Free will? I dont think so

[Hume]

Thank you! Why is potentiality a dead idea? Because determinism is true? Why should I assume events happen absolutely necessarily?

Potentiality is dead for a lot of reasons. First of them being, yes; determinism appears to be true.

Secondly, potentiality came along at a time where things were defined by their natures and essences. Modern biology and chemistry has killed these underlying ideas too. It revealed them as being overly vague. How is the nature or essence of a white pine board with sap present different from one with no sap? Is one more “pine-y” than the other? Similarly with biology. When a cardinal and a robin very likely share the same common ancestor and are almost genetically identical (compared to, say, a bacteria or a potato), how does one meaningfully distinguish the nature and essence of these two birds apart from each other?

No good reason, really. So the paradigms that required these constructs - brilliant as they were 1000 years ago - have been superseded by better paradigms based on, critically, more observation; which, again, is how these obsolete paradigms came about in the first place.

Okay, everything is in motion, but can it be in motion and not in motion at the same time?

Sure. Relative to that quasar on the universe’s edge, I’m nearly at light speed. But relative to my pants, I’m not moving at all.

If you had an infinite amount of chains holding a chandelier but no hook at the end, can it hold itself up from the ceiling? Try this with any hanging thing (with finite parts): remove its hook, will it stay hanging?

What you’re not realizing is that there may be no “chandelier” nor “ceiling hook”. The present keeps perpetually moving into the future. The chandelier may not actually exist and the chain goes on forever into eternity and goes back forever into eternity - just like a one-dimensional number-line.

It’s a possibility. It may not be true, but there’s no real reason to discount it other than “Aquinas said so” who would have said “Aristotle said so”. Smart dudes all, but demonstrably wrong about plenty of stuff.

Seems like a personal issue. If God can be logically demonstrated with sound logic, religious ideas don’t seem as crazy as one may think. If you’re not convinced it doesn’t change its truth.

Emphasis mine.

That razor also works the other way. If you’re convinced, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

The standard for reality - used by both Aristotle and Aquinas - is observation. Our powers of observation have expanded substantially in the 2500 and 800 years since these smart fellows lived, respectively.

 

[Gorgias]

Observation is critical to ascertaining whether it actually is an objective “truth” versus an opinion, delusion, hallucination, group mania, etc.

How can you observe a historical event in the past? In antiquity?

Not all questions admit of “observation” as the arbiter of truth. It’s a valuable approach… but not a “one size fits all” approach.

words like “eternal” don’t actually mean anything because they explain amounts of time.

No, and that’s the whole point. “Eternity” describes something that’s atemporal. Some mistakenly think that “eternal” means “a really, really long time”, but it doesn’t.

Using temporally descriptive words for an idea that’s outside time doesn’t make sense.

I agree. “Eternal” isn’t one of those words, though.

But more importantly, how do you know god doesn’t exist in time?

That’s an easy one. The temporal dimension is part of the universe. God created the universe. It’s absurd to suggest that God is contained – bounded, as it were! – by something the He Himself created! He is metaphysically prior to it.

As we’re a species that only exists “in time”, how could you possibly have any understanding of it

Why, by the observation that you hold so dear!

Maybe the presupposed god does not actually exist and nonsensical explanations like “outside time” are more irrationalities invoked to further obfuscate and redirect away from the problems inherent to unobservable things like a god?

And you have observations that prove that assertion? Or, is this just another “nonsensical explanation”?

If so, he already knew what you’d do.

“Already” is a “temporally descriptive word” that attempts to describe “an idea that’s outside of time”. You know how well that works, right? Let me quote you back to yourself:

Using temporally descriptive words for an idea that’s outside time doesn’t make sense.

Yep. So… you’re not making sense.

It was fixed from the creation of the universe, at least.

Again: you’re using an observation outside of time to describe something inside of time. By your own words: you’re not making sense.

It only seemed like you were making a spontaneous decision.

Wrong again. I made the decision, inside of time. The decision happened, inside of time. It wasn’t fixed, inside of time. As you yourself said, “it doesn’t require a very high-wattage mind” to make this distinction.

 

[Gorgias]

if god knew you were going to choose Mountain Dew next time you visited a Pepsi machine, then according to your system of belief, there’s 0% chance you can ultimately choose anything except Mountain Dew.

That’s different from saying that I get to make that choice on my own. That’s the part that you continue to refuse to admit. I do get that opportunity to choose. But that’s ok – after all, to admit that would force to you admit to God’s omnipotence. I realize that this is tough one for you to swallow. I don’t have to be omnipotent myself to know that’s true.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

if god knew you were going to choose Mountain Dew next time you visited a Pepsi machine, then according to your system of belief, there’s 0% chance you can ultimately choose anything except Mountain Dew.

That’s different from saying that I get to make that choice on my own.

Regardless how you feel about the choice, it was created and known by god before the foundations of the universe.
Since your god exists at all points in time simultaneously, when the universe was created, all events within it were created as well.

All the really nice, pleasant good stuff.
All the neutral stuff.
All the appalling and horrifying stuff.

All breathed into existence in that singular act of creation by your god.

 

[Hume]

How can you observe a historical event in the past? In antiquity?

Directly? We can’t. Which is something very important to remember when observing historical records - particularly those made before the enlightenment.

That’s an easy one. The temporal dimension is part of the universe . God created the universe.

How do you know that the universe was created by a god?

Why, by the observation that you hold so dear!

How? There’s no way to observe it. It exists literally beyond our horizon of observation.

Forget the qualities of the unobservable thing - you can’t state it exists without an act of faith.

And you have observations that prove that assertion?

The default is uncertainty. The guy saying “we don’t know” is the only guy in the room that gets to be right by default.

Yep. So… you’re not making sense.

Hey, I’m literally just tossing back what you and a lot of your compeers advocate. It’s language found in your religious texts.

I completely agree it doesn’t make much sense.

Wrong again. I made the decision, inside of time. The decision happened, inside of time. It wasn’t fixed, inside of time. As you yourself said, “it doesn’t require a very high-wattage mind” to make this distinction.

But it does require a bit of imagination to conceive of things “outside time” as there’s literally no observational data in the history of data to even suggest such a thing.

At this point I’m going to use one of your smiley faces.

 

[whatistrue]

This is a known philosophical truth

Quite amusing. Any others?

You’ve provided nothing useful

So why bother responding?

the choice was already made for you yesterday, even millions of years ago.

That’s the issue - the choice was not made for us, and an outside entity knowing the choice does not mean that we don’t make it. That just seems self-evident to me. If not for you, then further dialog is pointless as we are working from different fundamental assumptions.

 

[Veritas6]

Potentiality is dead for a lot of reasons. First of them being, yes; determinism appears to be true.

Still not seeing any proof: freely asserted, freely rejected (Hitchen’s razor). Determinism still remains dead. Something “appearing” to be true isn’t an argument.

Secondly, potentiality came along at a time where things were defined by their natures and essences. Modern biology and chemistry has killed these underlying ideas too. It revealed them as being overly vague. How is the nature or essence of a white pine board with sap present different from one with no sap? Is one more “pine-y” than the other? Similarly with biology. When a cardinal and a robin very likely share the same common ancestor and are almost genetically identical (compared to, say, a bacteria or a potato), how does one meaningfully distinguish the nature and essence of these two birds apart from each other?

No good reason, really. So the paradigms that required these constructs - brilliant as they were 1000 years ago - have been superseded by better paradigms based on, critically, more observation ; which, again, is how these obsolete paradigms came about in the first place.

No scientific concept can prove or disprove metaphysical truths. The sciences simply explain what already occurs. “Potentiality” is not some competing scientific theory being “overly vague”. The reality of these underlying philosophical truths make it possible to even distinguish between natures and essences. We use scientific observation to distinguish these differences.

I don’t think you understand what act and potency is. Even if determinism is true, change would still go from potential to actual, but only one option would occur, there wouldn’t be contingencies. Potency simply means something that doesn’t yet exist has the ability to exist (become actual).

Let’s understand how this works with a physics example: Throw a rock off a cliff and it will travel and land somewhere else (maybe on the ground level). Then physics can determine the rock’s projectile motion using calculation based on it’s flight.

Act and potency is the underlying mechanism that allows for this change or motion to occur. The rock was actually on the cliff and potentially on the ground level. The rock becomes actually on the ground level if an actualizer (me and my muscles) actualizes this potential (throws it off the cliff). Physics can then study this predictable pattern of it’s flight and make more predictions about the world. This is what I mean when I say that science presupposes change.

Now if determinism were true the rock would end up on the ground level by absolute necessity; only one potential would be actualized. This is another metaphysical system that works with the act/potency distinction, hence only one option was fixed to occur. Now if you can prove proof for the philosophical reality of determinism, then we can have further discussion on this. But at this moment, Hitchen’s razor still applies here. (Continued…)

 

[Veritas6]

What you’re not realizing is that there may be no “chandelier” nor “ceiling hook”. The present keeps perpetually moving into the future. The chandelier may not actually exist and the chain goes on forever into eternity and goes back forever into eternity - just like a one-dimensional number-line.

It’s a possibility. It may not be true, but there’s no real reason to discount it other than “Aquinas said so” who would have said “Aristotle said so”. Smart dudes all, but demonstrably wrong about plenty of stuff.

Accidental infinities such as an infinite number line can exist, no problem. What cannot exist are essential infinities. These infinites aren’t infinite but are called essentially ordered series. These ordered series are not linear like a number line, but are hierarchical. One cause depends on the next, etc. The present cannot keep continuously moving into the future without first being moved. Aristotle thought the world was infinite, but even so he thought one cannot circumvent the problem of motion.

A number of boxcars “perpetually moving into the future” do not explain how they are moving if they have no locomotive. The locomotive is its hierarchical first mover that starts the motion. It’s magical thinking to assume things just move for no reason, especially if moving for a very long time (i.e. infinitely). It doesn’t make a difference how long. This isn’t me just saying “Aquinas said so”.

Emphasis mine.

That razor also works the other way. If you’re convinced, that doesn’t mean it’s true.

The standard for reality - used by both Aristotle and Aquinas - is observation. Our powers of observation have expanded substantially in the 2500 and 800 years since these smart fellows lived, respectively.

I agree, but one cannot disprove metaphysical truths simply by having “better” observations. Science presupposes change exists in order for these observations to occur. What we’re trying to figure out is how this change occurs so that science can build on it. This is outlined in the physics example above.

The problem seems to be I’ve given you philosophical argument and reasoning but you’ve only given me statements about the truth of determinism. I can’t be convinced by bald assertions, I keep questioning things. :man_shrugging:t2:

 

[lelinator]

These ordered series are not linear like a number line, but are hierarchical .

I’ve asked this question of others before…but can you describe for me the hierarchical causal series for a loaf of bread?

 

[Hume]

Still not seeing any proof: freely asserted, freely rejected (Hitchen’s razor). Determinism still remains dead. Something “appearing” to be true isn’t an argument.

In an empirical world, observation is as good as we have. It’s much, much more reliable than “truth” found only through analytical reasoning.

Determinism may not be true just like evolution may not be true. But it has the admirable quality of trouncing all other challengers as the best explanatory theory of its field. Simply put - it can be better observed than it’s challengers.

Example:
I take 1mol of naturally occurring sodium ions, 1 mol of chlorine ions and then thoroughly mix them together.
Now, per determinism, I should end up with 1mol of sodium chloride. And it’s true! This will occur each and every time I perform the experiment. It’s observable and predictable. What’s more - if I don’t obtain a full yield of 1 mol of NaCl, then we can investigate why. (The likely answer being that I didn’t mix them sufficiently).

Determinism is why we conduct experiments in the first place. There is no supernatural mystery we can see. No magical force we can observe making these things happen. Matter and energy behave according to their properties and the only “exceptions” that occur only appear that way because we don’t sufficiently understand what we’re observing.

Classically, this is where some attempt to shoe-horn a supernatural “God of the Gaps”, but with further analysis and inquiry, that god gets slowly and steadily overthrown. Verily, that poor fellow has had the absolute tar beaten out of him in the last century.

No scientific concept can prove or disprove metaphysical truths.

There is some territory that will likely always belong to the metaphysical. Beauty, justice, love, etc… But as metaphysics is “The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space” (per Oxford), there is some substantial overlap between the two.

The reason science will always emerge the victor when they clash is because empirical “truth” is just more knowably true. You can demonstrate it and strangers can share these observations in a way that can’t be done with reasoning alone.

I take it you’re familiar with the now-classic Gettier problem of “knowing” what you don’t actually know? Analytical truth is infinitely more vulnerable to this reality than truth rooted in direct observation.

 

[Hume]

I don’t think you understand what act and potency is. Even if determinism is true, change would still go from potential to actual, but only one option would occur, there wouldn’t be contingencies. Potency simply means something that doesn’t yet exist has the ability to exist (become actual).

I wasn’t aware I’d used that out-dated term? I’ve used “potentiality”, but if I’ve used “potency” it was in error.

But to that matter, it’s an observable fact that matter has a nigh-infinite number of ways that it can interact with other matter. The science of chemistry gives us most of this knowledge.

Now if you can prove proof for the philosophical reality of determinism…

Again, the only way to test for this without any error at all would be to rewind the clock to perform the exact trial under exact conditions as many times as you pleased.

Impossible.

But the deterministic reality is strongly evidenced by the fact that when we mimic conditions as closely as we can, the behavior of the rock being tossed will be nearly identical in each trial; and any minute differences observed would be attributable to the minute differences between the trials.

A number of boxcars “perpetually moving into the future” do not explain how they are moving if they have no locomotive.

Sure. The beginning of the locomotion lies in the Big Bang.

As to what caused that, only guesses. It’s beyond our horizon of observation.

This isn’t me just saying “Aquinas said so”.

No, it’s you saying “Aristotle said so”. No better, gently and respectfully.

I agree, but one cannot disprove metaphysical truths simply by having “better” observations.

Well, depending on the area of metaphysics, maybe you can. Either way, you’re likely to end up with a better tool for explaining the underlying reality - the finest exemplar for this discussion probably being the outmoding of “nature” and “essence” by modern chemistry.

The problem seems to be I’ve given you philosophical argument and reasoning…

Oh? I hadn’t noticed.

If you’re referring to the Argument from Motion, that was rendered nil by relativity.

You’re both moving and not moving. Simply depends on your frame of reference. Unless you want to debate this as another bald assertion?

 

[Hume]

Veritas6:

These ordered series are not linear like a number line, but are hierarchical .

I’ve asked this question of others before…but can you describe for me the hierarchical causal series for a loaf of bread?

Genuinely funny.

 

[Latin]

If the future is known and cannot change (regardless by whom), then we cannot change the future. Therefore, we have no choice, and no free will.

I BELIEVE AS FOLLOWS

Without going into fine details, God’s knowledge does not determines our choices, our actions or our future.

If we freely choose our actions and God only simply knows our choices we can say we have Libertarian free will and our fate/ destiny is in us, we are the ones who choose heaven or hell.

In this case, God simply knows our will and our actions, practically we are the god of our life, not governed by God who is the sole and supreme ruler of the universe, we do whatever we choose to do, there are limitations, sometimes our limitation depends on the size of our valets.

.
Are we really the god of our life?

THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ANSWERS THE ABOVE QUESTION

CCC 308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.

CCC 307 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free, causes in order to complete the work of creation, … Though often unconscious collaborators with God’s will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions.

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will explains;
“God is the author of all causes and effects. God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe.”
.
WITH OTHER WORDS
God is the Author/ Scriptwriter, Director and exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen in the universe, includes all events/ acts of our life, furthermore all events/ acts Preordained from all Eternity.
.
Wow, as we see above, our Creator is the God of our life, He Designed, Decreed, Preordained all our events/ acts from all Eternity and in the sequences of time He causes us to perform our custom-made building works.
.
In this case our fate/ destiny is not in us, it is in God as the Summa Contra Gentiles explains it. – Our fate in God and hell of course DOES NOT MIX.

.
For Augustine says (De Civ. Dei v, 1) that the "Divine will or power is called fate.
But the Divine will or power is not in creatures, but in God. Therefore fate is not in creatures but in God.
.
The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.). Therefore all things are subject to fate.**

The same is true for events in our lives. Relative to us they often appear to be by chance.
But relative to God, who directs everything according to his divine plan, nothing occurs by chance.

Hence if this divine influence stopped, every operation would stop.
Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause. (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III.)
.
God bless

 

[whatistrue]

then God’s knowledge is contingent

I hope someone with a deeper knowledge of this will chime in, but I don’t think that is a proper use of “contingent”. When something is contingent on something else, it usually refers to that something’s existence, not necessarily a particular state. So the fact of God’s knowing is not contingent on our choice; the content of God’s knowing consists of the sum of our choices and, for that matter, all other things that are knowable, which in no way makes God contingent.

 

[whatistrue]

simply means that there is a causative relationship

Does this hold with the definition of “contingent” as used in philosophy? I am not so sure, but I am not an expert. I really wish someone who is would weigh in.

 

[Latin]

Can’t have both ways! Either our actions and decisions are primary, and then God is not sovereign, or God’s knowledge is primary and we simply act out his knowledge, in which case there is no free will. Pick your “poison”

THIS IS MY POSITION AS FOLLOWS
THE CHAIN OF CAUSALITY

The Mystery of Predestination by John Salza. (He is a Catholic apologist.)
Page 84. St. Thomas properly explains the chain of causality:

“It is to be observed that where there are several agents in order, the second always acts in virtue of the first: for the agent moves the second to act.

And thus all agents act in virtue of God Himself: and therefore He is the cause of action in every agent. ST, Pt I, Q 105, Art 5.

Because God is the cause of action in every agent, even man’s free will determination to do good comes from God.”

.
The Father William Most Collection
St. Augustine on Grace and Predestination

I.(1) “On human interaction with grace: Every good work, even good will, is the work of God.
.
De gratia Christi 25, 26: “For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it”
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: “It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good … . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act , providing most effective powers to the will.”
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
God bless

 

[o_mlly]

In an empirical world, observation is as good as we have.

A bit tautological, wouldn’t you say?

In a world limited to knowledge-by-observation, observation is as good as it gets.

Determinism is why we conduct experiments in the first place.

In the sub-group of sciences called the experimental or hard sciences, sure – seeing is believing. Not so much with the other empirical sciences, especially the historiographical ones – see a little, imagine a lot. Well, I suppose one could substitute “rationalize” for “imagine”.

There is some territory that will likely always belong to the metaphysical.

Not so fast. A lot more than just some. Meta - beyond and Physical - sense experience. One goes metaphysical whenever they go beyond their data. You know, things like black holes, dark matter, multiverses, quarks, species, etc… (I threw in “species” just for laughs!)

Your argument against free will is not empirical.

I don’t believe in God.
If what I don’t see does exist and knows everything and is all-powerful then free will doesn’t exist.

Get it? You’ve gone metaphysical to argue against what is clearly empirically verified. Just watch a kid at an ice cream parlor choosing his single scoop flavor for the day.

 

[Hume]

A bit tautological, wouldn’t you say?

In a world limited to knowledge-by-observation, observation is as good as it gets.

Not at all. Analytical reasoning itself is based on observation and only attempts to “pick up” where direct observation ends.

In the 800 and 2500 years since those two big thinkers, our powers of observation have expanded. The territory where they had to begin their analytics has been filled in with more observation (and, unsurprisingly, has shown some of their conclusions problematic).

In the sub-group of sciences called the experimental or hard sciences, sure – seeing is believing. Not so much with the other empirical sciences, especially the historiographical ones – see a little, imagine a lot. Well, I suppose one could substitute “rationalize” for “imagine”.

But then they don’t make the error of trying to suggest their imaginings as fact, in truth.

They’re honest when they begin to analytically wade out into the realms of conjecture.

Your argument against free will is not empirical.

Of course not. At present, neither the existence of free will nor absolute determinism can be demonstrated beyond doubt - as I’ve typed multiple, multiple times.

At present, the only guy in the room that’s indubitably right is the agnostic - Mr. “We Don’t Know”.

 

[o_mlly]

Not at all. Analytical reasoning itself is based on observation and only attempts to “pick up” where direct observation ends.

In the 800 and 2500 years since those two big thinkers, our powers of observation have expanded. The territory where they had to begin their analytics has been filled in with more observation (and, unsurprisingly, has shown some of their conclusions problematic).

We should also mention that the observations of past empiricists have also been quite amiss. Better observations as well as more cogent reasoning make for better science. The senses are as fallible as reason. No special place for a posteriori as being superior to a priori.

But then they don’t make the error of trying to suggest their imaginings as fact, in truth.

I thought I saw you post in the “Evolution vs Creation” thread. Please counsel your other empiricist evolutionists on fact vs. proposition. I keep reminding them but I fear they continue to ignore that fact (pun intended).

Of course not. At present, neither the existence of free will nor absolute determinism can be demonstrated beyond doubt - as I’ve typed multiple, multiple times.

At present, the only guy in the room that’s indubitably right is the agnostic - Mr. “We Don’t Know”.

Mr. Agnostic is hardly ever worth the time to converse with. He doesn’t know and strongly asserts that neither do you.

 

[Autumnfa]

Oh I love this question!! Father mike Schmitz explains this very well.

Let’s go back to Lucifer, we all know the story of Lucifer being cast down to hell With other angels and saints who followed him as well. That gives us knowledge angels and saints have free will as well.(GAME CHANGER!) God actually gave up a degree of power for us to have free will so we pick and choose we have a choice and he’s aware of what choices we will pick but he gives us a chance to change that.
So there is Gods perfect will and permissive will
Gods perfect will is everything he has for us goes as planned it’s all perfect. So keep in mind angels are not allowed to intervene for our blessings or anything like that. The devil is allowed to put temptations in our path way and tragic things to happen. Example being a car wreck. let’s say Johnny was drinking and his buddy says just stay here for the night but Johnny has to go to work so he drives home resulting in a car wreck with two other people. One person suffers from blood loss and dies. The other passenger suffered from paralysis now Johnny is locked up. Okay so the one that suffered from blood loss and the one suffered from paralysis now God wouldn’t ever want to see a loss of his children or see them suffer. So here comes God with a back up plan! So his plan b for these two lives one came to heaven let’s say and the other now advocates for drunk driving to young adults and teens. So baisically is a back up plan Johnny now is in the cell but god still isn’t done with him just because he’s in jail he could find faith bring other people to faith help turn people away from bad life choices as well.

So we have free will if we allow God to use us a vessel and we choose our choices yes God knows what we will pick but he does not force us he gives us a chance to save ourselves. It’s a beautiful thing and it shows how much God loves us. That being said also did you know we don’t have to go to hell yes there’s purgatory but we don’t have to follow the devil either. Anyways
May be confusing
May not
May have helped don’t know.
Hope it did though
Prayers and blessings
Autumn xoxo