Free will? I dont think so

[nicholasG]

You can change your intentions just like you can change whether you go to heaven or hell.

Yes you can BUT God ALREADY KNOWS you can change your intentions and the choice you inevidebly select.

Although you will always do the things God knew you would this knew is based on your actions and intentions

Yes again. This KNEW you refer to and your actions and intentions are ALREADY KNOWN BY God before you were born.
You are doing exactly what God knew you would do, so the question is why create you in the first place?

 

[nicholasG]

God + foreknowledge + Free will = paradox - NOT POSSIBLE
God - foreknowledge + Free will = POSSIBLE
God + foreknowledge + Determination = POSSIBLE

 

[QuietKarlos]

BUT God ALREADY KNOWS you can change your intentions and the choice you inevidebly select.

This KNEW you refer to and your actions and intentions are ALREADY KNOWN BY God before you were born.
You are doing exactly what God knew you would do, so the question is why create you in the first place?

The reason he created me is so I would do what I choose to do. He knows what I will choose to do but that still doesn’t mean there is no choice.

God can’t do anything by not creating us. If he doesn’t create us then we will never have free will. He can’t judge us for example on what he knew we would do because that would be unfair. The person has to do what they are to do for God to hold him accountable.

So my point is: God made us to do what he knew we would do so we would do it. If we do it then we can be accountable for it because we choose to do it.

So does that mean God knowing what we would do made us do it?
No, because he let us do what he knew what we would do.

Although he knew what we would do the knowledge didn’t interfere in our doing. It just means he know us really well.

 

[QuietKarlos]

I’ll read the thread tonight and tomorrow so I’ll get back to you in a couple days probably since there are a freaking thousand comments. It’s worth my time though since I would say to oppose the doctrine would be heretical for a Catholic. Thanks

 

[QuietKarlos]

And oh yes I pretty much understand the jist of what he was saying yes. I thought you were talking about the thread but I’ll still read all of the thread anyway

 

[nicholasG]

So my point is: God made us to do what he knew we would do so we would do it. If we do it then we can be accountable for it because we choose to do it.

I’m sorry but Your statement is a bit deceptive.
First you say “God MADE us do…”
Then you continue with “IF we do it…”
Where did the IF come from?
Using IF implies choice. Where is the choice.
“God MADE US do…” what He knew we would do…” is NOT a choice

 

[QuietKarlos]

Made us TO do I said. VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

 

[nicholasG]

Made us TO do I said. VERY DIFFERENT THINGS

Using semantics doesn’t answer the question.

 

[QuietKarlos]

I think you might want to read my post again. When I said made us to do i was saying God created us to do(I was using the word made as in create here not as in to force something)… Reread my post again and note this huge difference. I maybe should have phrased this differently in the post though, yes. Thanks and good night! (or morning or evening, whatever time it is where you live). Much love to you and all others here, too.

 

[Veritas6]

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.

The problem is you’re conflating metaphysics with physics, as causality and change are already assumed before we do physics. We don’t normally need philosophy to study a window break, we can observe it using physics.

The quantitative description physics provides is essentially a description of mathematical structure, but this is only an abstraction. It cannot be all there is, because this mathematical structure presupposes something concrete which has the structure.

Why does the window routinely break because of the brick? Why doesn’t it burst into flowers instead? Philosophy utilizes metaphysics to understand the underlying reality of the world which science cannot answer in principle. Can science prove truth?

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.

See post #1104 where I disagree with your understanding of causality and provided a definition. I see no reason to accept determinism.

You beg the question on the truth of determinism and thus see a problem with free will. I was explaining the Catholic understanding of free will is different because we disagree with the truth of determinism. Believe it or not Aquinas’ free will is much more philosophical but does use important theological ideas.

If you don’t want to talk about free will then don’t bring it up :man_shrugging:t2:.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Try meditating on this passage out of the bible and give me your thoughts on the matter if you would.
This comes from Romans 9:18…+
18 Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden. 19 One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?”…
Its God’s show people. His rules. His rule. If you don’t like it, complain to God and see how far that gets you.

For a better understanding of the context, I read the preceding verses 15-17, and the following verses 21 and on as well. What I understand from reading this portion is there’s those who would blame God for the circumstances of another, and then question why He would find fault in them when He made them thus. However, this is not so, rather He demonstrates and confirms His infinite power, justice, and goodness in every circumstance, whether from Gentile, Jew, or the stubbornness of Pharaoh, etc.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

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.

The problem is you’re conflating metaphysics with physics, as causality and change are already assumed before we do physics. We don’t normally need philosophy to study a window break, we can observe it using physics.

You’re exactly right there. We don’t need philosophy at this juncture. It’s simple observation of the evidence. Brick - window - smash. You can call it the ‘actualisation of potential’ if you like, but in this context it means exactly the same thing.

Maths might be described as an abstraction but in this case the maths is a description of what happens. And the physics is a description of how it happened. And I’m not sure what you mean by maths ‘presupposes something concrete’. We don’t have to presuppose anything. The window is there. We both agree. The brick is sailing towards it. We both agree. The window smashes. We have the evidence. We both agree. The brick was the cause of the window breaking. We both agree. It doesn’t burst into flowers because every single time a brick is thrown through a window, the window breaks. And we didn’t see flowers this time either but we saw broken glass.

Not only can we use inductive reasoning for this, but the maths and the physics will confirm it. And the evidence of the broken window confirms it. Unless you want to dissapear down a rabbit hole and question the validity of maths, physics and the ability of our senses in determining the evidence then what else do we need at this point to agree that this is a simple example of causation?

So is it true that a brick thrown through a standard run-of-the-mill window will cause it to break? Yes.

And determinism is the understanding that every time said brick is hurled through said window, we are going to get broken glass. At this point there is no ‘Catholic’ definition of either. Your question didn’t refer to free will but only causation and determination.

If you think that what I’ve described is incorrect in some way, then please address the points I’ve made in this response. It’s no good galloping away to head me off where you think the discussion might be heading. I can’t go anywhere until we agree on some basics.

 

[Veritas6]

It’s simple observation of the evidence. Brick - window - smash. You can call it the ‘actualisation of potential’ if you like, but in this context it means exactly the same thing.

Not exactly but the actualization of a potential is the metaphysical ground layer of what we observe from physics. It’s the concrete floor the table of science can stand on.

Unless you want to dissapear down a rabbit hole and question the validity of maths, physics and the ability of our senses in determining the evidence then what else do we need at this point to agree that this is a simple example of causation?

That’s exactly what philosophy does in this context, try to validate math, physics, and how to determine evidence. Why does causation occur the way it does? Simply describing what happens doesn’t answer this question.

You don’t have to consciously presuppose causation exists, but physics cannot prove such exists, only observe it’s effects.

And determinism is the understanding that every time said brick is hurled through said window, we are going to get broken glass.

I think determinism is “that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature”. This is a philosophical metaphysic which cannot be proven by science.

 

[valencia]

You are not to decide what is possible or impossible.
Me also. We don’t know God so much we think know.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s simple observation of the evidence. Brick - window - smash. You can call it the ‘actualisation of potential’ if you like, but in this context it means exactly the same thing.

Not exactly but the actualization of a potential is the metaphysical ground layer of what we observe from physics. It’s the concrete floor the table of science can stand on.

Unless you want to dissapear down a rabbit hole and question the validity of maths, physics and the ability of our senses in determining the evidence then what else do we need at this point to agree that this is a simple example of causation?

That’s exactly what philosophy does in this context, try to validate math, physics, and how to determine evidence. Why does causation occur the way it does? Simply describing what happens doesn’t answer this question.

You don’t have to consciously presuppose causation exists, but physics cannot prove such exists, only observe it’s effects.

And determinism is the understanding that every time said brick is hurled through said window, we are going to get broken glass.

I think determinism is “that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature”. This is a philosophical metaphysic which cannot be proven by science.

I don’t think it’s required to explain why causation occurs as it does. The question was: ‘What’s the definition of causality’. If you ask for the definition of flight, we don’t need a deep and meaningful discussion about the physics of aerodynamics to do so.

And we don’t need to validate maths and physics or chemistry or quantum mechanics or anything else either. Let’s just agree that all the sciences are sufficient for purpose in this case. Let’s not overcomplicate this.

And it seems that your definition of determinism is pretty much the same as mine. It’s blazingly obvious in the case of a single event, but we’ve no chance of connecting the dots for a sequence of events of any length. We’ll never prove that the butterfly wings actually was in some way partly responsible for the hurricane a continent away.

And I would say that the effects become so small as be be physically irrelevant. And the fact that effects are cumulative means that there is an infinite number of them that need to be considered. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that there are definitely links that we can follow and accept that they are connected.

 

[Latin]

I meant about wanting his love or not.

If I’m correct, you are Valencia speaking about the not yet recreated/ natural people, those who are still enmity with God, with other words, still fallen people, they doesn’t love God.
.
CATHOLIC DOGMA AND THE SCRIPTURE EXPLAINS THEM AS FOLLOWS

Fallen man cannot redeem himself, (De fide dogma). – It is God’s responsibility to redeem the entire human race.
.
1 Cor.2:14; The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because can be know only through the Spirit.
.
Rom.8:7; The natural mind is enmity with God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.
.
For their reconciliation with God THE BALL IS IN GOD’S COURT, because they are not able to choose God.

Only God can choose them, and God’s justice demands that He choose all of them, otherwise all of them would end up in hell and their blood would be in God’s hands.

.
THIS IS THE WAY AS FOLLOWS; GOD RECONCILE TO HIMSELF EVERY FALLEN MAN

CCC 298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them. 148
And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.
.
Ez. 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a now spirit within you; I will take a heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
I will put My spirit within you, and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep my judgments, and do them.

.
CCCS 1990-1991; “In this gift, faith, hope, charity, and OBEDIENCE TO GOD’S WILL are given to us.”
.
CCCS 1996-1998; Justification comes from grace (God’s free and undeserved help) and is given to us to respond to his call.

This call to eternal life is supernatural, coming TOTALLY from God’s decision and surpassing ALL power of human intellect and will.”
.
John 15:16; You did not chose Me, but I chose you.

Acts 13:48; … as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed. – Not even one former unjust, idolaters, drunkards, etc. said no to God’s salvation.

I Cor.6:11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The three Divine or Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are infused with Sanctifying grace, (De fide dogma).
.
As we see above Valencia, at recreation, God converts disobedient God haters into to obedient lovers of God and lovers of others. – God’s work always 100 % success and His will is immutable.

God acts in and with every creature in each and all its activities.

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

 

[QuietKarlos]

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.

How does this make sense since it is saying God chooses for us to do bad things as well, or am I misunderstanding?

as many as had been appointed for eternal life believed. – Not even one former unjust, idolaters, drunkards, etc. said no to God’s salvation.

What is the Catholic take on this since it seems to point towards pre destination?

Thanks, God Bless

 

[Veritas6]

I don’t think it’s required to explain why causation occurs as it does. The question was: ‘What’s the definition of causality’. If you ask for the definition of flight, we don’t need a deep and meaningful discussion about the physics of aerodynamics to do so.

But… why not? I would enjoy a deep lesson on the mechanics of flight. I find your definition of causality to be lacking as you presuppose (consciously or not) change exists beforehand.

And we don’t need to validate maths and physics or chemistry or quantum mechanics or anything else either. Let’s just agree that all the sciences are sufficient for purpose in this case. Let’s not overcomplicate this.

Why not? I wouldn’t say science is sufficient at all. I’m challenging this very notion as you’re making a metaphysic from physics (science is sufficient). Metaphysics and physics are separate ideas and one can’t disprove the other; they work together.

And it seems that your definition of determinism is pretty much the same as mine. It’s blazingly obvious in the case of a single event, but we’ve no chance of connecting the dots for a sequence of events of any length. We’ll never prove that the butterfly wings actually was in some way partly responsible for the hurricane a continent away.

How is it “blazingly obvious”? Determinism is only one form of causality. I personally don’t draw the conclusion that predictive models from physics therefore proves every event is necessary. I don’t see it.

And I would say that the effects become so small as be be physically irrelevant. And the fact that effects are cumulative means that there is an infinite number of them that need to be considered. But that doesn’t detract from the fact that there are definitely links that we can follow and accept that they are connected.

I agree effects follow from causes, but not necessarily. Your metaphysic holds to this but my metaphysic doesn’t even consider it. Can you prove it?

 

[QuietKarlos]

But this cannot stand, because, as has been stated, the good merits themselves are from God and are the effects of predestination.

Did he not reject pre destination actually?
This is what I thought when I read it and also I did read it, yes

 

[Latin]

What is the Catholic take on this since it seems to point towards pre destination?

The Catholic dogma
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA The predestination of the elect.

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.

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 COUNTERPART of the predestination of the good is the decree the Divine reprobation.

Merely implies the absolute will not to grant the bliss of heaven, though not positively predestined to hell, yet they are absolutely predestined not to go to heaven (cf. above, I, B).
.
Calvinistic reprobation means the absolute will to condemn to hell.
.
SOME CATHOLIC APOLOGISTS VIEW ON THE DECREE THE DIVINE REPROBATION

Whatever view one may take regarding the internal probability of negative reprobation, it cannot be harmonized with the dogmatically certain universality and sincerity of God’s salvific will.
.
For the absolute predestination of the blessed is at the same time the absolute will of God “not to elect” a priori the rest of mankind (Suarez), or which comes to the same, “to exclude them from heaven” (Gonet), in other words, not to save them.
.
How can that will to save be called serious and sincere which has decreed from all eternity the metaphysical impossibility of salvation?
.
He who has been reprobated negatively, may exhaust all his efforts to attain salvation: it avails him nothing.
.
Moreover, in order to realize infallibly his decree, God is compelled to frustrate the eternal welfare of all excluded a priori from heaven, and to take care that they die in their sins.
.
Is this the language in which Holy Writ speaks to us? No; there we meet an anxious, loving father, who wills not “that any should perish, but that all should return to penance” 2 Peter 3:9).
.
Lessius rightly says that it would be indifferent to him whether he was numbered among those reprobated positively or negatively; for, in either case, his eternal damnation would be certain.
.
The reason for this is that in the present economy exclusion from heaven means for adults practically the same thing as damnation. A middle state, a merely natural happiness, does not exist.”

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

I wholeheartedly agree with Suarez, Gonet, Lessius, etc.
.
God bless