God's foreknowledge and fatalism

[Charlemagne_III]

http.newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Foreordain:
verb (used with object)

1. to ordain or appoint beforehand.
2. to predestine; predetermine.

This also is from the same source, the original Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911.

“Catholic Doctrine.—Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands preeminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichaeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men’s wills by His omnipotence and omniscience—through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine’s teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possess an infallible knowledge of man’s future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man’s future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind. As a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man’s freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church—both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas—attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.”

You are not predestined to hell. That is your choice, not God’s. Don’t make Catholics out to be Calvinists.

 

[oldcelt]

This also is from the same source, the original Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911.

“Catholic Doctrine.—Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands preeminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichaeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men’s wills by His omnipotence and omniscience—through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine’s teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possess an infallible knowledge of man’s future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man’s future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind. As a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains.** Further, God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man’s freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church—both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas—attempt to solve in different ways. **The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.”

You are not predestined to hell. That is your choice, not God’s. Don’t make Catholics out to be Calvinists.

“Complete and perfect control” cannot logically allow for free will…no matter how hard the theologians try.

 

[Bahman]

I already answered the question. I can possibly do something else from what God knows, but since God knows infallibly what I will do, the statement, “DanAl will fall asleep in one hour,” is a an infallibly true statement.

What do you mean with possibly? You cannot possibly do opposite what God knows since you don’t know what God knows and God’s knowledge is infallible.

Where’s the necessity or determinism in any of the above? Or let’s make it simpler, how does infallible knowledge of something interacts/causes events or facts of the world? How does infallible knowledge of something necessitates an event or fact? where’s the link between knowledge and the external world?

These are good questions. To answer them we have to agree on the fact whether future exist or not and very definition of free will. If future exist then it necessitates your action to follow accordingly. You are of course free to act since you don’t know future but you have a fate, future is defined. Hence, it is very existence of future which necessitates your actions to follow a certain form. Where is the source of problem, you are born in specific location and time.

Now lets assume that future does not exist which is opposite to the doctrine that you believe, but lets assume it for sake of clarity. This means that the future is undetermined until you make a firm decision. Hence God cannot foreknow future if that is only you who create the situation by making a free decision. Future does not exist in this case and we have no fate.

 

[Bahman]

“Complete and perfect control” cannot logically allow for free will…no matter how hard the theologians try.

Yes, these theologians doesn’t know what they are talking about. I am wondering why people keep following them.

 

[DanAl]

Preordination of all future events (Catholic teaching) is the link.

Predestination is a different thing from logical fatalism. You can argue for one and not the other.

 

[DanAl]

What do you mean with possibly? You cannot possibly do opposite what God knows since you don’t know what God knows and God’s knowledge is infallible.

I am actually typing right now, could it had been possible for me to do something righ now, say, sleep? yes.

It is the case that x, it is possibly the case that x, it is* probably* the case that x, it is necessary (or a must) that x. These are modal qualifications.

If I say, “god’s foreknowledge necessitates my actions,” I am making a fallacy. The word necessary is too strong, since it is logically possible for me to do the opposite. Besides, how does mere knowledge make a fact, or an event necessary?

These are good questions. To answer them we have to agree on the fact whether future exist or not and very definition of free will. If future exist then it necessitates your action to follow accordingly. You are of course free to act since you don’t know future but you have a fate, future is defined. Hence, it is very existence of future which necessitates your actions to follow a certain form. Where is the source of problem, you are born in specific location and time.

so knowing the future necessitates your actions. So if I knew your future, you would be stuck, whether you like it or not to do what i foresee…that doesn’t even make sense.

The argument from logical fatalism is what Plantinga called Anselm’s ontological argument: “word magic.”

Now lets assume that future does not exist which is opposite to the doctrine that you believe, but lets assume it for sake of clarity. This means that the future is undetermined until you make a firm decision. Hence God cannot foreknow future if that is only you who create the situation by making a free decision. Future does not exist in this case and we have no fate.

If God didn’t know the future, that would undermine his total sovereignty as creator. Secondly that would affect his divine immutability, God learns new stuff, he is “surprised” and so forth as creations develops.

 

[oldcelt]

Predestination is a different thing from logical fatalism. You can argue for one and not the other.

I agree completely.

 

[Bahman]

I am actually typing right now, could it had been possible for me to do something right now, say, sleep? yes.

We have to stick to the fact otherwise we are not going anywhere. The word “possible” is related to ambiguity about future who only you can resolve it by your decision. But how God could have the knowledge of future if future is written by you?

It is the case that x, it is possibly the case that x, it is* probably* the case that x, it is necessary (or a must) that x. These are modal qualifications.

These I know.

If I say, “god’s foreknowledge necessitates my actions,” I am making a fallacy. The word necessary is too strong, since it is logically possible for me to do the opposite. Besides, how does mere knowledge make a fact, or an event necessary?

How God could know your future? Future is undetermined as you argued since we are talking about possibility which is firmed upon your decision.

so knowing the future necessitates your actions. So if I knew your future, you would be stuck, whether you like it or not to do what i foresee…that doesn’t even make sense.

I didn’t say that. I did say that the existence of future necessitate your actions. You can be free but you have a fate.

The argument from logical fatalism is what Plantinga called Anselm’s ontological argument: “word magic.”

I don’t think we need other argument right now.

If God didn’t know the future, that would undermine his total sovereignty as creator. Secondly that would affect his divine immutability, God learns new stuff, he is “surprised” and so forth as creations develops.

What is wrong with this? We agreed that everything prior to a decision is only possible. How God could with certainty know the future if it is only possible and it is not determined yet?

 

[tonyrey]

“Complete and perfect control” cannot logically allow for free will…no matter how hard the theologians try.

“Complete and perfect control” occurs when the Supreme Controller delegates a certain amount of control to others, thereby creating a reasonable, loving and fulfilling existence for everyone.

 

[oldcelt]

“Complete and perfect control” occurs when the Supreme Controller delegates a certain amount of control to others, thereby creating a reasonable, loving and fulfilling existence for everyone.

Complete indicates no sharing. If they had meant shared control, I think they were literate enough to write that, don’t you?

 

[Bahman]

Complete indicates no sharing. If they had meant shared control, I think they were literate enough to write that, don’t you?

In simple word, you cannot share freedom and know at the same time.

 

[rinnie]

This is a twisted and long proof so please be patient with me. The proof is given in two parts. We first discuss God’s foreknowledge and free will. Then define the fate and conclude that foreknowledge indeed leads to fatalism.

God’s foreknowledge is simply the knowledge of how creation evolve. Lets consider two individual, X and Y (a pair of identical twine for simplicity). The destiny of these two individuals are known within foreknowledge. Assume that X goes to Heaven and Y goes to Hell. These two individual are however free to act and there is no tension between God’s foreknowledge and free will as far as they are not aware of God’s foreknowledge.

Now lets exchange X by Y and vice versa. This means that this time Y goes to Heaven and X goes to Hell (we use God’s foreknowledge here). This means that there exist a certain element of reality that we cannot avoid it, so called fate, once you are attached to it, although you are free you have to face the brute fact that you cannot change it so called fatalism.

The bottom line is this, the foreknowledge of God does not change. You are trying to say God sees someone go to heaven, then you say God sees the other go to heaven and the other to hell. It is not possible. God knows all, If x is in x is in, and if y is out is out.

Unless I am seeing this all wrong, its seems that God has to be wrong in one of these equations and that is impossible.

 

[DanAl]

We have to stick to the fact otherwise we are not going anywhere. The word “possible” is related to ambiguity about future who only you can resolve it by your decision. But how God could have the knowledge of future if future is written by you?.

It is part of Catholicism that god has no parts, and creation is “identical” to his essence. In other words for God to allow us do our free-choices he knows them before-hand, if the God didn’t know his sovereignty and immutability would be threatened.

I didn’t say that. I did say that the existence of future necessitate your actions. You can be free but you have a fate.

Two things:

1-“I did say that the existence of future necessitate your actions.” Does that mean that God’s foreknowledge is now irrelevant to your argument?

2- “You can be free but you have a fate.” Are you talking of compatibilism here?

What is wrong with this? We agreed that everything prior to a decision is only possible. How God could with certainty know the future if it is only possible and it is not determined yet?

I already answered the first question on the previous post and on the beginning of this one.

Future facts are either true or false and since God is infallible he would know whether something is true or false. “peter denies Jesus,” is something that God would know as true, It does not follow that it necessitates, causes, or provokes peter’s denial.

Imagine I have an infallible camera that shows me what you will do tomorrow and then I told you that you’re fated to do what the camera shows, that your actions are necessitated by it, caused by it and so forth. Wouldn’t that argument strike you as strange?

Let’s say that I told you that I already know what you will do tomorrow, and the next day I showed you the tape as you drank coffee. The infallible camera shows me in front of you as you drink coffee hours before it happened. You could say, “the camera is infallible, alright, but it was still within my power to do something else instead.” Same with God’s foreknowledge.

 

[rstrats]

DanAl,
re: “…but it was still within my power to do something else instead.”

But the fact is that you didn’t.

 

[tonyrey]

Complete and perfect control" occurs when the Supreme Controller delegates a certain amount of control to others, thereby creating a reasonable, loving and fulfilling existence for everyone.

It is unrealistic to suppose that descriptions of divine activity always attain that degree of accuracy…

The fact remains that complete and perfect control doesn’t occur if the Supreme Controller doesn’t delegate a certain amount of control to others and doesn’t create a reasonable, loving and fulfilling existence for everyone. In other words God ceases to be God!

 

[Bahman]

The bottom line is this, the foreknowledge of God does not change. You are trying to say God sees someone go to heaven, then you say God sees the other go to heaven and the other to hell. It is not possible. God knows all, If x is in x is in, and if y is out is out.

Unless I am seeing this all wrong, its seems that God has to be wrong in one of these equations and that is impossible.

You didn’t get the whole picture. The main idea is that we have fates once you accept the concept of foresee, meaning everything is determined upon your birth. That doesn’t mean that you have no free will though but a fate you cannot escape.

 

[Bahman]

It is part of Catholicism that god has no parts, and creation is “identical” to his essence. In other words for God to allow us do our free-choices he knows them before-hand, if the God didn’t know his sovereignty and immutability would be threatened.

Well, that is even a weaker position. How could be free if the result of our decision is known? I could accept foresee with price of fate but there is no room left for free will if we accept foreknowledge the way you define it.

Two things:

1-“I did say that the existence of future necessitate your actions.” Does that mean that God’s foreknowledge is now irrelevant to your argument?

I don’t understand the relevance of your question.

2- “You can be free but you have a fate.” Are you talking of compatibilism here?

No. Compatiblism is talking about whether free will is compatible with determinism.

I already answered the first question on the previous post and on the beginning of this one.

Future facts are either true or false and since God is infallible he would know whether something is true or false. “peter denies Jesus,” is something that God would know as true, It does not follow that it necessitates, causes, or provokes peter’s denial.

Hence peter has a fate he couldn’t escape.

Imagine I have an infallible camera that shows me what you will do tomorrow and then I told you that you’re fated to do what the camera shows, that your actions are necessitated by it, caused by it and so forth. Wouldn’t that argument strike you as strange?

Let’s say that I told you that I already know what you will do tomorrow, and the next day I showed you the tape as you drank coffee. The infallible camera shows me in front of you as you drink coffee hours before it happened. You could say, “the camera is infallible, alright, but it was still within my power to do something else instead.” Same with God’s foreknowledge.

I don’t believe that future exist. But lets assume it for sake of argument. You could know my future if you have the camera. But it is not camera which necessitate my action but existence of future.

 

[DanAl]

Well, that is even a weaker position. How could be free if the result of our decision is known? I could accept foresee with price of fate but there is no room left for free will if we accept foreknowledge the way you define it.

You’re still sticking to the odd notion that knowing the future has some kind of mysterious power, still unexplained, to remove free-will. A proposition is CAUSALLY neutral. It does not interact with the world anymore than numbers, measurements, algebra and so forth does. They are all neutral, abstract entities.

I already addressed several modal mistakes, which you keep repeating. There’s no necessity or fate in knowing a future event. An event is either true or false, nothing more. No need to add unwarranted qualifications like must, fate, necessary , impossible, etc.

Explain, at least. the causal connection between foreknowledge and our actions

I don’t understand the relevance of your question.

You’re speaking of the existence of the future is what necessitates an action. That seems to put* foreknowledge* of the future in the back-burner. Unless, that is, you’re using foreknowledge to denote existence.

I don’t believe that future exist. But lets assume it for sake of argument. You could know my future if you have the camera. But it is not camera which necessitate my action but existence of future.

Again, I’ll wait for you to explain how the God’s foreknowledge CAUSES the existence of a future which you CANNOT escape.other than that, I am done.

 

[Bahman]

You’re still sticking to the odd notion that knowing the future has some kind of mysterious power, still unexplained, to remove free-will. A proposition is CAUSALLY neutral. It does not interact with the world anymore than numbers, measurements, algebra and so forth does. They are all neutral, abstract entities.

I already addressed several modal mistakes, which you keep repeating. There’s no necessity or fate in knowing a future event. An event is either true or false, nothing more. No need to add unwarranted qualifications like must, fate, necessary , impossible, etc.

When you explain the causal connection between foreknowledge and our actions or some other explanation, then I will listen.

No, I am arguing quite oppositely. Given the situation by defining options doesn’t define the outcome. The very freedom of action can only exist if and only if the outcome is not definable until the decision is made by the very person. Hence, no one can guess the outcome of the decision, including God considering the situation that God only knows the options defined to creature. God cannot be always the best gambler in guessing what the creature decide.

You’re speaking of the existence of the future is what necessitates an action. That seems to put* foreknowledge* of the future in the back-burner. Unless, that is, you’re using foreknowledge to denote existence.

I am talking about the very fact whether future exist or not. That is the only option left if God is suppose to know everything. That defines a fate for each individual which is against divine justice and knowledge. Hence it is not acceptable either since the creator cannot answer the simple question that why I should be given a specific fate.

Again, I’ll wait for you to explain how the God’s foreknowledge CAUSES the existence of a future which you CANNOT escape.other than that, I am done.

We have two options in our disposal, either God foresees future, meaning that future exists hence our lives tied to fate or God is a great gambler can always guess the decision of the creatures.