Free will? I dont think so

[valencia]

Is it like- even free will He know what I will do? Or He wait to the moment I choose?

Does God can change his mind, his opinion?

And we can ask- something is determined. Okay. But if future is free, so it can’t exist now.
So why God know something doesnt exist? What He determined something which is not possible to know?

If will is free, why was showed biblical prophercy? If future is something we create…

Or maybe God is really an architect, He create everything and He look what we are choosing.

But it’s still a question- even my free will- God know what I choose from choices?

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Determinism in the material universe underlies all science. No one argues otherwise (the quantum fellows notwithstanding). The argument is about human action. Are we just as the sodium ion? No. Demonstrate that human action is as predictable as the sodium ion. That would be a start.

 

[Latin]

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

God knows everything we do and He loves us very much and He helps us in every way.

God permits us to sin for the reason to convert our sins into greater good.

CCC 324 Faith gives us the certainty that God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life.

CCC 301 God does not abandon his creatures to themselves.
He not only gives them being and existence, but also, and at every moment, upholds and sustains them in being, utter dependence enables them to act and brings them to their final end .
Recognizing this with respect to the Creator is a source of wisdom and freedom, of joy and confidence.
.
God bless

 

[Veritas6]

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…

My friend, unfortunately you seriously do not understand what I’m talking about. We both have different understandings of potency. I’ll keep repeating myself but it appears you have made up your mind; we have reached an impasse. You are misinformed about Thomist metaphysics, but it’s understandable, I hardly know enough about this rich philosophy. I encourage you to ask questions and be open to learn more about Thomism. You can join this Thomism Discussion Group on Facebook to ask serious questions to serious philosophers on these tough issues. Hopefully they can clear up any misunderstandings, they take questions gracefully and have intelligent answers (much more than what I could ever do).

I have been quite busy but I have enjoyed this time dialoguing with you. Members on this forum who do a much better job include: @Wesrock, @Aquinas11, @IWantGod, @Magnanimity. The Thomism Group on Facebook has professional philosophers (as there’s less anonymity), I hope you check it out. I am praying for you and I wish you and your family well, especially during this time. God bless you.

 

[Veritas6]

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

Here is a short video that might help to understand act & potency:

(This question must be answered first before we can apply determinism to the discussion).

Here is another that explains what we believe when we say we can be free agents with a sovereign God:

Here is the Thomist understanding of freedom:

This is the complete playlist of these short videos that explain St. Thomas’ philosophy much better (not including the supplementary podcasts and articles): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_kd4Kgq4tP8e1BBGrC-eFlp86fqyvGex

 

[valencia]

Even everything i can’t still understand one thing. does our free will create future? Or its determined?

Does Jesus was for 100% sure that Peter and Judas will cheat Him? Or He was sure but waited for better decision? Maybe this second right but really I can’t understand…

Is future abstraction we create? Or no?

 

[whatistrue]

I get the feeling that you are assuming that our mental processes and psychology will not change in Heaven, which is not necessarily the case. And I am obviously making some assumptions of my own. So as far as I can tell, we just have to wait and see how it really is.

However that quote doesn’t mean that everything that God does is incomprehensible when concerning humans.

I never said everything. In fact I specifically said that we can determine what He said (the revelatory statements you mentioned), but not always why. Note the emphasis on the word that was there in the quote. I just think that some things we simply cannot comprehend. There are a great many things we can “get”, but even more that we can’t.

Walking around the track is boring; can we maybe take a different path for a change in scenery?

 

[valencia]

Does Bible says anything? Any one quote?

Some of you say that is determined some no. I had reas your opinions. But the one question is still in my mind.

 

[Gorgias]

According to your beliefs, God created the universe and is continually present all all points in time of that universe.

From our frame of reference? Sure, that’s one way to look at it. From God’s frame of reference, it’s not a “continual” presence in the context of “points in time”. It’s an eternal presence that’s atemporal.

It created “In the Beginning” at the same time it created the most grisly things to have ever occurred.

May I start calling you “it”, too? Some respect for the God we’re discussing (and in which your interlocutors believe) would be appreciated, please.

(p.s., it’s still expressing atemporal notions with temporal references. I wish it would stop doing that.)

Here is where my personal studies have brought me to disagree. I also believe that, the general promotion of most of Christianity is that the future actually exists not just as potential. Of course what this means I am probably in disagreement with most.

No problems. I think, though, that I would nuance your position as “from a human frame of reference, we perceive of the future as ‘potential’, rather than ‘actual’, since we do not have access to it; in God’s frame of reference, it is actual.” That would seem to cover both the non-deterministic aspects of our understanding of the future as well as the notion of God’s knowledge of it.

Jupp:

“Existence is absolute , not relative to the observer”.

I believe your correct. But I also believe that existence in its entirety is absolute. Past, present, and future.

Existence is absolute. Perception, on the other hand, is subjective and relative to the observer.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, this would be true IF you were working under the premise that no other possibility exists whereby the person you’ve became because of the race cannot be created without having to run the race.

No, that’s not true. I’m not making the case for any particular end result, but rather, simply that experiences affect end results. Maybe the event “your neighbor passes away when you’re eight years old” has the same impact on your development as the event “your favorite puppy dies when you’re five years old.” I’m not talking about the particular value of the end state of your psyche, which is what you seem to be addressing. Rather, I’m merely pointing out that the experience of any / some / all of these events really does affect the person who you become. On the other hand, you seem to be making the claim that it’s all the same to the person you are, whether you experience these things or not. That’s seems counter-intuitive to the point of falsity.

If we divorce any benefits the race would give the person which the person could retain

That’s the whole point, though. If you throw out that data point, then you can make the case you’re making. If you don’t throw it out, then your case weakens.

So the question remains, why do we have to go through misery just to retain the memory of that misery

You’ve answered your own question: because it’s not just the ‘memory’ that matters.

Can you name a virtue that cannot be instilled into a person upon their creation without going through a process of development?

Love.

If our misery is not of necessity but arbitrary to Gods will

Two questions:

• why do you equate ‘experience’ with ‘misery’? Besides being highly prejudicial to the discussion, not to mention inaccurate, it also appears to be a particularly disturbing approach to ‘life’.
• The opposite of ‘necessity’ isn’t ‘arbitrariness’, but merely ‘contingency’.

 

[Gorgias]

So you deny the perception.

No. I deny perception is objective.

On what grounds?

On the grounds that it’s inherently subjective.

Perception is not limited to one (or more) of our physical senses, it involves ALL of our senses and ALL of their extensions.

Irrelevant. Whether you perceive with one or five senses, it is still your own personal, subjective perception.

If there is something that cannot be perceived by our senses and all of their extensions, then the only rational conclusion is that this “existence” is irrelevant.

Only if you’re a strict materialist. Or a solipsist (which leads in a different direction entirely).

And before you start to talk about the concepts (perfect circle) or imaginary beings (seven headed fire breathing dragons) we are talking about objective, ontologically existing phenomena, not the result of our imagination.

That distinction – ‘objective’ vs ‘imagination’ (as the only two possibilities) – is pure materialism. You’d need to prove that stance, first, before you apply its conclusions.

 

[AlNg]

No matter what God predicts, the human can purposefully do something else -

That is a question. If determinism was true for everything, including human actions, should we be able to predict what will occur, since it is determined? Suppose so. Suppose the the prediction was that I would eat an apple at 2: 00 PM tomorrow. Tomorrow comes, and I knowing the prediction, decide that I will defeat it and prove my free will by eating a hot dog instead.
It has already been mentioned that determinism is true in some areas, such as throwing a rock up in the air or boiling water, but I don’t see determinism as fully operational for many human actions.

 

[Gorgias]

No, YOU need to prove that there is something else. You may postulate something else as a hypothesis (anyone can postulate hypotheses) but as the old saying goes: “freely asserted, freely denied” unless you can bring up arguments for your view.

You realize that you didn’t “bring up arguments for your view”, right?

Of course “subjective” is he same as “imaginary” is your mind.

Pardon?

And before you try to turn the table and ask “what would I accept as evidence?” this question is in “bad faith”. I don’t need (nor do I want) to help you by limiting the realm of your “proofs”. Choose whatever you want, present it, and THEN I will be in the position to accept or discard it.

Why should I attempt to bring evidence that you’ll reject a priori? Why is it reasonable for you to ask for evidence that you’ll reject a priori?

I don’t need (nor do I want) to help you

Oh… so, you’re setting yourself up as antagonistic? Got it.

 

[AlNg]

If there is something that cannot be perceived by our senses and all of their extensions, then the only rational conclusion is that this “existence” is irrelevant.

There has been discussion of a multiverse or parallel universes which AFAIK cannot be perceived by our senses. Is the existence of an unperceived multiverse irrelevant? Some are going to contend that the existence of a multiverse is relevant to various physics theories which have been proposed.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

Determinism in the material universe underlies all science. No one argues otherwise (the quantum fellows notwithstanding). The argument is about human action. Are we just as the sodium ion? No. Demonstrate that human action is as predictable as the sodium ion. That would be a start.

A deterministic world doesn’t mean that you can predict everything. Don’t confuse the two. But regarding determinism, see post 660. Why would two decisions be different in two worlds that are exactly the same?

 

[Gorgias]

There is no need to bring up special arguments for the obvious.

I see. So, what you hold to be true is “obvious”, but what believers hold to be true, requires substantiation. Got it.

I do not reject ANYTHING a-priori. That was another bad faith assumption on your part.

Great. So, when I present eyewitness accounts from antiquity as evidence, you’re willing to accept them?

It is ridiculous to expect to ask one party to argue for the opposing one.

It is likewise ridiculous to tilt at windmills. Just trying to understand the context for our discussion…

 

[AlNg]

without any foundation those are just empty propositions

I thought that the multiverse theory did have a foundation as being based on two independent established aspects of physics: the properties of cosmic inflation and quantum field theory? The multiverse theory is not observable, but it supposedly is a consequence of inflation and quantum physics.

 

[AlNg]

The mathematics behind the quantum mechanics is very well established, but the philosophical corollaries are not.

What does that tell you about the reliability of philosophical speculation?

 

[petra22]

No, it’s because God is outside of time… That’s why He knows all and sees all. He’s there all the time. All time is present to Him… Right?

 

[AlNg]

After all the luminiferous aether was a speculation, but it was falsified.

If so, why did Paul Dirac say we are forced to have an aether?

Wayback Machine