Free will? I dont think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter phil3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I believe in God but I also believe that God knows every single decision I will make, once I make it he then know the exact decision I will make. This allow for God to be all knowing and free will.

I can not believe that God would create a soul that he knows that soul will go to hell.
 
I think you’ll find this illuminating, I did. Craig talks about this very subject.

 
If I eat the burger, then why? Because I am hungry? Well, then that is determinism and not free will.
Why would that be determinism?
You are hungry. You choose to eat.
Many hungry people have given up their food to someone else who is also hungry.
Others who feel hungry choose to fast or limit the intake somehow.
Given those realities, how does hunger work in deterministic fashion on the human will?
Please explain.
 
If I eat the burger, then why? Because I am hungry? Well, then that is determinism and not free will.
Yes, you’re right but why did you choose the burger? Say you like hot dogs just as much as burgers and they cost the same, you had a choice. Yes, hunger was the cause, what is the cause of your selection?
 
jan10000:
If I eat the burger, then why? Because I am hungry? Well, then that is determinism and not free will.
Yes, you’re right but why did you choose the burger? Say you like hot dogs just as much as burgers and they cost the same, you had a choice. Yes, hunger was the cause, what is the cause of your selection?
I think what Jan is saying is that there is always a reason for one making a choice. And certainly in that sense it is determined. So if you go for the hot dog instead of the burger then it was for a reason. If youndecide to give it to someone else then it’s for a reason. And again, in that sense it can be said that it was determined.

If there was no reason for any given choice then it wouod be entirely randon and wouldn’t relate to free will either.
 
Excellent post Jan, and it is an absolute proof that no human person has libertarian free will.

Let’s dress it up with the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church.
.
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).

.
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.”
.
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.
.
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
 
Last edited:
This is why it is nearly impossible to even define a situation where we COULD have free will. Much less prove we have it.
If I may play the Devil’s Advocate at this point…

How do we then determine any degree of responsibility for any given act? I’ve read (and listened to) a lot about what Sam Harris has to say on this matter and he doesn’t cover it entirely to my satisfaction. He agrees there is no such thing as the generally conceived idea of free will but also agrees that we should punish people for what they do. With a rider that we should look a lot more closely as to why someone did what they did and take it a lot more into consideration than we do.

I have a choice: Do I steal some money or not. I wouldn’t because I know it’s wrong. And I know it’s wrong because…insert your own reasons here. But we’re in the same position as deciding on the burger. It’s for reasons that are external to me and not under my control. My parents (genetics), my upbringing, my current financial position etc etc.

Some people have said that we can internalise decisions without reference to the external world and hence we have autonomy. So 'I ’ can decide if it’s wrong or not. But I don’t see that as being possible without reference to other factors not under my control. Every decision I make is based on what has gone before. It’s not possible to isolate yourself from any of the reasons you have for making a decision (genes, upbringing etc).

I keep going back to the episode in Texas when Charles Whitman killed a number of people from a clock tower in '66. It was found that he had a cancer that was impinging on his amygdala and it was suggested that this caused this mental abberation. There is obviously debate about this, but assuming it was true that it did have an affect on him, then how much blame can we apportion to Whitman and how much to his cancer?

In exactly the same way, but with more tenuous connections, how much blame can we apportion to me if I stole the money and how much to the factors over which I had no control?
 
Last edited:
My decision is based on randomness. But if my choice is random, I don’t have free will either.
The first decision was based on hunger.
The 1st cause satisfied. Biological cause = no free will.

The 2nd decision was based on a selection between 2 choices derived from the 1st cause. You made a selection, random or not (Randomness is not a cause).

We’ve established the 1st cause = hunger.
What would you say the 2nd cause is?

If a decision requires no cause then the decision = free will.
 
If a decision requires no cause then the decision = free will.
IF THE DIVINE INFLUENCE STOPPED, EVERY OPERATION WOULD STOP.

Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to Him as its cause.

The cause of every our decisions and choices is God,
without God we can do NOTHING.
.
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.
.
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.

.
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.)

.
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).

This, the beneficent purpose of an all-seeing Providence, is wholly gratuitous, entirely unmerited (Romans 3:24; 9:11-2).

It extends to all men (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4), even to the reprobate Jews (Romans 11:26 sq.).

It extends to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each (St. John Chrysostom, “Hom. xxviii in Matt.”, n. 3 in “P.G.”, LVII, 354).

All things are created and governed with a view to man, to the development of his life and his intelligence, and to the satisfaction of his needs (Aristides, “Apol.”, i, v, vi, xv, xvi;).

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.

He directs all, even evil and sin itself,
to the final end for which the universe was created.

Evil He converts into good (Genesis 1:20; cf. Psalm 90:10); and suffering He uses as an instrument whereby to train men up as a father traineth up his children (Deuteronomy 8:1-6; Psalm 65:2-10;

Evil, therefore, ministers to God’s design (St. Gregory the Great, op. cit., VI, xxxii in “P.L.”,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
If a decision requires no cause then the decision = free will.
If there is no cause for a decision then there is no reason for making it. It becomes a coin toss. I doubt if anyone would accept that as a definition of free will.
 
How does “having a reason” negate free will?
It’s pretty obvious that circumstances, and the influences of circumstances, help us reason through the the various circumstances and decisions. Some reasoning processes require more discernment and more self control than others for sure.

How does it follow that circumstances and influences negate free will. So far you have an unsupported assertion.
 
Last edited:
One thing is for sure: the denial of free will pretty much nullifies moral evaluation. And I think that is the core desire in all of this…to nibble away at human responsibility and morality.
 
How does “having a reason” negate free will?
If you have a reason, it’s external to you. Literaly everything you decide has a basis on something which is external to you. Your decisions are based on that. They are determined by that. Else what are they determined by?
 
If there is no cause for a decision then there is no reason for making it. It becomes a coin toss. I doubt if anyone would accept that as a definition of free will.
I think I should have defined the terms “cause” and “no cause” a bit clearer.
When I say “cause” I’m referring to “determinism” and “no cause” as non deterministic(for lack of a better word).

I’m meaning cause as an event outside the purview of self.
Hunger is a cause that is not controlled by you, therefore the choice to eat is a deterministic one.
When a choice is made with no cause(non deterministic) then the choice is controlled by you, therefore the choice, since it’s controlled by you is a free choice.
 
I’m meaning cause as an event outside the purview of self.
Hunger is a cause that is not controlled by you, therefore the choice to eat is a deterministic one.
When a choice is made with no cause(non deterministic) then the choice is controlled by you…
Then can you give me an example of a decision that is made with no cause?
 
Then can you give me an example of a decision that is made with no cause?
I already did in a previous post.
The question was:
If I eat the burger, then why? Because I am hungry? Well, then that is determinism and not free will.
Then I responded:
Say you like hot dogs just as much as burgers and they cost the same, you had a choice. Yes, hunger was the cause, what is the cause of your selection?
Response:
My decision is based on randomness. But if my choice is random, I don’t have free will either.

My response was:
The first decision was based on hunger.
The 1st cause satisfied. Biological cause = no free will.

The 2nd decision was based on a selection between 2 choices derived from the 1st cause. You made a selection, random or not (Randomness is not a cause).

We’ve established the 1st cause = hunger.
I never got an answer to: WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE 2ND CAUSE IS?

Randomness in this context is a choice like any other choice. You didn’t have to make a random choice but you chose to. Randomness does NOT negate FREE WILL.
 
I never got an answer to: WHAT WOULD YOU SAY THE 2ND CAUSE IS?
And you probably won’t get an answer.

The non-free will argument fallaciously claims that because some acts are not deliberate (Latin deliberatus , ‘considered carefully) that all human acts are not freely determined.

Our passions often impede our freely willing to act reasonably. We should learn to control our feelings.

Ignorance often impedes our willing rightly. We should inform our consciences correctly.

External forces, e.g. coercion, seduction, deception, and manipulation, may frustrate our freedom but they do not eliminate it. We are not puppets on strings or blackboards upon which others write our story.

While it is true that we act most freely when we are persuaded to act, the fact that there are degrees of freedom does not mean that we are ever without any degree of freedom.
 
What catechism says about confession? And foreknoweldge? If God is foreknowledge but decision is for us, what about confessing?
 
Latin but still- YOU choose. God helps you, tells you, but you choose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top