Free will? I dont think so

[Hume]

No special place for a posteriori as being superior to a priori.

But it is.

A priori “truth” is purely analytics. And as stated above, the further you get from observation, the greater the threat posed to your position by Gettier.

Observed truth is highly confirmable. Analytics aren’t.

After all, what do you call someone who refuses to acknowledge observable reality and favors their own analytics? Schizophrenic.

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

There’s a lot of power in his companionship. He has the ability to separate identifiable fact from emotional ideology.

 

[Gorgias]

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

Quite. Therefore, the requirement to have observation as our measure of truth is malformed.

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

God (not “a god”) has revealed it to us. Jesus has affirmed this (and then substantiated His claims to divinity).

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

You really aren’t, although I appreciate that this is what you might believe. When we use words like “eternal” to describe God, we’re not using “temporal language”, as you assert.

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.

Meh. Scientists who propose “multiverses” do it all the time, and they too have “no observable data … to even suggest a thing”. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Or do you just prefer to hold to a double standard?

Regardless how you feel about the choice, it was created and known by god before the foundations of the universe.

Nope – yet again, you’re using a temporal interpretation to describe atemporal realities. This is really getting quite tedious.

Since your god exists at all points in time simultaneously

Nope. That’s just sloppy phrasing. It’s been pointed out time and again to you.

 

[whatistrue]

you must remove remorse about the incident since remorse is a defect of the mind

I disagree with that. Remorse is what brings one to Confession and started the process that caused the sin to be absolved. In that sense remorse is good.

What I was rationalizing is the fact that if you retained your memories and your feelings how could this not affect your perfected state in heaven and that to your detriment?

Retaining the memory of murdering your mother and your feelings about the incident while you are in heaven would be miserable

Because in Heaven you have a complete understanding of yourself and others, and the effect your actions had on them. And also a complete understanding of God’s justice and mercy. So your thinking is different than a living human still on Earth.

"Is there a reason God couldn’t just skip the evolving, impossible for humans but possible for God, and simply create us already evolved in our understanding since that is the goal anyway?

The obvious answer here is “He has the power to do so, and there is a reason He chose not to, but we don’t know for sure what it is, only God does”. Of course if your basic assumption is that God does not exist, that isn’t helpful. But then why would you even ask if you think He doesn’t exist?

 

[o_mlly]

But it is.

A priori “truth” is purely analytics. And as stated above, the further you get from observation, the greater the threat posed to your position by Gettier.

Observed truth is highly confirmable. Analytics aren’t.

After all, what do you call someone who refuses to acknowledge observable reality and favors their own analytics? Schizophrenic.

Nope. The fallibility of both sense experience (a posteriori knowledge) and reason (a priori knowledge) render all judgments that proceed from either or both to remain in the realm of doubt.

To see why, examine the conditions necessary for certitude. A judgment belongs in the realm of certitude when it (1) cannot be challenged by the consideration of new evidence either from additional or improved observations, nor (2) can it be criticized by improved reasoning or the detection of inadequacies or errors in the reasoning previously employed.

In contrast, a judgment is subject to doubt if there is any possibility at all (1) of its being challenged in the light of additional or more accurate observations or (2) of its being criticized on the basis of more cogent or more comprehensive reasoning.

Applying the standard logical rules of inference to a particular observation would seem to make the observation less confimable than the analytics.

Isn’t an articulate schizophrenic merely delusional?

There’s a lot of power in his companionship. He has the ability to separate identifiable fact from emotional ideology.

Like Chicken Little did?

 

[Gorgias]

Why does God allow the race if he can place you at the goal without it since when you reach the goal anything you would have went through to get there which made you able to reach the goal could be placed within you by God at the goal without the need of going through the race? You’d essentially be the same person either way. This renders the race ARBITRARY to achieving the goal.

I disagree, on two counts:

• First, by ‘running’ the race, you aren’t essentially the same person who hasn’t done so. Your decisions, actions, and experiences really do impact the person who you are.
• Second, if the first point is true, then a God who “allows the race” even though He “can place you at the goal without it” truly is a Good Father, since your efforts can lead you to greater virtue.

In other words, the race is anything but ‘arbitrary’. It is good. (And, God is not “limited in His ability”, either. )

 

[Dolphin]

Because whatever I do is what I am supposed to do already.

Here is your error. We have many choices in life. God knows what choices we ultimately make but it is our choice. For instance, I could decide to go buy a $20 lotto ticket or $20 worth of food for my family. Two different choices and I have full control over which I chose. But God knows what I choose.

Now you are saying we will still do what we are suppose to do… if I choose the lotto ticket I am spending money worthlessly while my family is hungry. This would be sinful and not what we should do. As such, God knows what we will do but it’s not always what we should do.

Your argument suggests that a serial killer is born to kill and God knows they will do this and as such they should kill. But this makes no sense as the serial killer could decide not to kill.

 

[Veritas6]

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.

Again, we have metaphysical underpinnings that allow for determinism to occur. You are using analytical reasoning to make your point here. Determinism cannot conflict with the act/potency distinction, because that’s the underlying mechanism that allows for any change.

Unfortunately you do not understand how this works. The act/potency distinction or any other form of change must exist before determinism or indeterminism occurs. Does an animatronic animal move because of its fur or because of the robotics? In the same way determinism needs a mechanism in order to work. You have only stated determinism works because determinism works. (1/3)

 

[Veritas6]

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.

What’s the empirical truth that science will always be the victor? You’re using philosophy here to make your point. Science cannot invalidate a metaphysic in the same way rain outside of a car doesn’t get you wet, no matter how much rain. The car must be there first before the rain can be displaced.

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.

Exactly, I agree. How does matter interact with matter? Simply saying it does because it does becomes circular reasoning.

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.

No problem, but this doesn’t strictly prove determinism. I can easily say these are predictable models of flight that a rock will take most if not all of the time. The skeptic in me wouldn’t conclude determinism, that takes philosophizing on top of the science. I’m philosophizing underneath the science to provide a coherent concept of change before science can occur.

I’m sympathetic to the idea of determinism as it doesn’t conflict with act/potency because it is not a strict mechanism of change. If you have good proof this can just as easily go along with my understanding of change. I don’t see good proof but God could use determinism on top of the act/potency metaphysic like wearing a coat, no problem. (2/3)

 

[Veritas6]

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.

So if we are unable to observe something empirically, therefore it’s not a good question? Seems quite dogmatic to cease thinking.

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

Is there a problem with analytical reasoning no matter who formulated it? I say so and you say so, does that invalidate both our reasoning?

The difference between act/potency and determinism is act/potency is a method to explain change, but determinism only posits one change occurs from one effect; hardly enough to explain how change occurs, not just the mode in which it occurs.

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.

Science cannot prove or disprove metaphysics, as science relies on the metaphysics or first principles in order to work.

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?

From one of our CAF posters (I’m not sure who unfortunately): there is relativity in the description and measurement of things, but not in the things themselves. If you say A is moving, then you are simply saying that A is in motion. If A is moving 60 mph to the right, then you are mathematically describing its motion. When describing motion, you need to specify your system of reference. You or I could think of A moving at 60 mph relative to the ground. A physicist might picture empty space or with objects B and C, but you cannot describe your motion without specifying what you regard as stationary. Therefore, there is relativity in describing the motion of A relative to B and C. There is no relativity in the fact that A, B, and C are moving relative to each other. Observed motion in the world is not relative, it is the description of motion that is relative. (3/3)

 

[whatistrue]

As humans, we must wait for the contingent realization (or not) of the battle, logic realizes itself afterwards. Regardless of knowledge of an entity not bound by or part of our temporal framework, even if event X does take place tomorrow, our decisions that lead to event X are freely chosen within our temporal framework.

 

[Hume]

So if we are unable to observe something empirically, therefore it’s not a good question? Seems quite dogmatic to cease thinking.

Who suggested that?

Form a hypothesis and try to test it. Thinking and finding replicable answers is the name of the game!

The difference between act/potency and determinism is act/potency is a method to explain change, but determinism only posits one change occurs from one effect; hardly enough to explain how change occurs,

Again, it’s too vague.

Determinism mere posits that an event couldn’t have happened any other way (which would fit nicely with a sovereign god, no?).

If you want to know how, a chemist or physicist (or a combo of both) would be able to provide you with a detailed, observable, measurable answer.

From one of our CAF posters (I’m not sure who unfortunately): there is relativity in…

…And the source of motion stops at the big bang.

It’s the answer to nearly all the “paradoxes” that are used to try and shoe-horn a deity into the classic arguments.

We’re just left with “So what caused that?”
And the answer is: We don’t know.

What’s the empirical truth that science will always be the victor?

Certainty about a truth than cannot be confirmed is schizophrenia.

Exactly, I agree. How does matter interact with matter? Simply saying it does because it does becomes circular reasoning.

In the case of the sodium and chlorine ions, you go into a nice discussion about electron shells.

No problem, but this doesn’t strictly prove determinism.

I’ve said ad nauseam that absolute determinism cannot be proofed beyond doubt any more than the existence of free will. I’ve only said that there’s good evidence for it.

I don’t see good proof but God…

I don’t see good proof of this god, unfortunately.

Again, we have metaphysical underpinnings that allow for determinism to occur.

Sure. We have observable evidence that suggests it even if metaphysics decided to be stingy about allowing it - unlike evidence for the reality of metaphysics itself.

Unfortunately you do not understand how this works. The act/potency distinction or any other form of change must exist before determinism or indeterminism occurs.

I do though. But the systema constructed with it also requires potentiality. In a seemingly deterministic universe, a piece of wood that does not have a combustion source is a piece of wood that cannot burn, even if identical pieces of wood in other settings could.

Chemistry explains “potency” in a much better and measurable way. Thus, chemistry has superceded the idea. The only reason people hold on to it is because it was once used to make their deity seem inevitable in a world before the big bang.

But time moved on, I’m afraid…

 

[Hume]

Nope. That’s just sloppy phrasing. It’s been pointed out time and again to you.

This was the only tidbit I found worth responding to-

No. According to your beliefs, God created the universe and is continually present all all points in time of that universe.

It created “In the Beginning” at the same time it created the most grisly things to have ever occurred. It just doesn’t sit very well with some of the softer descriptions your preceding coreligionists have attempted to ascribe to their god.

 

[Latin]

This is the Naval battle analogy.
Thus, if something is ALWAYS TRUE, it can never NOT be true. In which case, there was never any choice to ever make.

LET’S SEE THE RELATING TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).

.
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.”

.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains.

“His wisdom He so orders all events within the universe that the end for which it was created may be realized.
God preserves the universe in being; He acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.”
.
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.
.
The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.).

.
You said Jan10000: If you cannot address this well-known philosophical paradox you cannot claim we have free will.

The way the Church addresses this well-known philosophical paradox:

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. – All our choices made by God from all eternity, He knows what is the best for us.
.
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.

.
WITH ONE SENTENCE
All our acts Designed, Decreed, Preordained by God form all Eternity and (as we are all God’s builders) He causes all of us in order to complete the work of creation.

As God infused faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO HIS WILL into us, we freely will what God wills us to will, and we FREELY do what God wills and causes to do.
.
As all our acts Designed, Decreed, Preordained by God form all Eternity and He causes all of us in order to complete the work of creation WE HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE and WE DON’T WANT ANOTHER CHOICE.
.
God created us, He created our works to do, He created all our choices and without we even know it He continually provides them to us, He also created our obedient wills as follows.

CCCS 1990-1991; “In this gift, faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are given to us.”

CCC 2022; The divine initiative (supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul) in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
God bless

 

[valencia]

For me now too.
If my future is present for God so I can’t see many sense of it.

So its all illusion if even I have choice, God know what I choose…

But still I believe a bit that my theory is fake

 

[Freddy]

The difference between act/potency and determinism is act/potency is a method to explain change, but determinism only posits one change occurs from one effect; hardly enough to explain how change occurs,

Again, it’s too vague.

Determinism mere posits that an event couldn’t have happened any other way (which would fit nicely with a sovereign god, no?).

But that would mean that God is intentionally guiding us in what we do. It’s either that or we can decide ourselves. So the question is, could the world as it is now been any different. If we have free will then that must be the case. Everyone could have decided to take any number of paths at any time and it would be impossible for the world to be the same if we ‘re-ran’ the tape.

Let’s say that determinism is true and we have no free will. And say there was a mirror existence where the initial conditions were exactly the same. Therefore everything from the big bang to the present moment would turn out exactly the same. You are sitting there in both existences reading this right now.

Now let’s say that God has decided that free will would be a good thing to have so He grants it to us at this very moment. And you (in both existences) make a decision to continue reading this or get a beer from the fridge.

Why would the two worlds divert from each other at this point? Because one of you decides, at that moment, to carry on reading and the other gets the beer using your free will? But what are the reasons for one decision being ‘continue reading’ and the other being ‘get beer’? Literally everything has been exactly the same. If you decided to get a beer then the reasons would be the same in each case (imagine if one existence was running a few minutes behind the other. If you saw ‘get beer’ in one then you’d see it in the other a few minutes later).

This is the equivalent of re-running the tape. And either the decisions are the same based on what has gone before or they are not. If they are not then it would mean that the reasons don’t count. That decisions are effectively arbitrary. Maybe we could describe the decisions as ‘uncaused causes’ (which kinda rings a bell).

So determinism is true. And decisions, if not arbitrary, are based on reasons that depend on that which has gone before. And you are obviously, by definition, making a decision. But that’s not the equivalent of having free will.

 

[Latin]

So its all illusion if even I have choice, God know what I choose…

When an architect designed a building, he designed every event down to its minutest details which need to take place to complete his building.

He gives the builders the building design, which contains every event down to its minutest details.

He causes every event/ act, which events/ acts tailor made to each of his builders to complete the building.

His building design creates/causes the builders their DETERMINED WILL and their DETERMINED CHOICES which determined choices need to perform to complete his building.

.
GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND WE ARE HIS BUILDERS

God designed the universe includes this world, He Designed, Decreed, Foreordained and He causes every event/ act according to His design down to its minutest details which need to take place to complete His creation.

Without even knowing, we are God’s builders, every choice we make, every act we perform, tailor made to each of us, and Designed, Decreed, Foreordained by God from all eternity and He causes us to do in order to complete the work of creation.

.
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.” – This can be happen only if God Designed, Decreed, Foreordained and He causes every our choices and every our acts according to His design of the Universe.
.
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.
.
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.
.
We should be JOYFUL AND REJOICE for this fact, because IT IS A POSITIVE PROOF THAT OUR FATE/ DESTINY IS NOT IN US BUT IT IS IN GOD.
.
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.)
.
As we see Valencia, this is THE GREATEST NEWS that the Human race can ever have.
.
God bless

 

[whatistrue]

I never said I think that God doesn’t exist.

Which is why I said “if”.

the hunt continues and the questions stand unresolved for now

At a certain point, faith is necessary. We can determine what God said and meant, but not always why He said it. Remember the “My ways are not your ways” quote.

 

[o_mlly]

But that would mean that God is intentionally guiding us in what we do. It’s either that or we can decide ourselves.

False. God constantly guides us to do His will and we decide for ourselves.

Determinism’s argument against free will claims that the tautology: Which having been must ever be proves free will to be false (apologies to Wordsworth). But the latter just does not logically follow from the former. Whoever reads Moby Dick will always read that Ahab chases the big white whale.

That a being exists outside time and is all knowing offers no support to their argument either. Knowing does not infer causing. Show us an example from experience where knowledge alone in the one also conferred on that one the power of causing an effect on another.

That a being exists outside time and is all powerful offers no support to their argument either. By definition an all powerful being can choose to control or not control the things over which it has dominion. The argument that an all powerful being must do anything is internally incoherent. The all powerful can do anything but must do nothing.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But that would mean that God is intentionally guiding us in what we do. It’s either that or we can decide ourselves.

False. God constantly guides us to do His will and we decide for ourselves.

Determinism’s argument against free will claims that the tautology: Which having been must ever be proves free will to be false (apologies to Wordsworth). But the latter just does not logically follow from the former. Whoever reads Moby Dick will always read that Ahab chases the big white whale.

That a being exists outside time and is all knowing offers no support to their argument either. Knowing does not infer causing. Show us an example from experience where knowledge alone in the one also conferred on that one the power of causing an effect on another.

That a being exists outside time and is all powerful offers no support to their argument either. By definition an all powerful being can choose to control or not control the things over which it has dominion. The argument that an all powerful being must do anything is internally incoherent. The all powerful can do anything but must do nothing.

I wasn’t making an argument that God’s omniscience somehow denies our free will.

And determinism isn’t an argument against free will either. If the world is determined then free will is either compatible with it or not. You need more than just showing determinism exists. My initial point was that if the world is determined then as Hume said earlier, events couldn’t happen any other way than the way they do.

But is God responsible for determining existence or does he let things play out as as they will?

 

[valencia]

Hmmm okay
I meant rather knowing choice as: God see I can choose sin or no sin. And really He dont know what I choose? He dont know my choice between two things?
Or its really as you say, God let us free will and we decide cause we were built by him