Free will? I dont think so

[Hume]

It is my understanding that Hume believed in compatibilism with determinism

It’s my understanding that I thought the guy was clever, especially for his time. But let’s not assume that my ideals and his line up 100%.

St. Thomas Aquinas would not accept physical determinism as after he demonstrated the existence of God and how He acts - what entails in the world is act and potency, contingency and necessitation. Why assume every effect necessarily follows from its cause?

We’ve a pretty good thread going on about that subject.

Aquinas was a smart guy - just like Aristotle. But 800 and 2500 years down the road from both of them, respectively, we’ve learned that the universe appears to operate in a deterministic fashion. And in places where we don’t understand the determinism - through additional inquiry and study - we often find it.

In a deterministic universe, like the one we appear to live in, potency, contingency and necessity have lost most of their meaning. As the potential set for any act is likely [1] if you have enough information, the barrier between potentiality and necessity dissolved.

While many want to ignore this likelihood, the likely deterministic nature of our universe runs a lance through the heart of these classic, medieval arguments. They’ve been critically wounded.

As such, outside Catholic colleges, they’re only covered briefly as a survey of the history of philosophy that only serves the purpose of leading up to what most modern philosophers think is still relevant.

 

[Gorgias]

Scripture says he was given this privilege by God the father. He doesn’t do anything by his own will but by the fathers etc. Your own priests were given this grace and practice it daily.

Actually, you’re mistaken. Priests don’t “forgive sins” (although this is how it’s expressed colloquially), at least not with divine authority. Here’s how it really works:

• confessor hears the verbal confession of the penitent
• confessor judges whether the penitent is contrite and intends to avoid the sin in the future
• confessor performs a juridical act of the Church – he absolves the penitent of his sins.
• Jesus, who promised divine forgiveness when an apostle (/ bishop / priest) forgives (in the name of the Church), forgives the penitent.

So, in this case, it’s still Jesus who forgives! The priest merely acts as in a role that Jesus instituted for the Church!

You ever consider that they might have misunderstood?

That’s a rather lame retort, don’t you think? It goes something like this: “on numerous occasions, Jesus said and did things that people misunderstood to mean that He was asserting His divinity. Due to that misunderstanding, they had Him crucified.” C’mon, now… are you seriously gonna hold to that claim? Even in the face of the resurrection? What would that be, then? “The people who misunderstood Jesus’ non-claims to divinity were later unsurprised to find that He raised Himself from the dead. At that point, they realized how wrong they were about His divinity.”

Don’t you think the "audience would have reacted the same way, not understanding the difference between what the priest says and does and who “actually” is forgiving the sins etc.?

Some do, and some don’t.

Um…couldn’t we conclude that the high priest was mistaken in what was possible?

We might. The whole ‘resurrection’ thing kinda makes that implausible, though…

Jesus never said I am God, he simply acted in a way the priest “thought” only God could act.

That denies the many “I AM” statements of Jesus. Sure, they appear in John. But, if you look at John 8, there’s an incontrovertible exchange in which Jesus is claiming divinity and they understand his words as what they are (and attempt to stone him for them).

Consider that the high priest to begin with would have considered that God standing before him as a man or even as a son of God was an impossibility and to claim such a thing would have been blasphemy as well

That’s not what’s at stake here, though. The question is merely “is Jesus claiming divinity in a way that was understood by his interlocutors?” In the trial passage, the answer is clearly “yes”. Whether the priest was mistaken in his understanding of who Jesus is, nevertheless he understood what Jesus was saying to him.

 

[Gorgias]

That doesn’t answer the persons question.

When my child stomps his feet and says “I don’t like your answer! I want candy, and I deserve it and that’s that!”… well, there isn’t really an answer to give, other than, “sorry. no.”

It’s self evident that God speaking to each of us face to face like he did with the apostles would achieve quite a bit more in clarification about his will.

It’s really not. History has shown that, when God actually did do this, there were plenty of folks who said, “meh; I’m not convinced.” The assertion that if God did this again, that there’s be complete assent, is laughable. “There are none so blind…”, as the saying goes.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether god is love or god is hate, we’re talking about sovereignty. He either has it - which is complete, unlimited control - or he does not.

Sovereignty and love are not mutually exclusive. Does the parent who loves his child somehow lose his sovereignty with respect to the child? No. Sovereignty is power. Love is the manner in which the sovereign wills to effect His power.

 

[Veritas6]

Aquinas was a smart guy - just like Aristotle. But 800 and 2500 years down the road from both of them, respectively, we’ve learned that the universe appears to operate in a deterministic fashion. And in places where we don’t understand the determinism - through additional inquiry and study - we often find it.

In a deterministic universe, like the one we appear to live in, potency, contingency and necessity have lost most of their meaning. As the potential set for any act is likely [1] if you have enough information, the barrier between potentiality and necessity dissolved.

While many want to ignore this likelihood, the likely deterministic nature of our universe runs a lance through the heart of these classic, medieval arguments. They’ve been critically wounded.

Act and potency refer to the mode of operation God performs in order for life to be sustained. Uncovering a scientific understanding of predictable, physical causes is totally fine, but one cannot uncover absolute necessity based on likelihood. This is why determinism cannot be proven, only inferred.

The Aristotelian analysis of change is the actualization of a potential. For example, fire which is actually hot, makes wood, which is otherwise only potentially hot, actually hot. In this instance the fire actualizes the potential of the wood to become hot, burn, and in effect undergo a substantial change to ash. In this understanding, the fire predictably makes wood hot, but it doesn’t prove determinism.

This method is how God makes all change occur in the universe at every moment. He is the underlying foundation of our existence, Existence Itself. If He were to literally stop thinking of you, you would cease to exist.

Science presupposes change, it doesn’t explain it. The distinction between act/potency isn’t a competing scientific theory, it’s a philosophical answer. Both of these ideas complement each other.

When it comes to free will, the will is a spiritual power that cannot be coerced or forced by outside things. It is free in as much as it gives expression to a spiritual spontaneity. When we act, man cooperates with God. God creates the will and sustains it. He gives rise to our agency and moves our will towards the Good. We, in consenting and cooperating with that, act in a way that is wholly ours.

God is at work in and through each person, giving rise to that spiritual disposition, inclining it to the good, actualizing it, and man is fully engaged. He wants us to be secondary causes, like instruments in His divine plan.

 

[whatistrue]

Specifically, you are DEFINING as being outside time as having the ability to know the future but not affect our free will

It’s not the definition, but it is a consequence. The definition, as I understand it, of “God is outside time” is that He is not constrained by or part of the temporal framework of the universe that we as humans exist in. And speaking of assertions without foundation, can you please explain how God’s knowledge makes our free will impossible? I keep hearing this and it makes no sense to me. To make sure we are talking about the same thing, when I say free will, I mean that we decide and act on our own; the decision is not made by any other entity.

 

[Gorgias]

It seems like your argument boils down to God knows the future and we still have free will.

No. Let’s try again. God knows what you perceive of as the future. You still have free will. These two are not in conflict.

You are just making an assertion.

And you are not?

If you are going to throw out logic and rational thought, what is the point?

I’m not “throwing out logic”. I’m not abandoning “rational thought”. What’s your point?

Your argument is circular because you are claiming that equates to the conclusion.

Nope. Let’s look at how you come to that conclusion:

Specifically, you are DEFINING as being outside time as having the ability to know the future but not affect our free will

Nope. But I get what you’re trying to say. (I just think it’s illogical.)

What I’m “defining” is that God is outside time. That makes logical sense: after all, we say that God created the universe, and the universe contains a temporal dimension. Therefore, if God created time, then (by definition) He is not constrained by it.

OK… let’s move forward from there. If God is outside time, then He knows all of time, and does not have any constraints that conceal his creation from Him. Right?

Let’s talk about us, within creation, now. We exist within the temporal framework, and we do have the constraints that that framework bring: we, as creatures within the universe, cannot see what we perceive as “the future”. You can agree to this, right?

So, here’s the problem: if we cannot see the future, and God can, why does God’s ability imply that he forces what we perceive as the future?

I mean… that’s the very height of logic and rationality, don’t you think? Why does a conflation of “temporality” and “eternity” imply a lack of logic? Rather, doesn’t that conflation imply illogic and irrationality?

I can just as easily declare that “God is outside time, therefore he CANNOT know the future”

You could. You’d be wrong. That would be somewhat be like saying “Gorgias is outside of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies, and therefore, he cannot know the outcome of the movies.”

Think of it this way, if an atheist told you “God doesn’t know the future because God doesn’t exist”, would that provide any useful information?

It would! It would show me that he holds to an invalid premise, and therefore, his conclusion doesn’t follow!

 

[Latin]

… when I say free will, I mean that we decide and act on our own; the decision is not made by any other entity.

According to your above statement Whatistrue you believe Libertarian free will.

LIBERTARIAN FREE WILL

Libertarian free will is basically the concept that, metaphysically and morally, man is an autonomous being, one who operates independently, not controlled by others or by outside forces.

.
The Catholic Church dogmatically teach, we have Aided free will as follows.

AIDED FREE WILL

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).
.
CCC 308 The truth is, God is at work in all the actions of his creatures, 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, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions.
.
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.
.
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.”
.
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.
.
As God himself operates in our wills, we are freely cooperating with His graces, without even knowing it.
.
We FREELY will what God wills us to will, and we FREELY do what God wills and causes us to do.
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Free Will explains;
“God is the author of all causes and effects. God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe.
.
WITH OTHER WORDS
God is the Author/ Scriptwriter, Director and exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen in the universe, includes all events/ acts of our life, furthermore all events/ acts Preordained from all Eternity.

.
“Events relative to us 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.)
.
God bless

 

[Hume]

Act and potency refer to the mode of operation God performs in order for life to be sustained.

As I don’t recognize the actuality of any sort of god, it’s difficult to accept your argument. It seems that in order to work, the logic requires that I hold some sort of belief that cannot be confirmed by any sort of observation.

The Aristotelian analysis of change is the actualization of a potential .

Sure, and this lost meaning when a deterministic model of the universe implied that there was only one potential, making it necessary too.

When it comes to free will, the will is a spiritual power that cannot be coerced or forced by outside things. It is free in as much as it gives expression to a spiritual spontaneity .

This come into direct conflict with the idea of a creator-god and, more importantly, a god that already knows all things.

The outcome of your “spontaneous” decision was known at least 13.5 billion years ago; “before the foundations of the universe”, to use your scriptures.

The decision was only “spontaneous” to you. In actuality, it was fixed.

 

[Gorgias]

the logic requires that I hold some sort of belief that cannot be confirmed by any sort of observation.

Why is ‘observation’ the only means to truth?

The outcome of your “spontaneous” decision was known at least 13.5 billion years ago

Category error: God doesn’t exist within time, so His knowledge isn’t “at least 13.5 billion years ago”. It’s eternal.

The decision was only “spontaneous” to you. In actuality, it was fixed.

He doesn’t “see it before it happens”. It’s not ‘fixed’. He merely knows it – all of it – atemporally.

 

[whatistrue]

According to your above statement Whatistrue you believe Libertarian free will.

I believe in free will. You can call it what you like, but your repeated walls of text talking about so-called aided free will only serve to teach no free will at all, and I do not believe that your interpretation of the isolated quotes you keep putting up is what the Church actually teaches.

 

[Veritas6]

As I don’t recognize the actuality of any sort of god, it’s difficult to accept your argument. It seems that in order to work, the logic requires that I hold some sort of belief that cannot be confirmed by any sort of observation.

The existence of God is logically proven by philosophical arguments, not physical evidence. Does existence exist? How could you prove it? Can observation prove the existence of truth?

Here is a quick formulation of St. Thomas’ Argument from Motion (meaning change):

1. Our senses show that some things are in motion (change).
2. Things only move when potential motion becomes actual motion (the wood goes from potentially hot to actually hot).
3. Only something actually in motion can pass something potentially in motion into actual motion (fire is the actualizer).
4. Nothing can be at once in both actual motion and potential motion at the same time and in the same respect.
5. Therefore, nothing can move itself.
6. Therefore, each thing that is actually in motion is moved by something else already actually in motion.
7. The sequence of motion cannot extend to infinity because then there would be no first mover and consequently no other mover, since all subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover.
8. Therefore, it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other, which has no potential left that hasn’t already been actualized, and is therefore Omnipotent. And since there is no divide between potential and actual this Being can be said to be One. And since no corporeal being is the cause of itself, since it is divided into potentiality and actuality and motion happens when a thing passes from potentiality to actuality, the First Being can be said to be Incorporeal.

Sure, and this lost meaning when a deterministic model of the universe implied that there was only one potential, making it necessary too.

As I don’t recognize the reality of a deterministic model of the universe, it’s difficult to accept your argument. If you could provide proof of determinism we could better understand if there could only be one potential actualized. Simply asserting we have a deterministic universe can simply be rejected.

This come into direct conflict with the idea of a creator-god and, more importantly, a god that already knows all things.

God knows everything in a constant present, there is no future or past as God is outside of time. His knowledge does not entail causation.

I had a very strong inclination you would reply to me on this forum, did my imperfect foreknowledge force you to reply to my previous message? If not, simply knowing something ahead of time doesn’t make it necessary. For God this would indicate that His knowledge is not ultimately determinative.

The decision was only “spontaneous” to you. In actuality, it was fixed.

Now it’s up to you to prove reality is fixed by absolute necessity. I don’t think observation will prove it.

 

[Hume]

Why is ‘observation’ the only means to truth?

Observation is critical to ascertaining whether it actually is an objective “truth” versus an opinion, delusion, hallucination, group mania, etc.

It’s how we separate the sane from the schizophrenic, for example.

Category error: God doesn’t exist within time, so His knowledge isn’t “at least 13.5 billion years ago”. It’s eternal.

Well, it it’s outside time, then words like “eternal” don’t actually mean anything because they explain amounts of time. Using temporally descriptive words for an idea that’s outside time doesn’t make sense.

But more importantly, how do you know god doesn’t exist in time?
As we’re a species that only exists “in time”, how could you possibly have any understanding of it (particularly as 100% of anything we’ve ever been able to actually observe within literally all human history has been within the confines of space-time)?

As best we can tell, there’s no frame of reference for it and never has been that we can observe.

Maybe the presupposed god does not actually exist and nonsensical explanations like “outside time” are more irrationalities invoked to further obfuscate and redirect away from the problems inherent to unobservable things like a god?

He doesn’t “see it before it happens”. It’s not ‘fixed’. He merely knows it – all of it – atemporally.

It doesn’t require a very high-wattage mind to make the jump from:

[god created the universe]
+
[god knows everything that will happen]
equals (=)
[god created everything to happen]

After all, you would agree that you aren’t capable of surprising your god, right? If so, he already knew what you’d do. It was fixed from the creation of the universe, at least. It only seemed like you were making a spontaneous decision.

But to be certain, if god knew you were going to choose Mountain Dew next time you visited a Pepsi machine, then according to your system of belief, there’s 0% chance you can ultimately choose anything except Mountain Dew.

 

[Hume]

The existence of God is logically proven by philosophical arguments, not physical evidence.

If any are the 12 classical ones, then god is “proven” from those using special pleading or begging the question, unfortunately.

Things only move when potential motion becomes actual motion (the wood goes from potentially hot to actually hot).

There’s the old idea of potentiality. Again, a deterministic universe eliminates the set of potentialities for a given event all the way down to [1]. This is the same as necessity.

The wood won’t potentially get hot or cold. It must or it must not.

We obviously don’t know the future, but in a deterministic universe, it’s fixed. There aren’t options or alternatives or… other “potentialities”.

This is why the medieval philosophies are taught as a matter of history rather than current affairs. They’ve often been outmoded by another 800 years of observation (in the case of Aquinas).

 

[Hume]

Now it’s up to you to prove reality is fixed by absolute necessity. I don’t think observation will prove it.

Oh, that’s pretty easy.

Throw a naturally occurring sodium ion up against a naturally occurring chlorine ion.

Literally 100% of the time, a salt will form. Literally nothing else can possibly happen. If you perform the trial a million times then you’ll end up with a million compounds of salt.

 

[Veritas6]

If any are the 12 classical one, then god is “proven” from those using special pleading or begging the question, unfortunately.

Please point out to me any special pleading or begging the question from the eight point argument above. I don’t see it.

There’s the old idea of potentiality. Again, a deterministic universe eliminates the set of potentialities for a given event all the way down to [1]. This is the same as necessity.

The wood won’t potentially get hot or cold. It must or it must not.

Again why should I accept determinism? Because you say so? I logically proved God above, please show specific errors in the argument. If God exists, I have no reason to accept absolute necessity, things remain predictable, contingent, and necessary.

 

[Veritas6]

Throw a naturally occurring sodium ion up against a naturally occurring chlorine ion.

Literally 100% of the time, a salt will form. Literally nothing else can possibly happen. If you perform the trial a million times then you’ll end up with a million compounds of salt.

No problem, I accept predictable effects from physical causes, that is a physically necessary fact. What I don’t accept is absolute necessity which is a philosophical position, not scientific. 99.99999% of the time a salt will form, but quantum events are also applicable within the nuclei of the ions.

I accept neither determinism nor indeterminism, and you haven’t proven absolute necessity. If God exists by logical reasoning, there’s no reason to accept determinism (or indeterminism - randomness).

 

[Hume]

Please point out to me any special pleading or begging the question from the eight point argument above. I don’t see it.

Just did - right there in premise #2. Potentiality is a dead idea. Using an argument that requires that we pretend it’s not is special pleading.

Just perusing the rest, #4 requires a dead understanding of motion. Relative to something else, literally everything is in motion. Relative to the quasars at the edge of the universe, you’re moving at roughly 90% the speed of light. Relative to your computer monitor, you’re only moving subtly.

#7 requires the abandonment of infinite regress simply because Aquinas doesn’t like it. As it’s a possibility, discounting for no demonstrable reason is special pleading.

#8 takes an ocean of liberties not directly supported by the premises and we can make a whole thread on it. We can camp on 2, 4 and 7 for now.

 

[Hume]

I accept neither determinism nor indeterminism, and you haven’t proven absolute necessity. If God exists by logical reasoning, there’s no reason to accept determinism (or indeterminism - randomness).

Sure, I understand. I can’t make you believe anything.

Similarly, I’ve never seen a philosophical argument for god that didn’t have obvious problems. But for you guys, it’s like a son or daughter was an obvious deformity - still beautiful nonetheless.

This should illustrate fairly reasonably the non-logical basis of the attachment to religious ideas and why apologetics can only defend the unfalsifiable arguments of faith - but never convince.

 

[Veritas6]

Just did - right there in premise #2. Potentiality is a dead idea. Using an argument that requires that we pretend it’s not is special pleading.

Thank you! Why is potentiality a dead idea? Because determinism is true? Why should I assume events happen absolutely necessarily?

I am not special pleading if I start from my senses and see wood is not usually burning hot unless fire or heat makes it hot. It was potentially hot, or it’s potentially cold.

If 100% of the time heat makes something hot, that still wouldn’t prove absolute necessity. This is referred to as correlation, and correlation is not causation. Physics calls this predictable models of the universe, my professor never taught us about absolute necessity.

Philosophers then provide logical reasoning to try to prove determinism based on predictable effects from causes. But you haven’t given me any proof, so determinism is starting to look like a dead idea.

Just perusing the rest, #4 requires a dead understanding of motion. Relative to something else, literally everything is in motion. Relative to the quasars at the edge of the universe, you’re moving at roughly 90% the speed of light. Relative to your computer monitor, you’re only moving subtly.

Okay, everything is in motion, but can it be in motion and not in motion at the same time? Is the wood both not hot and hot at the same time? Is your post both false and true at the same time? Simply being in motion isn’t much of an objection.

#7 requires the abandonment of infinite regress simply because Aquinas doesn’t like it. As it’s a possibility, discounting for no demonstrable reason is special pleading.

If you had an infinite amount of chains holding a chandelier but no hook at the end, can it hold itself up from the ceiling? Try this with any hanging thing (with finite parts): remove its hook, will it stay hanging?

#8 takes an ocean of liberties not directly supported by the premises and we can make a whole thread on it.

I agree, but omnipotence simply means pure actuality, there is no potential things within it. If you follow the logic these attributes naturally follow, but that is for another thread.

Similarly, I’ve never seen a philosophical argument for god that didn’t have obvious problems. But for you guys, it’s like a son or daughter was an obvious deformity - still beautiful nonetheless.

This should illustrate fairly reasonably the non-logical basis of the attachment to religious ideas and why apologetics can only defend the unfalsifiable arguments of faith - but never convince.

Seems like a personal issue. If God can be logically demonstrated with sound logic, religious ideas don’t seem as crazy as one may think. If you’re not convinced it doesn’t change its truth.