Free will? I dont think so

[valencia]

What does CCC and Bible says about future existing? I couldnt find anything and possible it’s my problem in finding.

For me future is potential but if for God not- then sense of praying maybe confessing, listening Jesus and reading Bible is illusion.

If something is determined- that means free will is fake.

 

[Freddy]

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?

This rings a bell…and there was no response as I recall.

And not directed at you, Jupp.

 

[Freddy]

Jupp:

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.

That’s true. One of the ‘flavours’ of the multiverse proposals (there are many) is the one predicted by the concept of cosmic inflation.

 

[Latin]

What does CCC and Bible says about future existing?

Ephesians 1:10
To be put into effect when the times reach their fulfilment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
.
Colossians 1:20
And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
.
As we see in the Bible, when the time comes in the future, will be peace and perfect unity in heaven and on the earth under Christ and life everlasting.
.
The best we can do now is to study the Bible, praying, confessing, go to Church and to help others.

If something is determined- that means free will is fake.

God made His Plan for the Universe, includes this Earth, His Plan is Decreed/ Determined and Foreordained. – His plan cannot change.
.
Because God’s Plan is Decreed/ Determined, doesn’t mean our wills are fake under every situation.
.
It means, our “free wills” has limitations , for example, for us would be useless to will something which would contradict God’s Decreed, Design/ Plan of the universe or this world.

.
ANOTHER CLAMPDOWN ON OUR “FREE WILLS.”

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide dogma)

There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).
.
Without God’s help, our free wills are useless, simply doesn’t work, like an electric light doesn’t work without electric power.

Electric light + electric power = Works.

Our free wills + God’s aides = Works, it is free will.

Our “free wills” – God aides = Fake will.

.
It is also true, for us useless to will something which would contradict God’s Decreed Plan because God would not provide to it His aide, and our will couldn’t work.

As we see, our Free wills are not exactly Free wills/ Libertarian free wills, because limitations on it.

God only provides His aides to our wills when our wills are in perfect line with His Decreed Plan, otherwise our Free wills are Useless wills or Fake wills.
.
YOU ARE VALENCIA CORRECT

If something is Determined and our “free wills” are not in perfect line with it, that means our “free wills” are fake wills.

Our “free wills,” without God’s aide. = Fake wills.

.
The Council of Sens (1140) condemned the idea that free will is sufficient in itself for any good. Donez., 373.

Council of Orange (529)
In canon 20, entitled that Without God Man Can Do No Good. . . Denz., 193; quoting St. Prosper.

In canon 22, says, “ No one has anything of his own except lying and sin. Denz., 194; quoting St. Prosper.
.
God bless

 

[valencia]

Yes everything would be with God
But I meant something not you mean.
I meant simple situations as God knows my choices before I choose… In that situations free will would be fake.

In that you said-not. Is difference between God’s plan for forever life and simple life situations

 

[valencia]

Free will for me means I have a choice. Nkt every. I cant fly, I cant sinf like opwra singer, I donr want to live in permament sin.

But for me situations like God know I make a sin and if here would be only ONE WAY that I’ll make it and God knows that i cant change my mind->

here would be fake. If its not like that then free will is true. And its true as you said in your examples.

 

[o_mlly]

A deterministic world doesn’t mean that you can predict everything.

Yes, it does mean exactly that.

But regarding determinism, see post 660. Why would two decisions be different in two worlds that are exactly the same?

In such a thought experiment, the math just doesn’t allow it. In two identities there can be no differences. For example, I’m at Barnes & Noble peering at multiple paperback copies of Melville’s “Moby Dick”. What are the chances that in one those books, Ahab does not chase the white whale? None.

If human actions are determined then those actions are predictable just as the action of the salt ion in the presence of a chlorine ion is predictable. But human actions are not that predictable. The human will to act is not bound to natural laws. The human will is free of nature.

 

[whatistrue]

Everything that is corroborated by the senses is obvious

Then…

The police investigations prove that eye-witnesses make honest mistakes.

So if at least one of the senses is known to be unreliable, how can you show that everything corroborated by the senses is obvious? It looks to me like you just refuted your own position.

 

[whatistrue]

I wonder, why is this disputed?

Because you are limiting reality to what humans perceive. I don’t.

 

[Freddy]

In such a thought experiment, the math just doesn’t allow it. In two identities there can be no differences. For example, I’m at Barnes & Noble peering at multiple paperback copies of Melville’s “Moby Dick”. What are the chances that in one those books, Ahab does not chase the white whale? None.

As I said, determinism doesn’t mean you can predict everything. It’s a physical impossibility even in simple systems. In any case, it’s not relevant to my point as we both agree that the world is deterministic.

But what you have noted above shows exactly what I mean. In two identical worlds, Melville would make exactly the same decisions in each. For example, he would decide the whale was white. And spoiler alert, he would decide that Ahab dies. Nothing would change. Because all the reasons he had to make those decisions in one world would be exactly the same in the other.

To say that he could have changed his mind in World B is to say that he had a different reason to make a different decision. But in an identical world there are no different reasons. To say that he could have changed his mind without a reason takes it out of the scope of free will. To say that he could have changed his mind because he was in a different mood would mean that there must have been different conditions to put him in a different mood. But the conditions were identical.

Which doesn’t mean to say that decisions are predictable in the way that a chemical reaction is. They aren’t. They are immensely complex. To say that we cannot predict a decision doesn’t mean it’s a free will decision. It’s not a valid argument.

As far as I can see, your argument for free will is likely going to be that our mind/brain is somehow separate from the physical world. I could then show you that it’s an evolved organ and simply more complex than those found in our ancestors. But we have a problem there, don’t we… You don’t believe in an evolved brain because you don’t believe in evolution.

 

[o_mlly]

To say that we cannot predict a decision doesn’t mean it’s a free will decision. It’s not a valid argument.

The double negatives aside, the question is not an argument but a challenge to determinism: If human action is determined then human action is predictable. You admit that human action is not predictable, negating the consequent. I agree. Doing so certainly impinges on the truth value of the conditional.

My argument was posted long ago in this thread:

In the succession of time, one can change their future decisions and the resulting outcomes of those decisions. The notion of virtue, the habit of choosing correctly, makes this so.

Determinism attempts to refute this truth by arguing that in specific circumstances, specific persons cannot choose otherwise. They imagine incorrectly that if future circumstances are identical to the past, that one will necessarily make the same choice. Not true. We may not be able to change circumstances but we can change ourselves. A vicious person can become a virtuous person with grace.

Examples range for St. Paul and Augustine to Bono.

Your argument is to imagine in an unreal thought experiment that in two identities there can be no differences. We didn’t need to imagine anything to arrive at a self-evident truth. Do you have a less unreal argument to demonstrate your claim?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

To say that we cannot predict a decision doesn’t mean it’s a free will decision. It’s not a valid argument.

The double negatives aside, the question is not an argument but a challenge to determinism: If human action is determined then human action is predictable. You admit that human action is not predictable, negating the consequent. I agree. Doing so certainly impinges on the truth value of the conditional.

My argument was posted long ago in this thread:

In the succession of time, one can change their future decisions and the resulting outcomes of those decisions. The notion of virtue, the habit of choosing correctly, makes this so.

Determinism attempts to refute this truth by arguing that in specific circumstances, specific persons cannot choose otherwise. They imagine incorrectly that if future circumstances are identical to the past, that one will necessarily make the same choice. Not true. We may not be able to change circumstances but we can change ourselves. A vicious person can become a virtuous person with grace.

Examples range for St. Paul and Augustine to Bono.

Your argument is to imagine in an unreal thought experiment that in two identities there can be no differences. We didn’t need to imagine anything to arrive at a self-evident truth. Do you have a less unreal argument to demonstrate your claim?

I’ll not comment on the ability or not to predict human behaviour because it doesn’t impinge on free will.

Your statement as noted above is not an argument. It’s simply a statment that we are not governed by circumstances. I’ve nothing to refute. Unless you have something more then I’ll stick with my argument.

 

[o_mlly]

I’ll not comment on the ability or not to predict human behaviour because it doesn’t impinge on free will.

That would be a comment disguised as a non-comment. Incorrect, but a comment nonetheless.

Your statement as noted above is not an argument. It’s simply a statment that we are not governed by circumstances. I’ve nothing to refute.

Surely you could try to refute the argument evidenced by men that have changed their past decisions in the future under essentially identical circumstances. But because you have free will you choose not to. Kinda proves my point.

 

[valencia]

So at least- is future ONE AND DETERMINED?
OR ABSTRACT AND PLANNED BUT NOT IN EVERY MOMENT BUT JUST IN PLAN?
I dont ask of God’s plan which is one.

I ask of every situations like going work, eating food and die of coronavirus.

 

[whatistrue]

The senses present the correct physical signals, but under some circumstances they may be incorrectly interpreted.

Not entirely accurate. There can be errors in reception, errors in transmission, errors in processing (which is different from interpretation), etc. even in a normally functioning person.

 

[Gorgias]

Everything that is corroborated by the senses is obvious.

That’s hardly true. Our senses often deceive us! From a philosophical perspective, the whole debate over ‘qualia’ speaks to the subjective experience of ‘sense’!

What the theists assert is not available to the senses.

And therefore, should not be judged by the same standards by which we judge sense-able phenomena! Exactly!

Of course if they would be the scientific corollaries of the senses and the so far established laws of nature, then they could and should be taken seriously

Why is ‘science’ – that is, the field of endeavor oriented toward the empirical measurement of physical phenomena – the relevant measuring-stick? That sounds like the old saw “to the man who has a hammer, everything looks like a nail”! If science isn’t the applicable tool – and, I hope, you would admit that science isn’t the only approach to analysis! – then why place requirements that can be fulfilled only by the scientific method?

I am equally skeptical toward “supernatural” or “spiritual” events and new-age assertions or ESP, telekinesis or out-body experiences, or the curative powers of pyramidal structures.

Inasmuch as they posit physical (and, putatively, empirically-measurable) phenomena, then empirical measurements seem applicable. One would have to be able to predict when these physical phenomena will occur, naturally, in order to be able to make claims about their effects; if one were unable to do so, then there would be no opportunity to draw conclusions.

Actually I am equally as skeptical as YOU are when presented with claims about some competing religion.

Oh, if I had a nickel for every time an atheist made this claim, as if it were relevant…

 

[Gorgias]

Generally, they are suspicious, because we know that even eye-witness testimonies are unreliable, even if there is no conscious effort to incorrectly report events. Countless such testimonies have been shown to be inaccurate, even with the best intentions to be precise. The police investigations prove that eye-witnesses make honest mistakes. One physical evidence beats a hundred eye-witness testimonies.

Unfortunately, we’re talking about events in antiquity (first century A.D. Palestine, to be precise). The recorded testimony of eyewitnesses is the only kind of evidence possible. There’s an odd trend among millennials these days. Every historical event of the past – oh, 100 to 200 years – is viewed as more or less plausibly true. But, push that back some – let’s say 400 to 500 years, or 1000 to 2000 years – and the further back you go, the more that people discredit it. It’s literally like folks think that truth has a half-life! Something you say today will be treated as more ‘true’ than something said 2000 years ago – and only because it’s older! (By that standard, nothing we’ve said here will be treated as truth, in the year 4020!)

Of course the biblical texts are NOT eye-witnesses.

Here we go. “Willing to contemplate accounts from antiquity”, eh? Let’s see…

Actually, they are the accounts of eyewitnesses and the scribes to the eyewitnesses. They are claimed as such. The historical documents of the early Church claim them as such. What evidence do you have, that demonstrates that they are not?

They are reported by others who CLAIM that they were eye-witnesses.

How do you know that they are mere ‘claims’, and that the people making the claims are imposter witnesses?

They are not even second- or third-hand reports

How do you know this?

translated and re-written many times.

Again: antiquity. No Xerox machines or iPhone photos back then. Handwritten copies were the “high technology” of the day. And, given the importance of the documents, were treated with great care. Moreover, current methods of text analysis can allow us to identify manuscript ‘families’ and provenance, and can help us understand where variants crept into texts.

Recall the Chinese whispers telephone “game”.

Ahh… now I’ve got you pegged! You’re a fan of Bart Ehrman! Yes… his assertion about ‘telephone’ is the worst kind of red herring: seemingly plausible on the surface (and thus ripe for sound-bite transmission), but quite irrelevant upon serious consideration.

If you wish to establish that the Biblical texts are “eye-witness” accounts. then you are on very thin ice.

Please do substantiate that claim.

 

[Gorgias]

And when you wish to establish scientifically nonsensical events as being corroborated by eye-witnesses (like resurrection), then you are in even worse shape.

Again: science is your god, isn’t she? Why does “unlikely” meet your scorn, before you consider the evidence?

But of course, even such testimonies should not be rejected a-priori.

Except that… you’ve just been doing that, this whole time.

What you would need is to present eye-witness testimonies presented by competing, opposing and preferably “hostile” witnesses, both of whom have an “agenda” to follow.

Repeat after me: “A-N-T-I-Q-U-I-T-Y”. This isn’t “Judge Judy”; you don’t have access to living eyewitnesses. You have the extant documents, and that’s it. If you’re going to judge them as if they happened yesterday, then yeah… “a priori rejection.”

What “windmills”?

You presented yourself as someone with an open mind. I’m beginning to sense a windmill giant, instead… and I have no desire to tilt at windmills.

the future still does not exist as ontological actuality , only as a potential . I wonder, why is this disputed?

Because you’re invalidly extrapolating your limitations upon God.

 

[AlNg]

I’ll not comment on the ability or not to predict human behaviour because it doesn’t impinge on free will.

I don’t agree. If you predict that tomorrow at 1: 00 PM I am going to eat an orange, I can defeat your prediction by eating a hot dog instead.

science is your god, isn’t she?

No, because I don’t know anyone who prays to the law of gravity.

 

[Gorgias]

This rings a bell…and there was no response as I recall.

That question tends to never get a response. One day, I hope someone will honestly respond to it (and, I suspect, the honest answer is “because I refuse to play fair.” )

No, because I don’t know anyone who prays to the law of gravity.

I don’t pray to the Bible, either.

But I do hold as all-holy and all-wise that which I hold to be a deity. So do adherents to scientism (whether they’re willing to admit it or not)!