How does God sustain the universe accordingly?

[STT]

We know that the universe excluding free agents/minds follows laws of physics, or behave determinsitcally. How does God sustain the deterministic universe when there are agents within with capacity to decide, decision being an undeterministic act?

I understand how a free agent can live in a deterministic environment: Our actions just respect laws of physics. So the final question is how does God sustain a deterministic universe?

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure that a Scholastic philosopher would put the distinction quite that way. God sustains the natures of things, such that things continue to exist according to their nature. Some natures lack voluntarity, some natures act in a voluntary way.

 

[STT]

I’m not sure that a Scholastic philosopher would put the distinction quite that way. God sustains the natures of things, such that things continue to exist according to their nature. Some natures lack voluntarity, some natures act in a voluntary way.

You really didn’t add much by saying that God sustains things according to their natures. How God does that? Bringing nature to the discussion does not solve the problem. It just push the problem one step back. Why? Because that is God who sustain nature.

 

[IWantGod]

How God does that?

Well it must be possible since contingent beings could not exist otherwise and we are clearly capable of freewill. Unless of course you think that we are the uncaused cause. Are you a sneaky polytheist?

Metaphysics does not get into the nitty gritty of how a thing is possible. It’s simply a means of establishing what necessarily must be true or cannot be true. It may follow that by establishing what must be true that certain things follow from that point that are beyond our ability to explain in logical terms because it’'s beyond our comprehension. For example we can know that God is intelligent but we cannot possibly comprehend what that means for God. We only know it’s true because the effect could not exist otherwise. Just like we cannot really understand how freewill exists, but we experience it anyway so it must be possible that God can sustain our beings or natures in existence without determining the choices that we make while we exist. At the very least I don’t see any contradiction in the idea that our choices are free, but our existence requires the sustaining act of God.

 

[STT]

Well it must be possible since contingent beings could not exist otherwise and we are clearly capable of freewill.

You need to prove that a contingent being can perform uncasued act. How it could when its very existence depend on something else?

Unless of course you think that we are the uncaused cause. Are you a sneaky polytheist?

I think that we are uncaused cause since we can perform uncaused act. I think that we are minds.

 

[IWantGod]

You need to prove that a contingent being can perform uncasued act. How it could when its very existence depend on something else?

Why do i need to prove it? I see no inconsistency in the idea that a being can make free decisions according to it’s nature while at the same time be dependent on the sustaining act of God for the existence of it’s nature.

You are saying there is a problem, but i don’t see one.

I think that we are uncaused cause since we can perform uncaused act. I think that we are minds.

So you are a polytheists!!! Well that’s one step better than a materialist i suppose.

 

[STT]

You think that God can cause something, a human being, which can be source of uncaused thing, decision. To me this is impossible (I have an argument for that). You need to prove that is possible.

The argument:

1. The act of causation require knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

 

[Wesrock]

The ability of humans to make choices is caused, it’s just not determined.

And tbh I think you’d find both the Dominican concept of premotion and even Molinism rather startling in the limits placed on human. sovereignty, anyway. Your take on what free will is isn’t the only one.

 

[IWantGod]

The act of causation require knowledge

The act of what causation? The act of a human Being? You are referring to his or her ability to choose between two or more possibilities right?.

Knowledge is structured

You mean that human knowledge is something attained successively.

Therefore any caused thing is structured

I’m not sure what you mean here?

Anything which is structured cannot be free

I’m not sure what you mean or why a structured thing is either free or not free or what relevance that would have to the question of freewill…

Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

One can cause a thing to exist and allow it to act according to it’s nature. Again you have not shown any reason why this wouldn’t in principle be possible.

 

[STT]

The act of what causation? The act of a human Being? You are referring to his or her ability to choose between two or more possibilities right?.

I am referring to the ability that he or she causes. What I am stating is that you need to know what you want to cause in order to cause.

You mean that human knowledge is something attained successively.

Knowledge in general is about the relation between things. Therefore it is structured.

I’m not sure what you mean here?

This follows from that last two premises. It simply state that whatever one does, cause, build, etc. is structured.

I’m not sure what you mean or why a structured thing is either free or not free or what relevance that would have to the question of freewill…

Anything which is structured is an assembly of other things which the latter are irreducible. The behavior of such a thing is a function of behavior of the constitutes. Therefore the thing is not free.

One can cause a thing to exist and allow it to act according to it’s nature. Again you have not shown any reason why this wouldn’t in principle be possible.

We can discuss that later. By now I showed that a thing which is caused cannot be free.

 

[fisherman_carl]

We can discuss that later. By now I showed that a thing which is caused cannot be free.

This is related to your other question i just answered. You seem to be equating caused with predetermined. These are not necessarily the same thing. For instance, God could give our souls an intellect and a will. And give it the property of being able to make somewhat free moral decisions. Such that freedom is built into the design. This is not a new problem. I think it was Peter Kreeft who said addressing this problem - how can we have free will? If God gave us free will. In other words the cause itself caused us to have free will.

One thing you can ask yourself if you think you are uncaused why you don’t remember anything before you were born. And then ask your parents if you were uncaused. And see what they say.

 

[STT]

This is related to your other question i just answered. You seem to be equating caused with predetermined.

No, I am not equating them. A cause can be predetermined or not. In the first case a caused cause causes the cause. In the second case an uncaused cause/free agent causes the cause.

These are not necessarily the same thing. For instance, God could give our souls an intellect and a will. And give it the property of being able to make somewhat free moral decisions. Such that freedom is built into the design. This is not a new problem. I think it was Peter Kreeft who said addressing this problem - how can we have free will? If God gave us free will. In other words the cause itself caused us to have free will.

One thing you can ask yourself if you think you are uncaused why you don’t remember anything before you were born. And then ask your parents if you were uncaused. And see what they say.

Free will is a property of mind. Mind cannot be created since it is free. That is the conclusion of the argument.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Free will is a property of mind. Mind cannot be created since it is free.

If free will is a property of mind then how could that property determine whether the mind itself is created? I am not entirely sure what your logic is here. And I am not sure if you do either.

 

[John_Martin]

Free will is a property of mind. Mind cannot be created since it is free. That is the conclusion of the argument

If free will is a property of mind, then “mind’s” definition is equal to “will”.
And the Will (you call it Mind) causes Free Will to operate, to choose Direction A or Direction B to get to where the Will wants to go.

The will has one thing it does, to unite with what it loves, to unite with what the intellect says it is good to unite to.

Direction A and Direction B are means to an end to get to what the Will loves. The will does not love either direction. But the will freely chooses One Direction because of its love for what it will Unite with. Free Will is only about the means to the end. Free Will is how the Will operates when it is heading toward that end with Determination.

John Martin

 

[STT]

If free will is a property of mind then how could that property determine whether the mind itself is not created? I am not entirely sure what your logic is here. And I am not sure if you do either.

I have an argument for that:

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The bold part is my correction.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I have an argument for that:

1. The causation requires knowledge
2. Knowledge is structured
3. Therefore any caused thing is structured
4. Anything which is structured cannot be free
5. Therefore one cannot cause a thing which is free

The bold part is my correction.

The biggest issue that I see is number 4. Not that the others are not worth looking at also. Anything that is structured cannot be free. This statement requires an explanation. What do you mean by structured? Are you talking about physical structure?

And what do you mean by free? For instance a human is free to act in the way or nature God made him. But, he is not free to, for instance, fly like a bird, at least not without some kind of mechanical help. Neither is the human free to be omnipotent or omnipresent. He has certain limitations which restrict the notion of what I will call absolute freedom, which only God has, who alone has those qualities of omnipotence and omipresence. Humans could only experience a taste of those freedoms and only in as much as they are shared to them by the divine Being who posseses them in perfection.

 

[STT]

The biggest issue that I see is number 4. Not that the others are not worth looking at also. Anything that is structured cannot be free. This statement requires an explanation. What do you mean by structured? Are you talking about physical structure?

The behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts, parts being irreducible. Therefore anything which is structured cannot be free.

And what do you mean by free? For instance a human is free to act in the way or nature God made him. But, he is not free to, for instance, fly like a bird, at least not without some kind of mechanical help. Neither is the human free to be omnipotent or omnipresent. He has certain limitations which restrict the notion of what I will call absolute freedom, which only God has, who alone has those qualities of omnipotence and omipresence. Humans could only experience a taste of those freedoms and only in as much as they are shared to them by the divine Being who posseses them in perfection.

By free I mean that the decision is not biased by anything.

 

[fisherman_carl]

The behavior of anything which is structured is a function of behavior of parts, parts being irreducible. Therefore anything which is structured cannot be free.

That does not really logically follow. It can be free to be what it was created to be and have the level of freedom it was designed to have. And even if it did follow it would not follow from that that we are free uncaused causes. Since we are composed of parts and as you say have structure.

By free I mean that the decision is not biased by anything.

Well nothing is free according to that definition. Can you name anything that is not biased towards something? Biased towards the good for example.

 

[mythbuster1]

The Church defines spirit as intellect and will. Other than that, we have no clear explanation of what spirit is, meaning there is debate over how spirit interacts with matter. Obviously, spirit does interact with matter, else it would not be possible for us to exist with a material body and a spiritual soul.

 

[Dan_Defender]

the universe excluding free agents/minds follows laws of physics, or behave determinsitcally

This is incorrect. It assumes that physics has all the answers. In fact, the universe currently experiences expansion in an accelerated way which should have torn it apart already. So the current theory is that the universe is somehow being held together by dark matter and dark energy and that they interact to achieve this. But nobody can explain in detail what those are and how they interact.