Free will? I dont think so

  • Thread starter Thread starter phil3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Youre beating a dead horse. I dont agree with predestination. I have read over and over and over that yes god knows the outcome, but since you dont know the out come, you have free will. I disagree with it. Nothing I see written so far on this thread has changed my mind.
I did not say a lack of foreknowledge is to have a free will. Free will means the ability to act of one’s own agency. For a being, in this case God, to have foreknowledge of how others would exercise their free will is passive in itself, that is, it in no way does violence to another’s will.

Additionally, please share your reasoning for why my explanation of predestination and free will doesn’t follow.
 
Last edited:
40.png
QuietKarlos:
We have reason to know what will happen if we make certain choices for goodness sake!
I think your misunderstanding the arguments here. Your mistaking the existence of a phenomenon like your awareness of the choices you have and their potential consequences, which this discussion is not challenging, for the question of what the origins of these phenomena are which this debate is about.
So your point here is our reason leading us to do things might not be wilful. Well I would say we will what we intend.

I think if I do something with intention to do good or bad I think I choose to intend that. When we sin for example we are usually thinking of our own gain. When we do good we usually think of others gain.

Do we choose our intent though? Well I would say yes. I’m not sure of arguments for and against this or if there are any but I feel like I do (although facts don’t care about our feelings 😆). But sometimes what we perceive and feel leads to facts. I think it is pretty obvious I have had choice in my life . Just like I might see smoke and feel sleepy and know there is a fire. But this isn’t me trying to prove we have choice just saying what we perceive and feel does lead to facts and logic.
You missed the earlier discussions if you think that simply because you feel free you are.
I should probably read all of them yes and I might depending on whether I have the time and/or patience. A lot of it is also overcomplicated and hard to understand, though, too. But I don’t think just because I feel free i am but my observations have merit. But actually it’s more based on logic than feeling. I did have the option to do something else rather than what I did, I didn’t feel that way I really did have the ability. I think you are over complicating something that is common sense.
40.png
QuietKarlos:
There is nothing forcing me to choose one option. God hasn’t forced me to do anything. This is free will.
Your mistaking being forced for simply following the natural progression of God’s willed creation.
If you think your free, try not being a human and see how far you get. Do you think you’ve been forced to be human?
I would make the point that if anyone was asked if they wanted to be alive or not they would pick yes since heaven is so good it would be worth the chance.
Your saying that it isn’t contradictory to the idea of God because you feel as if your free to choose? I just don’t see that as good reasoning for the reasons I presented in my earlier posts. Feelings about reality do not always translate into actual reality.
Well I think my point is I’m not trying to PROVE free will. I’m just rather showing it is not contradictory and it makes sense (at least I think this is what I’m trying to prove anyway) I’m saying the way I have free will and feel the sense of free will does not contradict the idea of God and makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
The point: If God’s knowledge comes from your intention then that means YOU choose where you will end up
Your point doesn’t work because:
God created you.
In that case he already knew your intentions to begin with.
 
40.png
QuietKarlos:
The point: If God’s knowledge comes from your intention then that means YOU choose where you will end up
Your point doesn’t work because:
God created you.
In that case he already knew your intentions to begin with.
Well yes he knew your intentions but didn’t choose them for you
 
Causality is the relationship between an act and it’s effect. Determinism is the understanding that the relationship could not have been any other way
The Thomist understanding of causality is the actualization of a potential. In other words, “the more does not come from the less, the more perfect cannot be produced by the less perfect.” Determinism is assumed here and this would mean only one potential can be actualized (i.e. the act and effect could not have been any other way).
That is NOT to say that we don’t make choices. We do. But under exactly the same conditions we would always make exactly the same choice. That doesn’t represent free will to me.
For St. Thomas Aquinas, free will is not rooted in the ability to do otherwise. Instead, it’s rooted in the will’s nature as a rational appetite, which has a natural inclination towards the good. As long as the will is pursuing something that it recognizes as good, it retains its freedom.

If freedom was in the ability to do otherwise, it would reduce freedom to a reason-independent voluntarism, which would make willing arbitrary.
 
So for what you got ten commandments.

God is outside the time but it deosnt mean that he created future. Time is for us.
 
God can’t do anything for us if we really don’t want it. If you don’t want God, then there is no heaven.
Valencia, there is NO SUCH THING, that we don’t want to cooperate with God when God himself works and operates in our wills.

We don’t feel that God himself operates in our wills, we do what we want to do, without knowing that GOD HIMSELF CAUSES OUR ACTIONS.

We always freely will what God wills us to will and we always freely do what God wills and causes us to perform.

Valencia, God is the sole ruler of the world, without we know it, His will governs all things, includes all our TAILOR MADE ACTIONS , which actions He designed, decreed and preordained from all eternity.
.
Aquinas said, “ God changes the will without forcing it. But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9. 31 ST I-II:112:3. 32.
.
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.
.
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.
.
Our creation is tailor designed by God from all eternity and for our worldly life (as we are God’s builders) our actions also tailor designed by God from all eternity and we perform all our preordained actions without know it.

.
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.

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.,

God is the sole ruler of the world. His will governs all things. He loves all men, desires the salvation of all, and His providence extends to all nation.

Again, from the fact that God has created the universe, it shows that He must also govern it; for just as the contrivances of man demand attention and guidance, so God, as a good workman, must care for His work.

That end is that all creatures should manifest the glory of God and in particular that man should glorify Him, recognizing in nature the work of His hand, serving Him in obedience and love, and thereby attaining to the full development of his nature and to eternal happiness in God.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12510a.htm
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
God Bless You
I think we talk about two different things. I meant about wanting his love or not. If you dont wanna believe in God and you do things against Him then you’re going to hell…
But that things you quoted and said are also right.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Freddy:
Causality is the relationship between an act and it’s effect. Determinism is the understanding that the relationship could not have been any other way
The Thomist understanding of causality is the actualization of a potential. In other words, “the more does not come from the less, the more perfect cannot be produced by the less perfect.” Determinism is assumed here and this would mean only one potential can be actualized (i.e. the act and effect could not have been any other way).
That is NOT to say that we don’t make choices. We do. But under exactly the same conditions we would always make exactly the same choice. That doesn’t represent free will to me.
For St. Thomas Aquinas, free will is not rooted in the ability to do otherwise. Instead, it’s rooted in the will’s nature as a rational appetite, which has a natural inclination towards the good. As long as the will is pursuing something that it recognizes as good, it retains its freedom.

If freedom was in the ability to do otherwise, it would reduce freedom to a reason-independent voluntarism, which would make willing arbitrary.
I think I’ll pass on the medaevial philosphical terms. They aren’t required and tend to muddy the waters. And even when they are required they relate to theological arguments. You asked about causality and determinism. And they can be exhibited by purely physical systems. If I wanted to know what caused the window to break, I don’t ask what actualised it’s potential…

And as for free will being ‘a rational appetite which has a natural inclination pursuing something that it recognises as the good’, then we’ve muddied the water to such an extent that pigs could wallow in it.

Keep it simple, Veritas. Let’s avoid unecessary obfuscation.
 
Let’s avoid unecessary obfuscation.
Sure, Fred. Rather than reason towards the truth of free will, let’s just leave the real world and fantasize about it. No one can argue with what Fred fancies.
 
40.png
Freddy:
Let’s avoid unecessary obfuscation.
Sure, Fred. Rather than reason towards the truth of free will, let’s just leave the real world and fantasize about it. No one can argue with what Fred fancies.
I talk with dozens of people on the forum during any given week. Most of them hold to positions with which I disagree. But the conversations tend to be about the topics themselves and are generally worth reading and are almost always respectful. I like to think in both directions.

But I honestly can’t recall a post from you over the last few months that wasn’t personally derogatory in some way. I will gladly admit to using a certain degree of sarcasm in some of my own posts but it’s generally used to empasise a point. Not as a means to an end. You are forever playing the man and not the ball.

Not that any of your posts concern me in any way. They bemuse rather than annoy. But I just thought I’d point it out.
 
I think I’ll pass on the medaevial philosphical terms. They aren’t required and tend to muddy the waters. And even when they are required they relate to theological arguments. You asked about causality and determinism. And they can be exhibited by purely physical systems. If I wanted to know what caused the window to break, I don’t ask what actualised it’s potential…
I think that the biases of evolutionary philosophy are showing here. The assumptions here seem to be: Medieval is old and obsolete. There’s nothing to learn there. Modern is better than Medieval (from the Middle ages between the Roman Empire and Renaissance). That’s a lot of years and people to discard. St. Thomas Aquinas was brilliant and highly logical in his reasoning.
St. Thomas has insights to share on matters of free will v. determinism. St. Thomas Aquinas is not the only scholar from these centuries to consider.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a Medieval source.
 
I think I’ll pass on the medaevial philosphical terms. They aren’t required and tend to muddy the waters. And even when they are required they relate to theological arguments. You asked about causality and determinism. And they can be exhibited by purely physical systems. If I wanted to know what caused the window to break, I don’t ask what actualised it’s potential…
What caused the window to break? The brick did, but how? We use philosophy simply to explain how things work fundamentally. The window has the potential to break, but it is not actually broken. The brick “actualizes” this broken window by smashing the window, thus bringing the potentially broken window into reality (it’s now actually broken).

I agree we don’t normally ask what actualized it’s potential, but that’s the underlying metaphysic of change that physics is built on. We can use physics to mathematically observe and understand the forces acting in this scenario, but this change (from not broken window to broken window) is assumed even before we study physics.

If you don’t care about the Aristotelian philosophical terms, we can call it whatever you like, but you need a good argument if you want to deny this metaphysic of change.
And as for free will being ‘a rational appetite which has a natural inclination pursuing something that it recognises as the good’, then we’ve muddied the water to such an extent that pigs could wallow in it.
What are you having difficulty with? I’d like to help your understanding.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Freddy:
I think I’ll pass on the medaevial philosphical terms. They aren’t required and tend to muddy the waters. And even when they are required they relate to theological arguments. You asked about causality and determinism. And they can be exhibited by purely physical systems. If I wanted to know what caused the window to break, I don’t ask what actualised it’s potential…
I think that the biases of evolutionary philosophy are showing here. The assumptions here seem to be: Medieval is old and obsolete. There’s nothing to learn there. Modern is better than Medieval (from the Middle ages between the Roman Empire and Renaissance). That’s a lot of years and people to discard. St. Thomas Aquinas was brilliant and highly logical in his reasoning.
St. Thomas has insights to share on matters of free will v. determinism. St. Thomas Aquinas is not the only scholar from these centuries to consider.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a Medieval source.
Nobody is discarding philosophy from the early ages. I’m quite prepared to bring up Socrates or Aurelias if they are applicable. And I have no problem is discussing Aquinas. In context. But his philosophy regarding determinism and causality isn’t required in this context.

I was asked for my personal definition of both. I’d prefer a personal response. We don’t need, at this point, a discussion on Aquinas’s view of free will. Especially one as impenetrable as the one given. Maybe it’ll get there at some point. But let’s get there by a reasonable route. Perhaps employing the Socratic method (see what I did there…?).
 
And I have no problem is discussing Aquinas. In context. But his philosophy regarding determinism and causality isn’t required in this context.

I was asked for my personal definition of both. I’d prefer a personal response. We don’t need, at this point, a discussion on Aquinas’s view of free will
Why is Aristotle’s philosophy not required in this context? This is a Catholic Forum and St. Thomas did philosophically reason about free will, why is this not important “in this context”?
 
Last edited:
40.png
QuietKarlos:
Well yes he knew your intentions but didn’t choose them for you
Of course he didn’t choose them for you. You chose them BUT He knew you would choose them when He created you.
Sorry it’s morning now I’m more awake: just as God knows if you’ll end in heaven or hell he knows your intentions. You can change your intentions just like you can change whether you go to heaven or hell. Although you will always do the things God knew you would this knew is based on your actions and intentions. But how can you change your intentions and actions- FREE WILL.
 
40.png
Freddy:
I think I’ll pass on the medaevial philosphical terms. They aren’t required and tend to muddy the waters. And even when they are required they relate to theological arguments. You asked about causality and determinism. And they can be exhibited by purely physical systems. If I wanted to know what caused the window to break, I don’t ask what actualised it’s potential…
What caused the window to break? The brick did, but how? We use philosophy simply to explain how things work fundamentally. The window has the potential to break, but it is not actually broken. The brick “actualizes” this broken window by smashing the window, thus bringing the potentially broken window into reality (it’s now actually broken).

I agree we don’t normally ask what actualized it’s potential, but that’s the underlying metaphysic of change that physics is built on. We can use physics to mathematically observe and understand the forces acting in this scenario, but this change (from not broken window to broken window) is assumed even before we study physics.

If you don’t care about the Aristotelian philosophical terms, we can call it whatever you like, but you need a good argument if you want to deny this metaphysic of change.
My point is not that you are incorrect. It’s that we don’t need to go any deeper into philosophical terminology to explain something to which we can both agree. We don’t need potentiality or actualisation to explain a brick breaking a window any more than we need to use the theory of ballistics to discuss the trajectory of the brick.

It’s not a metaphysical problem. Or at least it doesn’t need to be. Brick meets window. Result - broken window. Cause - someone threw the brick. What else do we need. We both agree on that.
 
40.png
Freddy:
And I have no problem is discussing Aquinas. In context. But his philosophy regarding determinism and causality isn’t required in this context.

I was asked for my personal definition of both. I’d prefer a personal response. We don’t need, at this point, a discussion on Aquinas’s view of free will
Why is Aristotle’s philosophy not required in this context? This is a Catholic Forum and St. Thomas did philosophically reason about free will, why is this not important “in this context”?
Because you asked for my definition of determination and causality. Nothing in my answer requires a response from you that discusses Aquinas’s view of free will as it relates to theology. What it does require is for you to either agree with me or give me your personal definition as an alternative.
 
I will gladly admit to using a certain degree of sarcasm in some of my own posts
Certain degree? If you will just as gladly stop your excessive degree of sarcasm then you would not be the target of the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top