Free Will

[blase6]

I meant consciousness is not irrelevant. We are partially machine and partially conscious but the important thing is that nothing in this world could work without these two.

Yeah, I’m not following you.

 

[tonyrey]

The first cause is necessarily the determinant cause. If you can’t see how this is obvious, then I don’t know how to make it simpler. If God is the first cause of every thing, then God is the determinant cause of every event. The decision of the will is determined by its motives. No explanation of free will so far is convincing me.

You are imposing limitations on God that don’t exist. The Creator is quite capable of **sharing His power **regardless of a creature’s opinions on the subject…

 

[blase6]

You are imposing limitations on God that don’t exist. The Creator is quite capable of **sharing His power **regardless of a creature’s opinions on the subject…

The power to create is unique to God, I assume. And being the determinant cause of my own actions makes me a “co-creator” with God of the events of the universe. That is a contradiction.

I also still fail to see how even God has free will.

 

[Vico]

The first cause is necessarily the determinant cause. If you can’t see how this is obvious, then I don’t know how to make it simpler. If God is the first cause of every thing, then God is the determinant cause of every event. The decision of the will is determined by its motives. No explanation of free will so far is convincing me.

God created all creatures including their available powers. He gives man the power to move himself to act.

You may not understand, but it is the teaching of the Church that:**Catechism of the Catholic Church

**1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
​

 

[blase6]

God created all creatures including their available powers. He gives man the power to move himself to act.

You may not understand, but it is the teaching of the Church that:**Catechism of the Catholic Church

**1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.
​

It is a great deal to ask a person to reject their own internal logic to accept a belief. For me personally, I still cannot see how free will can work in a way which does not contradict another truth.

 

[davidv]

It is a great deal to ask a person to reject their own internal logic to accept a belief. For me personally, I still cannot see how free will can work in a way which does not contradict another truth.

Why is what you can see, or not see, the measure of what is contradictory?

 

[blase6]

Why is what you can see, or not see, the measure of what is contradictory?

Because I explanations I have been given of free will seem to contradict another Catholic doctrine in some way. How can I be expected to believe what appears to be contradictory?

 

[davidv]

Because I explanations I have been given of free will seem to contradict another Catholic doctrine in some way. How can I be expected to believe what appears to be contradictory?

I don’t believe they are contradictory so have no difficulty in believing.

 

[blase6]

I don’t believe they are contradictory so have no difficulty in believing.

I wasn’t arguing about whether you get it or not.

 

[davidv]

I wasn’t arguing about whether you get it or not.

No. But you seem to be arguing that because you don’t get it, its not true. Is this an accurate statement of your position?

 

[blase6]

No. But you seem to be arguing that because you don’t get it, its not true. Is this an accurate statement of your position?

It is more than a mere lack of understanding. If it sounded beyond my understanding, but still possible, I could easily accept it with faith. But a basic assumption about the world is that no two truths can contradict each other. When it appears to be the case that it contradicts other Church teachings, then I cannot merely accept it with faith. It must sound possible for me to believe it. I can only wait hopefully that someone can clear up a misunderstanding.

 

[Vico]

It is a great deal to ask a person to reject their own internal logic to accept a belief. For me personally, I still cannot see how free will can work in a way which does not contradict another truth.

That is a problem for many to accept the faith rather than use reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas is an excellent resource, but you will require understanding the terminology which is not obvious. I recommend the author Eleonore Stump in addition to Summa Theologica and other Aquinas works.

informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aquinas/

 

[blase6]

That is a problem for many to accept the faith rather than use reason.

St. Thomas Aquinas is an excellent resource, but you will require understanding the terminology which is not obvious. I recommend the author Eleonore Stump in addition to Summa Theologica and other Aquinas works.

informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aquinas/

I already read through Aquinas’ arguments for free will as posted by other users. If they were convincing, I would not still be arguing.
I will give a summary of the conflicts with free will.
Free will is defined as “the power of choice.”

1. The way the will moves is predetermined by external factors. Thus free will cannot coexist.
2. The power of choice is meaningless, because possibility is a meaningless concept and does not exist in reality. Thus free will cannot coexist.

1: The will always moves toward what appears most good. This predetermined and wholly invariable behavior of the will contradicts free will. A person who acts in accordance with the greater good has been moved to see that it is the greater good, and to act upon it. A person who sins has been moved to see that a sinful action is better than the truly good action. Thus the decision of the will depends upon and is determined by external coercion.

1. Possibility is a meaningless concept and does not exist in reality. It is merely a convention of human communication whereby the compatibility of an unknown outcome of an event with reality is considered. Thus “choices” do not seem to exist. They are just how we perceive the will moving towards a particular motive.

It seems that not even God has free will. Because of God’s perfect nature and intellect, he is moved towards creating all that exists apart from Him. Therefore it seems that the creation of the universe is not a free choice, but is a necessity.

 

[Vico]

I already read through Aquinas’ arguments for free will as posted by other users. If they were convincing, I would not still be arguing.
I will give a summary of the conflicts with free will.
Free will is defined as “the power of choice.”

1. The way the will moves is predetermined by external factors. Thus free will cannot coexist.
2. The power of choice is meaningless, because possibility is a meaningless concept and does not exist in reality. Thus free will cannot coexist.

1: The will always moves toward what appears most good. This predetermined and wholly invariable behavior of the will contradicts free will. A person who acts in accordance with the greater good has been moved to see that it is the greater good, and to act upon it. A person who sins has been moved to see that a sinful action is better than the truly good action. Thus the decision of the will depends upon and is determined by external coercion.

1. Possibility is a meaningless concept and does not exist in reality. It is merely a convention of human communication whereby the compatibility of an unknown outcome of an event with reality is considered. Thus “choices” do not seem to exist. They are just how we perceive the will moving towards a particular motive.

It seems that not even God has free will. Because of God’s perfect nature and intellect, he is moved towards creating all that exists apart from Him. Therefore it seems that the creation of the universe is not a free choice, but is a necessity.

What was posted here in this thread was incomplete.

 

[Vico]

I already read through Aquinas’ arguments for free will as posted by other users. If they were convincing, I would not still be arguing.
I will give a summary of the conflicts with free will.
Free will is defined as “the power of choice.”

1. The way the will moves is predetermined by external factors. Thus free will cannot coexist.
2. The power of choice is meaningless, because possibility is a meaningless concept and does not exist in reality. Thus free will cannot coexist.

1: The will always moves toward what appears most good. This predetermined and wholly invariable behavior of the will contradicts free will. A person who acts in accordance with the greater good has been moved to see that it is the greater good, and to act upon it. A person who sins has been moved to see that a sinful action is better than the truly good action. Thus the decision of the will depends upon and is determined by external coercion.

1. Possibility is a meaningless concept and does not exist in reality. It is merely a convention of human communication whereby the compatibility of an unknown outcome of an event with reality is considered. Thus “choices” do not seem to exist. They are just how we perceive the will moving towards a particular motive.

It seems that not even God has free will. Because of God’s perfect nature and intellect, he is moved towards creating all that exists apart from Him. Therefore it seems that the creation of the universe is not a free choice, but is a necessity.

Congruism may be easier for you to accept (is was favored by St. Robert Bellarmine and adopted by the Jesuit order). Some highlights:

• Grace becomes effective by the free consent of the will when the grace suits the interior dispositions and external circumstances of a person.
• Grace is ineffective without free acceptance.
• God foresees the congruity of the grace and its infallible success.

 

[Amandil]

Actually, I’m not so sure that I can fairly say that even God is autonomous. God’s actions are not free, they are determined by his divine nature. Because God is omniscient, his will always points to the object of greatest goodness. It is not fair to say that God is capable of anything other than his eternal act. Because those actions do not exist, saying that they are a free “choice” for God is meaningless.

Meaningless to you, and only so because your false definition of “freedom”(which is really license).

And you are still holding some assumption that after God moves the will, somehow the will is then free from coercion to choose an object. I simply don’t see that this is correct. The will is immediately determined by whatever object appears most good to it. The will moving towards what appears most good is the only reality. Saying there is a choice involved is meaningless, because no other choice is a reality in the grand scheme of things.

Before I come to a choice of action there is one choice predetermined that I will go with because it will appear most good to my will. The fact that I don’t know what my choice will be, does not make it free.

Wrong again, what you fail to realize is that there is nothing on this level of existence that is so exhaustive in goodness so as to compel the will by necessity. So even your “most good” to the will in reality is only an apparent good. The will may be attracted to it, but not by necessity, and the power of reason aided by knowledge can overrule the will based upon the knowledge that what the will perceives as good in in fact harmful.

So again, the will is free to either act or not act upon the appetites it has.

Therefore we are responsible for our wills and what we choose to satisfy those appetites which are in fact harmful and sinful.

Sorry, blase6, your whole argument rests on the assumption that the “most good” thing is an irresistible force, and that’s just simply not true.

 

[blase6]

Congruism may be easier for you to accept (is was favored by St. Robert Bellarmine and adopted by the Jesuit order). Some highlights:

• Grace becomes effective by the free consent of the will when the grace suits the interior dispositions and external circumstances of a person.
• Grace is ineffective without free acceptance.
• God foresees the congruity of the grace and its infallible success.

The problem with that is that it assumes that free will exists. So it is not a help.

 

[blase6]

Meaningless to you, and only so because your false definition of “freedom”(which is really license).

Wrong again, what you fail to realize is that there is nothing on this level of existence that is so exhaustive in goodness so as to compel the will by necessity. So even your “most good” to the will in reality is only an apparent good. The will may be attracted to it, but not by necessity, and the power of reason aided by knowledge can overrule the will based upon the knowledge that what the will perceives as good in in fact harmful.

So again, the will is free to either act or not act upon the appetites it has.

Therefore we are responsible for our wills and what we choose to satisfy those appetites which are in fact harmful and sinful.

Sorry, blase6, your whole argument rests on the assumption that the “most good” thing is an irresistible force, and that’s just simply not true.

You have only described an invariable process by which the will comes to a movement. You say that the intellect can override the will; I thought you said that the intellect and will are not intrinsically separate. In the situation you described, the knowledge that an object which appears good is really not makes acting against that the most good to the will. It does not have to be truly good, it only has to appear better than the other options.

 

[Vico]

The problem with that is that it assumes that free will exists. So it is not a help.

I hope you will resolve it. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith. As stated in the Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes that resulted from Vatican II:17. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain “under the control of his own decisions,”(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. Since man’s freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God’s grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.(13)

1. Cf. Sir. 15:14. God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice.
2. Cf. 2 Cor. 5:10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.

 

[blase6]

I hope you will resolve it. It is a dogma of the Catholic faith. As stated in the Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes that resulted from Vatican II:17. Only in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. Often however they foster it perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil. For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. For God has willed that man remain “under the control of his own decisions,”(12) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. Since man’s freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God’s grace can he bring such a relationship with God into full flower. Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil.(13)

1. Cf. Sir. 15:14. God in the beginning created human beings and made them subject to their own free choice.
2. Cf. 2 Cor. 5:10. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive recompense, according to what he did in the body, whether good or evil.

A “free choice” would require that possibility for contradicting actions must exist; and that the will must be its own first cause. I have already seen that neither of those are true. Since I cannot even see how a “choice” can exist, I am not convinced.