Free will revisited

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hitetlen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
Ummmmmm…prove the above postulate is true.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by proof? Deductive proofs only exist in axiomatic systems, and the real world is not axiomatic. One cannot gain knowledge about the real world except by experiencing it. If you know any another method, share it with us.
 
40.png
mlchance:
You made two claims, one regarding the Bible, the other the Church The burden of proof is yours. If that is a waste of time then, to quote you, “I will also respect your free will and be content with your evasive answer.”

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Indeed I did. Even the most ardent believers of the Bible understand that it was written by humans. Of that there can be no doubt, and of course the Bible is choke full of absurdities and plain errors. The believers then try to circumvent this problem by asserting: “… but it was inspired by God”. When I ask them what that means, they stay silent. If indeed it was inspired by God, then either God is very dumb, or deliberately allowed misinterpretation.

The church is just an establishment comprized of humans. How can you assert otherwise?

Truly your questions are akin to saying: prove that the sky is blue.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
Indeed I did. Even the most ardent believers of the Bible understand that it was written by humans. Of that there can be no doubt, and of course the Bible is choke full of absurdities and plain errors.
Click to expand...
Name them.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
What do you mean by proof? Deductive proofs only exist in axiomatic systems, and the real world is not axiomatic. One cannot gain knowledge about the real world except by experiencing it. If you know any another method, share it with us.
Click to expand...
Right On!! Polanyi and Heidegger say the same thing. Personal experience is the only way to Truth, except “truth” by common concencus.–nicolo
 
It is amazing (well, maybe not) that all the posts try to evade the answer to the original question. Mostly they try to bring up irrelevant side issues. Why the effort to derail the conversation? Is is so disturbing?

The fact remains: God allegedly stops granting us our freedom to choose whether we want to serve him or not, immediately when we gain positive proof of his existence. He behaves like a pushy salesman, who offers a good deal, but only for a limited time. Like a used car salesman, who does not allow you to examine the goods he offers, you must either accept or reject the offer before you can bring the car to a mechanic to check it out. (And we all know how “respectable” used car salesmen are :).)

If you cannot answer this question, (and I don’t think you can), be honest and say so. You can always fall back on “faith” and I will accept that.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
It is amazing (well, maybe not) that all the posts try to evade the answer to the original question. Mostly they try to bring up irrelevant side issues. Why the effort to derail the conversation? Is is so disturbing?

The fact remains: God allegedly stops granting us our freedom to choose whether we want to serve him or not, immediately when we gain positive proof of his existence. He behaves like a pushy salesman, who offers a good deal, but only for a limited time. Like a used car salesman, who does not allow you to examine the goods he offers, you must either accept or reject the offer before you can bring the car to a mechanic to check it out. (And we all know how “respectable” used car salesmen are :).)

If you cannot answer this question, (and I don’t think you can), be honest and say so. You can always fall back on “faith” and I will accept that.
Click to expand...
Why do you keep insisting that we say there’s no free will in hell??? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Catholic theology claims to know that. And if it does, then please show me the sources because I tried searching the Catechism tonight to answer that queston and couldn’t find any teaching regarding it. So, without seeing any Church teaching to the contrary, I suspect that there IS free will in hell and that souls in hell prefer hell to being with God.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
That would also be a valid concern, but I am asking something different. The question is why can’t we freely change our mind whether we wish to be with God, once we gain actual proof of his existence?
Click to expand...
Jesus said “blessed are they who believe, yet have not seen”.
You get your whole lifetime to choose to love God or reject him. Once judgement day comes its too late for you.

But here you go again talking about proof, thread after thread after thread. Your broken record is getting really boring. Why don’t you just call it a day!!
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
It is amazing (well, maybe not) that all the posts try to evade the answer to the original question. Mostly they try to bring up irrelevant side issues. Why the effort to derail the conversation? Is is so disturbing?
Click to expand...
Maybe this is because you keep on changing the subject? It’s amazing also that you seem to ignore my posts.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
Read the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. No need to try and derail the thread, is there?
Click to expand...
Why should I have to read it? It is your assertion, so a) don’t copy and paste and please back up your assertion.

I have read it, and the authors cannot even be intellectually honest enough to admit when a certain passage is speaking of a parable. Maybe they have never heard what a parable is.

You should read tektonic’s response if you wish to be intellectually honest and hear the other side of the story regarding the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
What do you mean by proof? Deductive proofs only exist in axiomatic systems, and the real world is not axiomatic. One cannot gain knowledge about the real world except by experiencing it. If you know any another method, share it with us.
Click to expand...
You can gain knowledge about the word from the testimony of others and from reason, as well as from experience. I don’t have to have been in combat to have gained knowledge about combat. Our military training is based upon this principle. The first century historian, Josephus, said of the Roman’s empires military training, “Their exercises are like battles without blood, and their battles are bloody exercises.”

The proposition that all things which begin to exists have a cause of its existence is not something that can be experienced, because we cannot have an experience about all things. Yet we gain knowledge about ontology by what we do know about some things, by reason, and by testimony of others.

Your narrow epistemology is imprecise and unconvincing, compared to how humans actually come to gain knowledge.

Truth is that which corresponds to reality. It is objective. It is not defined or limited to that which can be empirically proven, or experience, reasoned, understood, or felt, etc. These things are helpful in coming to know the truth, but they do not define the truth. For example, before experiencing that which corresponds to certain elements of reality, those elements of reality existed. Before knowing about that celestial body next to Pluto, it was there. We actually predicted it before having any imagery of it due to the movement of the other planets. We reasoned to a conclusion based upon incomplete evidence. Yet, the conclusion was still a postulate, as it lacked scientific proof.

Belief is not the same as truth. Truth is objective, yet beliefs are subjective. Belief is that which one holds to be true. Beliefs are derived from three sources: 1) experience 2) reason 3) testimony of others.

The reason people hold different beliefs is because we have different experiences, varying reasoning capability, and trust differing testimonies. Nonetheless, what we believe is subjective. What is true is objective (corresponds to reality).

Just because you cannot prove something doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Science is built upon postulates, many of which cannot be empirically proven, but remain rather speculative. Nevertheless, most people decide based upon incomplete evidence, and thus, believe things based upon non-empirical proofs. For example, we rarely have proof in the absolute sense of someone being murdered. So we rely upon incomplete evidence and witness testimony to decide with moral certainty that someone is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. There’s another less strict evidentiary standard, however, for civil law called “preponderance of evidence” which is also another method of epistemology which many decisions rely upon, without having absolute proof based upon complete evidence.
 
I also question the veracity of your postulate that humans will not have free will in heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas describes the angels in heaven as having free will. I don’t see why humans would be any different.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
… As soon as we die, and be brought into the presence of God, we shall have irrefutable proof that he exists.
Click to expand...
I agree.
40.png
Hitetlen:
But at the same moment God takes our free will away
Click to expand...
I disagree. Why do you believe this?
40.png
Hitetlen:
… renders his judgment without allowing us to make our decision based on actual knowledge.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You equate perfect knowledge with actual knowledge, which is false. I have actual knowledge of many things right now. However, I do not have perfect knowledge.
40.png
Hitetlen:
…he does not want us to have full information to use in our decision making.
Click to expand...
This is true. God has purposefully not revealed everything to us in this life. It seems God has taken a risk in giving us free will, knowing that it is possible for his own creatures to willfully reject Him. It seems also that God wants us to take a risk on our part, such that while we have gained actual knowledge of Him, we fall short in having perfect knowledge of Him. It appears He wants us to trust Him, even though there’s an element of risk involved. Risk seems to be a necessarily component of love. Anyone that has ever fallen in love ought to be able to easily understand this. And yet, love seems worth the risk.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
I would not call the micro-world “invisible”. It can be measured with instruments. Quantum Physics is just a mathematical model of this world, quite accurate in its prediction, though woefully inadequate in helping to visualize it. (But of course actually visualizung something, while helpful, is irrelevant to understanding.)

But I certainly exclude the concept of “spritual” world, whatever that means, since that world cannot be accessed either by our senses or by instruments - so it is not relevant to this topic.

Let me ask again: why is our free will taken away once we gain positive, empirical knowledge of God? That is the point of this thread.
Click to expand...
Actually it is an issue that is directly related and highly important to the issue at hand. Quantam Physics makes a distincion in the Universe when speaking of the Universe and the Visible Universe. The universe is qualitatively infinite but the visible universe is that which can be measured. This is directly related to expansion of the universe theories. I am not avoiding your question I just think that it will become self-evident that it is an invalid question when we address a few errors that I see in your line of thought.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
Here comes the problem: we all make our decisions on incomplete information. We are without total knowledge, especially when it comes to God’s very existence. There is no proof for that, merely “hints”, which can be reasonably doubted. This is why believers emphasise faith over proof. Still, well and good.
Click to expand...
You come to your conclusions without complete information, so I think you need to understand what the Catholic definition of sin is. There are 2 types of sins in Latin-Rite Catholic theology, mortal and venial. Ultimately, sin is what separates us from God: the source. God is sinless so He wants us to try and live our lives like Him so we can be closer to Him. Now we can get into the definitions of sin, mortal and venial.

For a mortal (deadly) sin to occure, 3 conditions have to be met:
  1. its subject must be a ‘grave matter’ (i.e. you know it’s already wrong and deadly);
  2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and the gravity of the offense;
  3. it must be completed with deliberate and complete consent
So, in order to even get this point you have to really try hard or be a very depraved individual.

venial sin on the other hand:
  1. its subject matter does not concern a ‘grave matter’;
  2. it is not committed with full knowledge or,
  3. it is not committed with both deliberate and complete content.
in the gospels we see how sin is separated into the categories of deadly and non-deadly, however sin in and of itself is still a sin.

so in order to even get to the point to where you’re talking about the person in question must be really trying hard to make an offense against God. Ultimately, once we die, we will be judged based on our actions. if we committed a mortal sin, we did it with full knowledge and consent so any punishment rendered (hell, whatever), is just. Some people will need to go onto purgatory (not necessarily a physical plane but a plane in which the person is cleansed from all earthly attachments) and then ultimately on to Heaven to be with God.
 
40.png
gardenswithkids:
Why do you keep insisting that we say there’s no free will in hell??? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Catholic theology claims to know that. And if it does, then please show me the sources because I tried searching the Catechism tonight to answer that queston and couldn’t find any teaching regarding it. So, without seeing any Church teaching to the contrary, I suspect that there IS free will in hell and that souls in hell prefer hell to being with God.
Click to expand...
If the Catholic theology is silent on the subject, we are free to use our reason and make our judgment. (Of course even if the Church does make an utterance, I still have the righ and question it. But that is beside the point.) I understand your conclusion (that people freely and voluntarily choose to stay in hell, in eternal suffering, torment and damnation), but find it highly unreasonable.

Even those posters who downplay hell, (and say that it is merely a separation from God) assert that the torment comes from finally understanding the loss they suffer from this separation and the knowledge that it could have been otherwise. Now, from this it follows logically that if they had a chance, they would change their status. After all if they enjoyed their alleged status, and would NOT want to change it, it would not be a torment.

And I want to say that you actually presented your opinion, and did not try to derail. My apologies for not making this distinction before.
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I also question the veracity of your postulate that humans will not have free will in heaven. St. Thomas Aquinas describes the angels in heaven as having free will. I don’t see why humans would be any different.
Click to expand...
Those in heaven are somewhat irrelevant for this discussion. Presumably they ejnoy where they are. Even if they have free will, they would not wish to exercise it. The ones who are denied admission to heaven are the ones who MAYBE would like to change their status, and are not allowed to do so.

As for your other question, and all the other poster’s remarks, I am about to go out of town for a week and will not have access to the Net. When I return, I will address their “points”.
 
40.png
Hitetlen:
Honestly? (As a quick justification: when I took a psychologial profiling test, my aptitude for openness to new ideas was off the scale. I am rather proud that even in my progressed age I can keep a very open mind.)
Click to expand...
As is "evidenced by:
No, I see faith as an incorrect epistemological method of learning about reality.
Click to expand...
and
The Catholic Church is just another human establishment, therefore fallible. I see no reason to trust it, unless it can prove or demonstrate its authority. And this demonstration is not forthcoming.
Click to expand...
I think you fit the classic definition of an agnostic “swears ther aint no heaven and prays there aint no hell”
 
40.png
gardenswithkids:
Why do you keep insisting that we say there’s no free will in hell??? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Catholic theology claims to know that. And if it does, then please show me the sources because I tried searching the Catechism tonight to answer that queston and couldn’t find any teaching regarding it. So, without seeing any Church teaching to the contrary, I suspect that there IS free will in hell and that souls in hell prefer hell to being with God.
Click to expand...
Consider this story:
Luke 16:22-26 (New International Version)

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25"But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27"He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
(Emphasis Mine)
Click to expand...
Apparently, it is impossible for those in Hell to leave. While this story does not directly contradict the notion that those in Hell prefer it to the alternative, it does imply it; for why else would Abraham mention the fact that no one can travel from Hell to Paradise? Also, the rich man’s concern that his brothers might end up where he is indicates that he doesn’t see it as preferable to the alternative. (Side note: It is striking that in this story a presumably depraved, condemned soul is concerned for the well-being of his brothers. Is God still with him, or does he not need God’s help to love others?)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top