Free will? I dont think so

[Latin]

All logic, reasoning, and analysis leads us down a path where the only conclusion is that free will is an illusion.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS AGREE WITH YOU JAN10000.

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.
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence explains;
Life everlasting promised to us, (Romans 5:21); but unaided we can do nothing to gain it (Rom.7:18-24).

.
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott;

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

Fallen man cannot redeem himself. (De fide dogma.) – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.
.
Without the special help of God the justified cannot persevere to the end in justification. (De fide dogma.) – It is God’s responsibility TO KEEP US SAVED by His grace of Final Perseverance, there is no salvation without it.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide dogma).

.
The Fader William Most collection
St. Augustine on Grace and Predestination

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.

.
The Divine will is cause of all things that happen, as Augustine says (De Trin. iii, 1 seqq.).

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.)
.
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.
.
God bless

 

[o_mlly]

Again, I will use a jury as an example. You are saying that if presented by exactly the same evidence under exactly the same conditions, you could change your verdict. Your problem is how to explain how you could possibly do that.

Again, I tell you that in order to change one’s mind given the same externalities one must first change their disposition. In order to change one’s disposition or attitude, one must be free to do so, i.e., free will. We call such a change of heart by its more familiar term: a conversion.

Taking your jury situation as an example, juror #1 goes into the jury room believing as you do that no one has free will. The evidence including a confession of the rapist/murderer on trial is convincing that the accused did the deed.

Juror #1 says to the others, “Well, he did do what he’s charged with, but he couldn’t have done otherwise so we can hardly say he’s ‘guilty’. So I vote ‘not guilty’”. After a short conversation with me, juror #1 has a change of heart and amends his vote to “guilty as charged”. Juror #1 could only do so because he also has free will.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Again, I will use a jury as an example. You are saying that if presented by exactly the same evidence under exactly the same conditions, you could change your verdict. Your problem is how to explain how you could possibly do that.

Again, I tell you that in order to change one’s mind given the same externalities one must first change their disposition. In order to change one’s disposition or attitude, one must be free to do so, i.e., free will. We call such a change of heart by its more familiar term: a conversion.

Taking your jury situation as an example, juror #1 goes into the jury room believing as you do that no one has free will. The evidence including a confession of the rapist/murderer on trial is convincing that the accused did the deed.

Juror #1 says to the others, “Well, he did do what he’s charged with, but he couldn’t have done otherwise so we can hardly say he’s ‘guilty’. So I vote ‘not guilty’”. After a short conversation with me, juror #1 has a change of heart and amends his vote to “guilty as charged”. Juror #1 could only do so because he also has free will.

I assume that you understand the difference between being morally responsible and being guilty of an offence. Which has no bearing on the matter at hand but I thought that that needed to be noted.

The juror takes her first position for reasons as you explained (she thinks the defendant is not morally responsible and doesn’t understand her responsibility).

Your position is that free will will allow her to change her mind as to the verdict if presented by exactly the same evidence under exactly the same conditions. She had a reason to bring in a verdict of guilty the first time for the reasons she had and she would bring in the same verdict the second time because the reasons would be exactly the same. We are simply rerunning the tape.

But you have given a scenario where the conditions are not the same. You’ve discussed the matter with her, so now the conditions are not the same. Now she has a different reason to vote as she did. So you haven’t answered the question so I’ll ask it again:

Again, I will use a jury as an example. You are saying that if presented by exactly the same evidence under exactly the same conditions, you could change your verdict. Your problem is how to explain how you could possibly do that.

 

[o_mlly]

You’ve discussed the matter with her, so now the conditions are not the same. Now she has a different reason to vote as she did. So you haven’t answered the question so I’ll ask it again

DWBS: Dog with a bone syndrome.

We’ve already agreed history cannot be changed: Ahab will always chase the white whale. That fact does not negate the existence of free will.

However, with identical externalities, one can change their internal disposition only if one has the free will to do so. Juror #1’s conversation with me did not change any externalities.

Your claim that – since the future can never be perfectly identical in all respects, including one’s own attitudes, to the past evidences that free will does not exist – is meaningless. Such a claim cannot be demonstrated by its own definition. You need a new proposition. One that can be falsified or verified. Do you have anything else?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You’ve discussed the matter with her, so now the conditions are not the same. Now she has a different reason to vote as she did. So you haven’t answered the question so I’ll ask it again

Juror #1’s conversation with me did not change any externalities.

I’m not sure if you don’t realise that that makes no sense. The juror didn’t just contemplate the situation internally and reached another decision without further external (name removed by moderator)ut. You talked to her and gave her another reason on which to base her decision.

The situation still stands however you want to present it.

If the juror originally thought ‘not guilty’ and you talked to her and changed her mind then your position is that if presented by exactly the same evidence under exactly the same conditions (you talking to her) then she’d change her verdict.

You seem not to understand that whatever reason she had for whatever verdict she gives (whether you talk to her or not, or someone pays her to change her verdict or she dicovers the accused is a relative…it doesn’t matter what the reason is), if she is presented with exactly the same evidence under exactly the same conditions she’d choose the same. Adding more reasons for her choice (hey, I talked to her!) does nothing whatsoever to change that.

 

[o_mlly]

If the juror originally thought ‘not guilty’ and you talked to her and changed her mind …

Really? I’d like to think I have such power. If I did then this thread would be only a few posts long.

People change their own mind because they have the power to do so, i.e., free will.

Got any arguments from reality yet to show free will does not exist?

 

[EndTimes]

Got any arguments from reality yet to show free will does not exist?

There we go. The onus is upon Fred. He cannot…

Time to move on…

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

If the juror originally thought ‘not guilty’ and you talked to her and changed her mind …

People change their own mind because they have the power to do so…

Not without the reasons for the decision changing. Otherwise they’d give different verdicts as a juror for no reason. Of course, if they were given a reason, as you indicated earlier, then they might change their mind.

But without an external reason it won’t happen. Please feel free to show otherwise.

 

[o_mlly]

Not without the reasons for the decision changing. Otherwise they’d give different verdicts as a juror for no reason.

So what? We would certainly hope so!

Free will is always informed, hopefully by reason, but unfortunately, sometimes by emotions. However, all of these faculties, i.e., passions, intellect and the free will are internal.

Got an argument from reality yet?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Not without the reasons for the decision changing. Otherwise they’d give different verdicts as a juror for no reason.

So what? We would certainly hope so!

Free will is always informed, hopefully by reason, but unfortunately, sometimes by emotions. However, all of these faculties, i.e., passions, intellect and the free will are internal.

Yep. All internal. Yet the example you gave for a change in making a decision was external. I’m still waiting for a reason one could change one’s mind without any external reason. Other than for you to say ‘well, it’s just free will’.

If it was just internally governed free will then we’re back to different decisions as a juror based on the same evidence under exactly the same conditions. Which is nonsensical.

 

[o_mlly]

Yet the example you gave for a change in making a decision was external .

Nope. Watch.

Fred’s previous state of mind. “I do not have free will.”

Me: “Fred, you have free will.” (External)
Fred: “No, I don’t.” (Internal)

Fred’s new state of mind. “I do not have free will.”

Nothing changed.

Fred’s previous state of mind. “I’m thirsty but I don’t know what I want.”

Me: “Fred, you’d like a frosty cold beer.” (External)
Fred: “Yeah, that’s the ticket. I want that beer.” (Internal)

Fred’s new state of mind. “I want a frosty cold beer.”

Fred changed his mind.

We’re still waiting for Fred’s mind to give us an argument from reality on free will.

 

[Freddy]

Fred’s previous state of mind. “I’m thirsty but I don’t know what I want.”

Me: “Fred, you’d like a frosty cold beer.” (External)
Fred: “Yeah, that’s the ticket. I want that beer.” (Internal)

Fred’s new state of mind. “I want a frosty cold beer.”

Fred changed his mind.

No he didn’t. He hadn’t made a decision. You said so yourself: ‘… I don’t know what I want.’

Are you not understanding the question?

 

[o_mlly]

No he didn’t. He hadn’t made a decision. You said so yourself: ‘… I don’t know what I want.’

Are you not understanding the question?

G’night, Fred. Hope you feel (think) better in the morning!

 

[StarMapp]

You may find this site of interest to you.

It is from Summa on predestination. It may be best for some to read the last two chapters first. Then go over again all again for the full context, this last is very important.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm

One must take heart with such reading and never to forget it includes our life’s experience today in our social setting. In real life we have examples of positive outcomes, (the …“God always leaves a window open when doors are shut on us.”). . The criminal on the cross who was immediately saved and told that “this day”, I have to say it again, as it is so profound and miraculous, “this day you will be at my Father’s table”. The state of St. Paul soul when he was commissioned, the tax collector given the task of apostle…

Besides, I see it as a challenge. Someone once said to the question, “what if I am one of the ones destined”, the answer given was, and I parphrase “so live like you are worthy of salvation.” If there is real Justice, then you KNOW you will be saved.

Lastly, gaze upon the real face of your Saviour on the Divine Mercy prayer card. It says “Trust me”. It is the real likeness of our Redeemer.! Make it a point to gaze on this Image every day.

 

[valencia]

@Latin God gave them the capacity to plan,
a tongue and eyes,
ears and a mind for thinking
Sirach 17, 6

 

[Latin]

The following excerpt is short teachings on predestination and easy to understand.

The Catholic dogma
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA The predestination of the elect.

(1) Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, with all the different measures of grace and the various degrees of happiness, has been irrevocably fixed from all eternity. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it were possible that a predestined individual should after all be cast into hell or that one not predestined should in the end reach heaven, then God would have been mistaken in his foreknowledge of future events; He would no longer be omniscient.

(2) The second quality of predestination, the definiteness of the number of the elet, follows naturally from the first. For if the eternal counsel ofGod regarding the predestined is unchangeable, then the number of the predestined must likewise be unchangeable and definite, subject neither to additions nor to cancellations. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of certitude in God’s knowledge and would destroy His omniscience. Furthermore, the very nature of omniscience demands that not only the abstract number of the elect, but also the individuals with their names.

Ante prævisa merita
Asserts that God, by an absolute decree and without regard to any future supernatural merits, predestined from all eternity certain men to the glory of heaven, and then, in consequence of this decree, decided to give them all the graces necessary for its accomplishment.

The Book of Life
God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitæ, to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which contains the names of all the elect and admits neither additions nor erasures.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

.
Predestination without regard to any future supernatural merits is probably the reason as follows.

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.

Ibid. 6. 15: “If then your merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His gifts.”
.
Ep. 154, 5. 16: “What then is the merit of man before grace by which merit he should receive grace? Since only grace makes every good merit of ours, and when God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing else but His own gifts.”
.
St. Augustine is called, rightly, the Doctor of Grace, for his great work. Augustine showed very well our total dependence on God.
.
God bless

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You eventually reach a point where it becomes unsupportable.

Yes, again I agree with all of this. But we haven’t addressed my question. WHY do we think we have free will if we don’t? Consider your example of a plane on autopilot. Take two scenarios - in the first, the pilot KNOWS he has no control. Regardless of what he thinks, the plane goes where it goes. Now consider a pilot who BELIEVES he is controlling the plane, even though he doesn’t. He twiddles with the controls now and then, thinking he is more important than he is. But regardless, the plane goes exactly as in scenario 1.

In this example, the plane and the pilot are our brains. The key question then is why is the latter scenario the one that we evolved to? It seems irrelevant. The plane goes where it goes - so why should our brains “care” about believing we are in control.

I do not have an answer for this, and it is this remaining incongruence that still makes me wonder, despite all evidence and rational thought demonstrating that we lack free will.

I think you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not why have we developed this sense that we have free will. The question for me is why we haven’t developed the understanding that we don’t.

The fact that we don’t realise we don’t have free will is the normal state of affairs. We are simply not aware of our subconscious working as it does. We can understand what’s happening and discuss it and argue about it and wonder why it works as it does, but we don’t sense it happening. And it kinda feels funny writing that out as it’s so obvious a statement, but it needs to be said: ‘We are not conscious of our subconscious’.

So when we go through our life we feel as if we are constantly in charge. There would be no evolutionary benefit in realising that we are not. In fact, I could see situations when it would be detrimental to think so. I’m sure you’re aware of some arguments by some people that suggest that if we are not in charge then we can simply resort to our natural instincts.

Which might be fine when we were living on the savanah but certainly doesn’t help if you’re a member of a society. So not realising we don’t have free will seems to me to be more beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint.

 

[StarMapp]

Double jeopardy.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think you’re asking the wrong question. It’s not why have we developed this sense that we have free will. The question for me is why we haven’t developed the understanding that we don’t .

Saying that the default rationale (“normal state of affairs” as you say) is that we do have free will is an interesting approach.

I’m not sure if that was a typo or my explanation was a bit clumsy, but my position is that we don’t have free will but that mistakingly believing that we do have it is the normal state of affairs (as we can see quite clearly from any number of posts). And that to evolve an understanding that we actually don’t have it would be a disadvantage.

It would be fascinating to discover if there were a means to unlock that realisation. Like ‘taking the red pill’…

 

[Freddy]

Double jeopardy.

We’re not talking about the same trial actually being run a second time, Star. It’s just a thought experiment.