalistic or physical determinism. We think we have free will either because we don’t know what God is up to, or because we are not consciously aware of all the physical processes that go on in our brains and bodies.

But here is where the difference between determinism and fatalism might come to bear. I have been reading some of Daniel Dennett’s work lately, and his claim is that physical determinism does not entail inevitability, or a single trajectory of events over the course of time, to the exclusion of all other theoretically possible events. It seems to me that this can only be true if there is not an omniscient mind that already knows how the future will pan out. If God knows what is to happen, then the future is fixed, no matter what we do. If physical determinism is true, the future is dependent upon the outcome of a multitude of possible and in some cases competing causes, any of which may win out over another - we often cannot know until it happens.

Antony Flew pointed out - many years become he renounced atheism - that prescience does not entail causality.

 

[theblindlead]

If God knows what is to happen, then the future is fixed, no matter what we do.

if am in a window looking down at 2 people in a court yard one has a gun and fires it at the other person if we could freeze the half second before the other person gets shot. I (the person looking down upon the people in the court yard) would know that the other person was going to get shot but i did not cause it. hopefully this analogy helps you see the catholic perspective better.

 

[Sair]

if am in a window looking down at 2 people in a court yard one has a gun and fires it at the other person if we could freeze the half second before the other person gets shot. I (the person looking down upon the people in the court yard) would know that the other person was going to get shot but i did not cause it. hopefully this analogy helps you see the catholic perspective better.

Are you saying that God sees everything “frozen in time”? If that is the case, he would also be able to see the moment at which the bullet hits the person, the moment that person takes his last breath, and so forth. I don’t suggest that God knowing what is to happen is actually an efficient cause of what happens, but it means that what God already knows will happen therefore cannot happen in any other way than what God knows will happen. If God sees the death of the gunshot victim happening, say, three hours after the bullet hits (presumably God has a series of tableaux representing every moment in time?), no amount of first aid, medical intervention, or whatever, will prevent this death from happening at that moment, because it is already a fixed event in the knowledge of God. Even the intervention of other parties will be foreknown by God - everything from their noticing the incident to their decision to intervene - and thus their freedom to act in any manner available to them is overridden by the foregone conclusion that this is how they will act in the already known future.

Free will is a sham in a world presided over by a God who knows the future, because any actual knowledge of the future entails a future that is fixed, immutable, no matter what we do. This might even make a mockery of the free will of God, since in order to know the future - as opposed to simply being able to accurately predict the outcome of every possible permutation of causes, which would be theoretically possible for an omniscient entity - then the future must be a fixed state of affairs capable of being known.

 

[tonyrey]

Are you saying that God sees everything “frozen in time”?

Time cannot be frozen.

If that is the case, he would also be able to see the moment at which the bullet hits the person, the moment that person takes his last breath, and so forth.

Seeing doesn’t entail influencing what happens.

I don’t suggest that God knowing what is to happen is actually an efficient cause of what happens, but it means that what God already knows will happen therefore cannot happen in any other way than what God knows will happen.

“already” and “will” are invalid descriptions because God is timeless.

If God sees the death of the gunshot victim happening, say, three hours after the bullet hits (presumably God has a series of tableaux representing every moment in time?), no amount of first aid, medical intervention, or whatever, will prevent this death from happening at that moment, because it is already a fixed event in the knowledge of God.

The image of “tableaux” is an inadequate physical description of divine omniscience.

Even the intervention of other parties will be foreknown by God - everything from their noticing the incident to their decision to intervene - and thus their freedom to act in any manner available to them is overridden by the foregone conclusion that this is how they will act in the already known future.

“foreknown” and “foregone” are also are invalid descriptions of omniscience since they introduce the time element.

Free will is a sham in a world presided over by a God who knows the future, because any actual knowledge of the future entails a future that is fixed, immutable, no matter what we do.

Only for those who inconsistently put God in the same category as finite beings.

This might even make a mockery of the free will of God, since in order to know the future - as opposed to simply being able to accurately predict the outcome of every possible permutation of causes, which would be theoretically possible for an omniscient entity - then the future must be a fixed state of affairs capable of being known.

Those who don’t believe in free will are not entitled to legislate on God’s free will because their horizon is restricted to mechanistic events which fail to account for rationality and responsibility. Materialists are committed to determinism which excludes the possibility of discovering and selecting the true interpretation of reality because they cannot think for themselves!

 

[Sair]

Time cannot be frozen.
Seeing doesn’t entail influencing what happens.
“already” and “will” are invalid descriptions because God is timeless.
The image of “tableaux” is an inadequate physical description of divine omniscience.
“foreknown” and “foregone” are also are invalid descriptions of omniscience since they introduce the time element.

Only for those who inconsistently put God in the same category as finite beings.
Those who don’t believe in free will are not entitled to legislate on God’s free will because their horizon is restricted to mechanistic events which fail to account for rationality and responsibility. Materialists are committed to determinism which excludes the possibility of discovering and selecting the true interpretation of reality because they cannot think for themselves!

Well, gosh, if you didn’t want to actually discuss the notion of God’s free will, why didn’t you say so?

If all you have in response is to say, “No, that’s not right, because it’s just not how God works”, then it seems there is no possibility of progress in our exchange. I would only add that a God who is outside or removed from or in whatever other way disengaged from time would be entirely impotent in terms of acting within time to do anything other than oversee everything happening at once - action, by definition, requires both spatial and temporal extension, and if God lacks these things, he can do nothing.

 

[Scapegoat]

If in deed God micro-manages our lives in this way, then we do not have free will. I know that free will is used to choose between what is right or wrong, but I think we can apply that to doing something that is completly morally nuetral to our lives. Like choosing what to eat for lunch.

Now, if God does not micro-manage our lives, He knows everything, past present and future. He knows what decision we are going to take because He is omniscient. How does our will affect His over all plan?

Well from what I’m aware of God either ordains or permitts things so maybe God willed her to forget her keys so you could have this conversation today? As for free will I think a lot of people think “free will” can only be said to be expressed if someone has the ability to carry out their will; however, I don’t beleive this is the case. Our souls are made up of an intellect and a will so I believe free will is simply expressed 100% in our thoughts; in short I believe free will is simply our ability to accept or reject something which is either right or wrong; true or false.

Take this for example. We cannot will ourselves to live another day let alone another second. What I have concluded is that we exist because God ordains our existance by ordaining things like our organs to function, our blood to flow, our brain to fire its impulses, our limbs to move, etc…and that he ordains these because they are good in of themeselves. Now I believe God permitts sin which is the result of our choice to accept something which is bad/false. Now because your sin cannot change God’s divine plane and since He and only He will be able to draw good from your choices, God therefore permitts them to happen; 1. because he has willed that you have this ability to freely accept that which is right and wrong and 2. because your actions (the movement of your arms, your blood flowing, your organs pumping, etc…are not evil in of themselves.

HELIOTROPIUM
Conformity of the Human Will to the Divine
By FATHER JEREMIAS DREXELIUS

TAN BOOKS AND PUBLISHERS, INC.

Book One:

Chapter One: All Punishments Proceed from God

But in order to make my meaning as clear as possible, I will illustrate it by an example. Take the case of a man who wishes his neighbor to be stripped of all his goods, and who, in order to put this abominable design into execution, creeps secretly into the house of the man he hates, sets fire to it, and immediately hurries away. Presently, when the house is in flames, he runs to the spot with others, as if with the intention of helping to put out the fire, when all the while it is quite different: for, if occasion serves, he does not try to keep the flames under, but collects spoils for himself, and secretly removes from the fire plunder to increase his own property. All such designs as these, regarded by themselves, without perversity of will, and all such actions as these, considered “in genere entis” have God as their Author. God brings these things about, just as He brings about other things in creatures void of reason. For as these last can neither move, nor do anything without God, so cannot the incendiary either enter a house, or leave it again, or scatter fire in it, without God. But it does not follow that these several acts are evil in themselves, for they may also be compatible with virtue, but the will of the incendiary is evil; it is a most wicked design which that abandoned man has followed, and of this God is not the Author and Cause, although He has permitted this design to be carried into execution. He might indeed have hindered it, if it had so pleased Him. Since, however, God by His Own just Judgment did not hinder that wicked design, He permitted it. The causes of His Permission I shall give further on.

1. The same line of reasoning holds good also in reference to other sins; and this may, perhaps, appear the clearer from the following example. Take the case of a man who is lame in consequence of a wound which he has received; he attempts to walk, it is true, but he moves over the ground with greater pain, and with a more awkward gait than a sound man. Now the cause of motion in the foot is the natural impelling force, but the cause of lameness is the wound, not the moving power of the soul. And just in like manner God is the Cause of that act which anyone performs when sinning, but the cause of error and sin in this act is man’s free will. God supplies help to the act, but not to that wandering and departure from law and rectitude. Although, therefore, God is not, and cannot be, the Author of sin-----yet it is, nevertheless, most certain that all the evil of punishment arising from second causes, whether rational or irrational [in whatever way, or for whatever reason it may happen], proceeds entirely from the Hand of God, and from His most benign Disposal and Providence. It is God, my good friend, it is God, I say, Who guided the hand of him who struck you. It is God Who moved the tongue of him who slandered you. It is God Who supplied strength to him who wickedly trampled you under foot. God Himself, speaking of Himself by the mouth of Isaias, declares [chap. XLV. 7]: “I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I, the Lord that do all these things.” And how completely does the Prophet Amos confirm this, when he says [chap III. 6]: “Shall there be evil in a city, which the Lord hath not done?” Just as if he had said, there is no evil which God does not do, by permitting the evil of guilt, and by ordaining and working out the evil of punishment.

I recommend reading Heliotropium; it has a lot of great insight on the will of God.

Here is a link to read the entire book for free.
catholictradition.org/Classics/heliotropium.htm

 

[Partinobodycula]

For me the answer is simple… I am God. I am the creator. There is no dichotomy between my will and God’s will. In fact I would argue that it’s not a matter of “will” at all. The world isn’t the way it is, because this is how I decided it should be, or this is how some benevolent, loving God decided it should be. The world is the way it is because it is a reflection of myself. I do not wish for there to be evil in the world, but my own self-righteousness and indifference causes such things to be.

I am a solipsist. I believe that the world is a manifestation of my own mind. If there is hatred, or bigotry, or injustice in the world, it is because, I by my nature cause it to be. I alone am the source of all of this suffering. Not intentionally, but rather such things are the consequence of my own imperfections, and weaknesses. It does me no good to rail against the inhumanity of man. Nor rant against the wickedness of the world. For to judge the world is to judge myself. To understand the world, is to understand myself. And to forgive the world, is to forgive myself. If I want the world to change, I need do no more than to change myself. All of the suffering, is because of me. From this one realization, comes the strength to change.

Blame for the evils of this world cannot be laid at the feet of men nor God. The world with all it’s beauty and mystery, iniquity and pain, are but a reflection of myself. The only blame warranted, and the only forgiveness needed, is my own. I receive it, in the measure with which I give it. I hear stories of heaven and hell and what I must do to get there. But I believe that heaven and hell, and what will be, are of my own creating. I have the free will to choose which it will be. No God need impose it on me. I impose it on myself. I am the creator, there is no one else to blame. All sin, is mine.

In so believing I realize that the only way to change others, the only way to end the suffering, the only way to “heaven”, is through a contrite and humble heart. I will envy no man his position, nor condemn him for his failings. I will judge no one, I will forgive everyone, and I am sorry.

You may consider me a fool, or a madman, such is your right. I have no great desire to change your beliefs, although I wish I could change your heart. All that I can do is tell you what I believe. The rest is up to you.

 

[tonyrey]

Time cannot be frozen.
Seeing doesn’t entail influencing what happens.
“already” and “will” are invalid descriptions because God is timeless.
The image of “tableaux” is an inadequate physical description of divine omniscience.
“foreknown” and “foregone” are also are invalid descriptions of omniscience since they introduce the time element.

1. You have ignored and failed to refute my statements.
2. “action, by definition, requires both spatial and temporal extension”
   is true only for materialists.
3. “a God who is outside or removed from or in whatever other way disengaged from time would be entirely impotent in terms of acting within time to do anything other than oversee everything happening at once” presupposes privileged insight into the nature of reality.

 

[belorg]

For me the answer is simple… I am God. I am the creator. There is no dichotomy between my will and God’s will. In fact I would argue that it’s not a matter of “will” at all. The world isn’t the way it is, because this is how I decided it should be, or this is how some benevolent, loving God decided it should be. The world is the way it is because it is a reflection of myself. I do not wish for there to be evil in the world, but my own self-righteousness and indifference causes such things to be.

I am a solipsist. I believe that the world is a manifestation of my own mind. If there is hatred, or bigotry, or injustice in the world, it is because, I by my nature cause it to be. I alone am the source of all of this suffering. Not intentionally, but rather such things are the consequence of my own imperfections, and weaknesses. It does me no good to rail against the inhumanity of man. Nor rant against the wickedness of the world. For to judge the world is to judge myself. To understand the world, is to understand myself. And to forgive the world, is to forgive myself. If I want the world to change, I need do no more than to change myself. All of the suffering, is because of me. From this one realization, comes the strength to change.

Blame for the evils of this world cannot be laid at the feet of men nor God. The world with all it’s beauty and mystery, iniquity and pain, are but a reflection of myself. The only blame warranted, and the only forgiveness needed, is my own. I receive it, in the measure with which I give it. I hear stories of heaven and hell and what I must do to get there. But I believe that heaven and hell, and what will be, are of my own creating. I have the free will to choose which it will be. No God need impose it on me. I impose it on myself. I am the creator, there is no one else to blame. All sin, is mine.

In so believing I realize that the only way to change others, the only way to end the suffering, the only way to “heaven”, is through a contrite and humble heart. I will envy no man his position, nor condemn him for his failings. I will judge no one, I will forgive everyone, and I am sorry.

You may consider me a fool, or a madman, such is your right. I have no great desire to change your beliefs, although I wish I could change your heart. All that I can do is tell you what I believe. The rest is up to you.

Who are you talking to? We are just manifestations of your mind, we do not really exist.

 

[Sair]

1. You have ignored and failed to refute my statements.
2. “action, by definition, requires both spatial and temporal extension”
   is true only for materialists.
3. “a God who is outside or removed from or in whatever other way disengaged from time would be entirely impotent in terms of acting within time to do anything other than oversee everything happening at once” presupposes privileged insight into the nature of reality.

I treated your first set of statements in the same way you treated mine - with summary dismissal. Your intention was very plainly to shut down discussion, not to encourage it, so I thought it not worth pursuing the point with you.

It must be very easy to claim a reality which, by definition, cannot be demonstrated. Immediately, it absolves you from any epistemological responsibility. How, for example, do you define ‘action’ apart from spatial and temporal extension? And how would you demonstrate or explain or justify the belief that it is these supposed “actions” lacking in any physical basis that are responsible for any given phenomenon, rather than the “merely” materialist kind? I would expect that your response would be something along the lines of, “We can’t understand God’s ways, therefore we shouldn’t even try.”

 

[tonyrey]

I treated your first set of statements in the same way you treated mine - with summary dismissal. Your intention was very plainly to shut down discussion, not to encourage it, so I thought it not worth pursuing the point with you.

Which of your statements have I ignored?

*Are you saying that God sees everything “frozen in time”? *

                             Time cannot be frozen.

If that is the case, he would also be able to see the moment at which the bullet hits the person, the moment that person takes his last breath, and so forth.

Seeing doesn’t entail influencing what happens.

I don’t suggest that God knowing what is to happen is actually an efficient cause

of what happens, but it means that what God already knows will happen therefore cannot happen in any other way than what God knows will happen. “already” and “will” are invalid descriptions because God is timeless.

If God sees the death of the gunshot victim happening, say, three hours after the bullet hits (presumably God has a series of tableaux representing every moment in time?), no amount of first aid, medical intervention, or whatever, will prevent this death from happening at that moment, because it is already a fixed event in the knowledge of God.

The image of “tableaux” is an inadequate physical description of divine omniscience.

Even the intervention of other parties will be foreknown by God - everything from their noticing the incident to their decision to intervene - and thus their freedom to act in any manner available to them is overridden by the foregone conclusion

that this is how they will act in the already known future. “foreknown” and “foregone” are also are invalid descriptions of omniscience since they introduce the time element.

Free will is a sham in a world presided over by a God who knows the future, because any actual knowledge

of the future entails a future that is fixed, immutable, no matter what we do. Only for those who inconsistently put God in the same category as finite beings.

This might even make a mockery of the free will of God, since in order to know

the future - as opposed to simply being able to accurately predict the outcome of every possible permutation of causes, which would be theoretically possible for an omniscient entity - then the future must be a fixed state of affairs capable of being known. Those who don’t believe in free will are not entitled to legislate on God’s free will because their horizon is restricted to mechanistic events which fail to account for rationality and responsibility. Materialists are committed to determinism which excludes the possibility of discovering and selecting the true interpretation of reality because they cannot think for themselves!

It must be very easy to claim a reality which, by definition, cannot be demonstrated.

There is no need to demonstrate the existence of the mind because we have direct and immediate knowledge and experience of our thoughts, feelings, perceptions and decisions. Without your mind you wouldn’t even be aware that matter exists.

Immediately, it absolves you from any epistemological responsibility. How, for example, do you define ‘action’ apart from spatial and temporal extension?

Events occur in the mind as well as in the physical world. Thoughts and decisions have no spatial and temporal extension.

And how would you demonstrate or explain or justify the belief that it is these supposed “actions” lacking in any physical basis that are responsible for any given phenomenon, rather than the “merely” materialist kind? I would expect that your response would be something along the lines of, “We can’t understand God’s ways, therefore we shouldn’t even try.”

Your expectations are disappointed! Our mental activity very often has no observable consequences. EEG records electrical impulses which cannot be logically equated with our thoughts, feelings and decisions. They are no more than messages sent by the mind to a biological machine which enables us to control our bodies and communicate with other minds.

 

[tonyrey]

Partinobodycula…

Perhaps “Pernobodyculiar”!