Free will? I dont think so

[whatistrue]

However, it does not mean that God directs our every action against our free will, as you’re taking it to mean.

That is exactly the way it looks to me. Especially since @Latin always overemphasizes the “wills and causes” bit. The idea is much better expressed as “God wills us to have free will”, so why all the extra verbiage that changes the meaning, or at least confuses it?

ETA: And why don’t we wait for @Latin to weigh in himself so we both know what he really means?

 

[nfinke]

If I could look into a crystal ball and see that you were about to eat a Hersey bar, and then you did, you obviously wouldnt think that I had somehow forced you to do it, or compromised your choice just by knowing the outcome ahead of time. God is no different.

You are mixing up preknowledge with predestination. God knows ahead of time the choices you will make, He doesnt make those choices for you.

 

[Gorgias]

That is exactly the way it looks to me.

I know. That’s why I’m trying to point out where you seem to be misreading it.

The idea is much better expressed as “God wills us to have free will”, so why all the extra verbiage that changes the meaning, or at least confuses it?

@Latin likes to quote traditional formulations of doctrine; this is one example.

ETA: And why don’t we wait for @Latin to weigh in himself so we both know what he really means?

Hint: search on “aided free will” here in the search box. This isn’t the first time that @Latin has quoted this teaching.

 

[whatistrue]

This isn’t the first time

Oh, I am well aware of that. And it always struck me as denying free will. And even when I reply directly disputing that stance, I have never yet gotten a reply along the lines of “that’s not what I meant” or even a reply at all. Nor have I ever seen a reply like that to anyone else, just basically a repeat of the same formulation, if anything at all. So unless and until I see a correction directly from @Latin I will just continue to read it as it is written.

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

This isn’t the first time

Oh, I am well aware of that. And it always struck me as denying free will. And even when I reply directly disputing that stance, I have never yet gotten a reply along the lines of “that’s not what I meant” or even a reply at all. Nor have I ever seen a reply like that to anyone else, just basically a repeat of the same formulation, if anything at all. So unless and until I see a correction directly from @Latin I will just continue to read it as it is written.

Free will coexisting with omniscience and omnipotence is a mystery, in the sense that we don’t know the kernel of truth but are drawn into it (hence the continuous discussions that are ongoing since the beginning of human thought).

How does God interact with humanity? Look at Jesus. Jesus makes the mystery real.

 

[Aquinas11]

Correct, he said God “causes us to do” , meaning causes actions , thus contradicting free will

 

[nfinke]

If God already knows what will happen to me, there is no free will. My soul is already going to go to heaven or to hell. I have already made those decisions before I made them. It is done and finished. It is like a book that has already been written. I am have just started to read it, but the ending isnt going to change.

Like alot of people with this concept, you seem to be taking one piece of info and running wild with it.

To straighten out your analogy: yes, you have just started reading the book and God can read the whole thing at once, but you are the author. God gave you the pen and you decided what to write down.

Now like all analogies its imperfect because you would then also know how it ends, but hopefully you get my point.

 

[whatistrue]

Free will coexisting with omniscience and omnipotence is a mystery, in the sense that we don’t know the kernel of truth but are drawn into it

Frankly it doesn’t seem all that difficult to me. Knowing and determining are not the same thing, so omniscience does not invalidate free will. Being able to do something doesn’t mean it will be done, so omnipotence doesn’t invalidate free will. God gave us free will, so we have it. What is so mysterious?

 

[lelinator]

That’s why I’m trying to point out where you seem to be misreading it.

Like @whatistrue, I’ve also noticed @Latin putting forth this argument many times in the past, and I’ve always thought it to be problematic. But the passages that he quotes do seem to be quite clear.

• We freely will WHAT God wills us to will,*

That does seem rather definitive, we will what God wills us to will. To claim otherwise seems extremely disingenuous. Now I completely understand that you disagree with the quote’s implication, but none-the-less, that does seem to be what it says.

So perhaps the discussion shouldn’t be between you, me and @whatistrue, but rather between you and @Latin.

 

[Gorgias]

So unless and until I see a correction directly from @Latin I will just continue to read it as it is written.

So… Latin quotes Church documents, and since you interpret them in a unique and novel way, you won’t consider whether your stance is in error unless the person who cut-and-pasted the text tells you that you’re wrong? Umm… ok…

Correct, he said God “causes us to do ” , meaning causes actions , thus contradicting free will

The thing we “do” is exercise the free will He has given us. Not particular actions… just use of free will.

That does seem rather definitive, we will what God wills us to will. To claim otherwise seems extremely disingenuous. Now I completely understand that you disagree with the quote’s implication, but none-the-less, that does seem to be what it says.

So, please answer the question: what is it, exactly, that “God wills us to will”? And why is it that your interpretation – “particular acts of the individual” – is the reasonable one? Can you defend that interpretation? (Especially given that it runs counter to Church teaching…?!?)

So perhaps the discussion shouldn’t be between you, me and @whatistrue, but rather between you and @Latin.

Nah. Ya’ll are the ones asserting something that runs counter to the Church’s teaching. It’s a good discussion for us to have, then!

 

[Freddy]

@Freddy,

One last thought (and I know it won’t resound with you, but at least ponder it for the sake of argument):

We posit God as “all-good”, right? If God forced actions upon us, deterministically, and those actions were evil, then God would be willing evil and committing it by proxy through us. That would imply that He is evil. Paradox, and therefore, this argument is rejected.

(I would expect to see the response “yeah, but if He really is evil, then there’s no paradox, since an evil god does evil things.” Yet, a paradox remains, since the definition of “God” is now in conflict with who He is. (And yeah, the response to that is “change the definition then”. Yeah, yeah, yeah…))

I keep saying that I am not suggesting that He forces anything on us. I am saying that if He knows what course we are going to take (and I can use the term ‘choose’ here as well) then there is only that course that we will take. As I said, if God knows what’s going to happen (and He does) then nothing else can happen.

Therefore, we see multiple choices available but there’s only one that we can possibly take. The one that God knows we are going to take before we take it.

I’m sure a heuristically programmed algorithmic computer could understand that.

 

[Freddy]

phil3:

According to those here, my out come is determined and God knows it. I dont.

Not exactly. Your outcome is known, which is not the same as determined.

That’s true. You actually make the choice. What you have to decide is whether what appears to be a number of choices but which must be the one known to God comes under the definition of free will.

 

[Gorgias]

I keep saying that I am not suggesting that He forces anything on us. I am saying that if He knows what course we are going to take (and I can use the term ‘choose’ here as well) then there is only that course that we will take . As I said, if God knows what’s going to happen (and He does) then nothing else can happen.

In other words, you’re saying that God’s foreknowledge forces an action upon us. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Therefore, we see multiple choices available but there’s only one that we can possibly take.

Of course. That’s by definition. Even if you assented to free will, you’d agree to that definition.

The one that God knows we are going to take before we take it .

No. (And here we go again, around the mulberry bush.). God’s knowledge isn’t “before” our act; it’s outside of our act.

 

[chercheur]

I think even without God’s knowledge of our choices, there is still only one course we will take.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I keep saying that I am not suggesting that He forces anything on us. I am saying that if He knows what course we are going to take (and I can use the term ‘choose’ here as well) then there is only that course that we will take . As I said, if God knows what’s going to happen (and He does) then nothing else can happen.

In other words, you’re saying that God’s foreknowledge forces an action upon us. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

No again. You make the choice yourself. But it can only be one specific choice.

Let’s hypothetically take God out of the question for a moment. Let’s assume that time is a block where you start at one face of that block and end at the opposite face. You can cut into that block at any position and see where you are in time.

You’d be able to see what choices you make during your life. And you could see times before any given choice had been made. But you would know what decision you wouod be taking because you can see the outcome further on. So when you make the decision, there is only one you can take.

That ‘block’ of time is I would imagine how God sees us. Outide time viewing us all ‘in’ time.

Now if you think that’s compatible with free will then so be it. I don’t. Free will would see time moving on depending on individual choices. It wouldn’t be possible to see the whole block. In the same way it would mean that God wouldn’t know what we were going to do until we did it.

 

[MarkRome]

God not only knows what course you will chose to take, he also knows all the possible choices that you could have taken and all the nearly infinite outcomes that would have happened as a result of the actions you didn’t take.

 

[phil3]

And this is the way that I have always believed. That is until I was told I was commenting Hersey. Use to believe that God knew every single decision I could make. When I made it, he then knew the exact decision I made. To me this allowed for free will and God knowing everything.

But people would rather jump thru hoops to explain how God knows your souls final out come and you still have free will.

 

[puer.dei]

In the same way it would mean that God wouldn’t know what we were going to do until we did it.

You’re putting God in a box of your own making. You don’t understand the concept of God being outside of time, therefore it can’t be true.

 

[srobi]

yes, God is all knowing, but recall the parable of the prodigal son.
he received the inheritance he asked for and blew it all away. he made
his ‘choices’ , then learned he made wrong choices and returned to his
father. we spend our lives making choices. some good…some bad.
but how many of these choices put our Lord first. definitely easier
said then done. if we didn’t have free choice we would be with the animals.
and even if God knows ahead of time what we will do, that doesn’t mean He approves.

 

[Mountie]

What you bring up is an age-old question about human freedom and God’s divine foreknowledge.

Does God knowing that I will do X at time T negate my personal freedom to choose X at time T? This questions is further complicated when we take into account how God knows/experiences time and what is the nature of time in of itself.

It’s a complicated issue but one that can be resolved. A lot of authors have wrote about this, so I would recommend diving deeper into this philosophical inquiry. I’d suggest starting with Katherin Rogers and Michael Wiitala.