Free will revisited

[BillP]

john doran:

because he’s also (infinitely) respectful of the freedom of his creatures: as merciful as he is, he won’t offer it where it’s not wanted, and if you die without sanctifying grace,

I believe the OP’s issue was with that very construct. We are in effect given “free will” but only for a limited time, in fact the instant that conclusive proof is available that free will is taken away. Why would God choose to operate in this fashion is the question of the OP. And I believe its a very good question.
john doran:

Problem is that you don’t want anything to do with god. so god lets you walk away.

Perhaps there are those who believe God exists and want nothing to do with Him. Certainly Lucifer prefferred to rule in Hell rather than serve in Heaven. I suppose there are even some people who upon dying and learning that God exists and is actually exactly who and what he claimed to be, would still choose to reject him. Were not duscussing those people.

We are discussing the many, many people who have been exposed to the concept of God and Salvation and simply couldn’t make that leap of faith to accept it and order their life in such a way as to take advantage of the opportunity offered.

No one disputes (at least I don’t dispute, nor do I believe the OP disputed) the teaching of the Church on their Condemnation. We just ask WHY?

And how does that set circumstances square with God being “all-mericful”?

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

I believe the OP’s issue was with that very construct. We are in effect given “free will” but only for a limited time, in fact the instant that conclusive proof is available that free will is taken away. Why would God choose to operate in this fashion is the question of the OP. And I believe its a very good question.

but it’s not taken away - people freely choose to go to and remain in, hell.

of course, i understand that being hard to believe, but then there are lots of things i find hard to believe concerning one’s exercise of free will in this world, like people who choose to remain in abusive relationships, or people who can’t stop drinking or eating too much, or…

BillP:

We are discussing the many, many people who have been exposed to the concept of God and Salvation and simply couldn’t make that leap of faith to accept it and order their life in such a way as to take advantage of the opportunity offered.

No one disputes (at least I don’t dispute, nor do I believe the OP disputed) the teaching of the Church on their Condemnation. We just ask WHY?

And how does that set circumstances square with God being “all-mericful”?

i’m not sure i understand the group to which you’re referring…

you either die in a state of sanctifying grace, or you don’t; you don’t need to have been baptized catholic in order to die in a state of sanctifying grace.

 

[BillP]

john doran:

but it’s not taken away - people freely choose to go to and remain in, hell.

Well how about those who are told the outline of God, Catholic beliefs and requirmnets for Salvation. Think about it and say. “I dont believe it”, and go on their merry way.
john doran:

of course, i understand that being hard to believe, but then there are lots of things i find hard to believe concerning one’s exercise of free will in this world, like people who choose to remain in abusive relationships, or people who can’t stop drinking or eating too much, or…

So on daily basis, you are confronted with incontravertable, eyewitness personally observed evidence and by your own admission you still find it hard to believe that these things go on. How much harder must it be for people to believe in god and the requirements for eternal salvation?
john doran:

i’m not sure i understand the group to which you’re referring…

you either die in a state of sanctifying grace, or you don’t; you don’t need to have been baptized catholic in order to die in a state of sanctifying grace.

Well I would say it would be difficult to achieve a state of catifying grace if one doesn’t believe in God. Would you agree?

In the final analysis, the question is “Why does God require us to believe in Him on faith alone?” And why is the punishment for merely being “unconvinced” (consignment to Hell, forever) the same as the punishment for being openly defiant?

 

[doomhammer]

BillP:

His question is WHY should it be so?Why does an “infinitly merciful” God choose such a system?

There are lots of more interesting “Why?”!
Regarding the “infinitely merciful” or “all merciful” God I’m afraid we are not thinking about the same idea. God is “infinitely merciful” and “all merciful” because he gave us the Christ as a sign of his love. The Cross of Christ means and signifies the love of God for the lost creatures. But that Cross is salvation for the believers and damnation for the non-believers. Thus God’s justice is merciful.

 

[BillP]

doomhammer:

There are lots of more interesting “Why?”

Not to me. or I suspect the OP.

doomhammer:

But that Cross is salvation for the believers and damnation for the non-believers.

Why damn the unbelievers? What did they ever do that deserves eternal punishment?

They didn’t ask to be born.

They didn’t volitionally join a program with defined risks and rewards

They aren’t actively defying God, they are just unconvinced of his reality.

But they’re going to suffer the torments of hellfire for all eternity?

How can we legitimately speak of “justice” when the “crime” and “punishiment” are so incredibly disparate as to make a mockery of the term “justice”?

Mind you I’m not saying it’s not true, I just don’t understand HOW or WHY it CAN be true.

 

[doomhammer]

BillP:

In the final analysis, the question is “Why does God require us to believe in Him on faith alone?” And why is the punishment for merely being “unconvinced” (consignment to Hell, forever) the same as the punishment for being openly defiant?

first question: false: it is not only “on faith alone”. you have reason to recognize God as the Creator.
second question: false: the ones in hell do not suffer the same punishment, punishment in hell depends on the sin sent you there.

 

[Anonymous_1]

Hitetlen:

Many a time posters emphasised that God gives us free will and that is a sign of his love. From that it would follow, that taking away free will would be a sign of God not loving us any more. Posters also said that God does not despise sinners, he loves them as well.

Also that God allows us to make bad decisions, and if later we beg for forgiveness, he would pardon our transgressions. All this sounds good on the surface.

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.

The proverbial substance is going to hit the fan now:

As soon as we die, and be brought into the presence of God, we shall have irrefutable proof that he exists. At that very moment we would be in the position to make truly informed decision whether we wish to be in his presence or not. But at the same moment God takes our free will away and renders his judgment without allowing us to make our decision based on actual knowledge. This is very strange to say the least. Either he stops loving us at that moment (hence taking our free will away), or he does not want us to have full information to use in our decision making. Neither of these is a palatable solution.

To take our free will away just when are able to make truly informed decision is unjust and cruel.

What is your take on this analysis?

there are problems with this, i am going to PM you…

 

[john_doran]

BillP:

Well how about those who are told the outline of God, Catholic beliefs and requirmnets for Salvation. Think about it and say. “I dont believe it”, and go on their merry way.

i can’t see into anyone’s heart but my own.

BillP:

So on daily basis, you are confronted with incontravertable, eyewitness personally observed evidence and by your own admission you still find it hard to believe that these things go on. How much harder must it be for people to believe in god and the requirements for eternal salvation?

but i do believe that people make these choices. i just think they’re odd choices, in the same way that i would think that a choice of eternal separation from god would be strange.

BillP:

Well I would say it would be difficult to achieve a state of catifying grace if one doesn’t believe in God. Would you agree?

i don’t know, quite frankly. maybe, maybe not.

BillP:

In the final analysis, the question is “Why does God require us to believe in Him on faith alone?” And why is the punishment for merely being “unconvinced” (consignment to Hell, forever) the same as the punishment for being openly defiant?

perhaps the real question is why are there many ways to lose sanctifying grace? i mean, there’s lust, gluttony, anger, pride, and so on and so forth. right? so that being “unconvinced” can be just as prideful as being openly defiant…

 

[doomhammer]

BillP:

Why damn the unbelievers? What did they ever do that deserves eternal punishment?

Matthew 13, 58: “And he did not work many mighty deeds there because of their lack of faith”.
You can not be saved unless you want it.

 

[doomhammer]

BillP:

They didn’t ask to be born.

to be born: the basic, fundamental and first “free will” failure.

 

[Hitetlen]

thistle:

I don’t understand why everyone engages in discussion with our athiest friend. His threads and posts have one theme. God does not exist, religion and faith are man-made, and anyone who believes in God and has faith is stupid because we believe in something that can’t be scientifically proven.
We should wish him well on a very very very long vacation and pray that one day he will see the light.

Have you really seen even ONE occasion where I called someone here STUPID? I should hope not. Even though our views are different, I try to keep our disagreement polite and courteous. I think that we can all learn from a different point of view.

And what is wrong with scientific proof? I bet that you and everyone else relies on science and reason in your everyday life. I also bet that none of you would rely on faith alone and would dare to drive on the highway with closed eyes and trust God that he will “suggest” when to move the steering wheel, when to step on the gas and when to apply the brakes. So no matter how you denounce science and reason, and talk about faith and its “results” when push comes to shove, you relinquish faith and stick to reason, just like all the atheists do.

And I hope you will not be too disappointed about my coming back and continue with the thread.

 

[Hitetlen]

gardenswithkids:

Ahh! What you fail to understand is we require the grace of God to repent. Those in hell have rejected the grace of God. Despite having been given adequate opportunities to accept God’s grace on earth, they gave their final answer to God–they said “no”. And He allows us to make that choice. But without grace, they are unable to repent. So rather than it being an issue of free will, it is an issue of grace.

If you wish to argue that it is a question of grace, I am willing to go along with that. So maybe those burning in hell would like to repent, but God deprived them of the capability to do so.

gardenswithkids:

We require the grace of God to do anything, even to accept His grace.

Ouch, this is strange. So I have to have God’s grace even to ask for his grace? Don’t you think this is redundant?

gardenswithkids:

While you seem to think that if people are in hell then God is cruel because no one deserves hell, I see instead that I deserve hell but my loving, merciful God offers me a chance to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand. If you think you would repent when you are tossed into hell, I strongly suggest you ask the loving, merciful God that you aren’t sure exists to give you the grace to repent NOW. I’ll pray God gives you the grace to do that.

That is nice of you to say, but it does not help. I could go through the “motions”, join a church, go to mass, pray etc… but that would be a farce - since I have no belief. In such a case God could get really “angry” for my subterfuge, for my attempt to throw dust into his eyes, and to try to sneak into heaven on false pretenses?

You say that Gos gave us “adequate” opportunities, but I disagree. The one and only opportunity that really counts is the one when you know that he actually exists. And that is the opportunity that is denied. Not very “merciful” in my humble opinion.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

Yes, but your premise is still incorrect. They are denied access to heaven, not because they have been stripped of free will, but because eternal life is a gift that nobody deserves, and God alone chooses who receives this gift. In Catholic theology, we are rewarded for our faithfulness to him in this life, based upon the actual knowledge we recieve in this life. To cry “its not fair” is ridiculous, as God gives sufficient grace to all to attain eternal life. If you fail to cooperate with the grace God gives, through poor use of free will, then the outcome is just–eternal separation from God and punishment congruent with the crimes deliberately committed in this life.

Actually, no. You can commit genocide, burn, torture and rape children, be the worst imaginable criminal, but if you repent on your death bed, you will be forgiven (according to the theology). On the other hand, you can lead a very loving altruistic life without believing in God, and when you are finally given evidence, your whole previous life does not matter any more; off you go into eternal damnation. This is horribly unfair and unjust.

itsjustdave1988:

You are mixing “free will” with “freedom.” People in prison retain their free will even when they are being justly punished and restricted from the benefits which the other citizenry enjoy. Is that fair? You betcha.

If can ONLY be fair, if there was an actual crime committed by the person in question AND if the punishment is commensurate to the deed. Not believing an idea is not a crime.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree. I studied Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, and Aritificial Intelligence in my bachelors and post-graduate studies. You are thinking like a mathematician, not a scientist. Much of science is believed by scientists without strict proofs, and we apply that science in real-world applications despite not having strict proofs.

In a sense, yes, but not exactly. The unsupported or partially supported ideas are called hypotheses, subject to re-evaluation any time - based upon empirical evidence. They are accepted conditionally. True, that only the exact sciences (like mathematics) offer “proof”, the natural sciences do not. But if experiments support a hypothesis a million times, scientists will only doubt the hypotehsis if a very compelling reason is offered. “Faith” has no place in this realm. (But this has very little to do with this thread.)

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

To deny that very important beliefs are derived from testimony of others is absurd. I’ve never duplicated the experiments of quantum physics, yet I studied them in college and use this expert testimony about physics it to study how CMOS microchips are designed and manufactured. I trust Erwin Schroedinger’s expert witness when evaluating the veracity of his regarding quantum physics. This is how real science works, your premise to the contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, and no. Those expert testimonies are just convenient shortcuts, not substitutes for the experiments. You never repeated those quantum phisical experiments, but you COULD, if you really wanted to. Of course we (personally) don’t have time to conduct ALL the experiments in ALL the fields of science. That is what the other scientists in the same fields do, they try to invalidate new claims, and if these attempts are furtile, the new ideas will be accepted - provisionally. Even ONE counter example will be enough to invalidate even the most strongly asserted “expert” opinion.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

It is equally true that you can only speak for yourself with regard to the lack of actual knowledge.

If you can share your knowledge (without resorting to “faith”) I am willing to listen.

itsjustdave1988:

That’s rather silly. Let me try that … “If there were actual empirical evidence of neo-darwinism, then everybody would believe in it, right?” You see how absurd your claim is?

No, I see how absurd your argument is. God’s existence is a binary problem, it requires no intellectual reinforcement. If there would be a proof, we would have to accept it. Your counter example is incorrect. Just because no one denies that the concept of numbers exist that does not make everyone a mathematician, does it?

itsjustdave1988:

If there were actual empirical evidence that God does not exist, there would be no theists. Gee… that’s rather easy, and can be applied to many number of accepted beliefs, yet such fallacious argumentation doesn’t really amount to much, does it?

That would be nice, but belief in a god does not rely on proof or evidence, it relies on faith. Not the same thing.

itsjustdave1988:

Furthermore, since you can only speak for yourself about the lack of actual knowledge, isn’t your first post more precisely a question as to why YOU lack actual knowledge of God? Perhaps you have impediments that keep you from acquiring actual knowledge of God.

Maybe, but if there would be evidence, I could understand that.

itsjustdave1988:

Your assertion seems to amount to “I haven’t seen it with my own eyes, so it can’t be true.” Ya know, I bet you haven’t seen your own brain with your own eyes either, but you probably believe you have one.

No, I say that no one has shared any evidence of any experiment which can be repeated by non-believers, and reach the same conclusion. If “faith” is a prerequisiste then the believers act like Uri Geller, who says that his “magic” is based upon supernatural phenomena, but the audience must believe him up-front, otherwise it will not work.

itsjustdave1988:

Likewise, I’ve never seen the dark side of the moon. I betcha it exists. Why? Not because I have actually experienced it myself, but due to the testimony of other trustworthy witnesses, and based upon reason. Then again, mayby the Apollo missions were faked. Geezzzzz… now I’m starting to doubt there really is a dark side fo the moon… Wait! Now I’m starting to doubt my doubt. When will the madness end!!!

If you would say that you found a 100 dollar bill on a crowded sidewalk, I would believe you. But if you asserted that you found all the British crown jewels on the same crowded sidewalk, I would NOT believe your word.

The madness will end when you understand the simple principle: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

So before the instruments to measure it were invented, an electron did not exist?

There was no reason to believe in it, until some experiments suggested its existence. Is there a similar experiment for the “soul” I could conduct?

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Yes, it is. You are going to receive it the moment you die. All Atheists believe in God when they die. The little problem is that it’s too late to convert. Again: Luke 16, 30-31: “…’if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead. In short: “There is no excuse”.

Is there evidence of hell, here and now? (According to an old story, someone was bragging how high he jumped once on the island of Rhodos. He was challenged: “Hic Rhodos, hic salta!”) Maybe there is no “excuse” according to you, but that is not compelling to me.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

God is mercy and justice. Some people like to forget the latter. To go to heaven you must desire heaven. Someone who does not desire God can not be saved. Nobody is saved against his own will.

Oh, yes, I heard that. But of course God cannot be BOTH just AND merciful at the same time toward the same person. (Good old law of contradiction.) At best you can say that sometimes God is “just” and sometimes he is “merciful”, but that does not help the original question.

 

[Hitetlen]

doomhammer:

Wrong. Reason and Faith do not collide. Both come from God. Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith (1870): “The same Holy Mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason: ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”

Sorry, but that does not carry any weight.

doomhammer:

It is clear: God’s existence can be known by human reason. You have Aristotle there. But, you can not reach by reason alone the mysteries of faith. And you have Tertullian there. And you have St. Paul there: “Faith is the evidence of things not seen.” But, as Atheists are by definition blind, they see nothing. St. Paul 1 Cor. 1, 25: “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

Now, let’s see if you practice what you preach: Since you have never seen the tooth fairy, you MUST believe in it, if you follow Paul. If you follow Tertullian also, who said: “Credo quia absurdum est”, then you also have to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, since it is not only invisible, but also absurd, being invisible and pink being contradictory. Do you believe in those, too?