If God is omnipotent, wouldn't he be able to create an environment in which everyone retains free will, but still goes to heaven?

[Mintaka]

You are talking about different things…

In Heaven, humans (with some exceptions, one Mary), exist only as souls. Souls are not temporal, heaven is not temporal, so obviously the blessed souls of the saints do not change; and Purgatory apparently is something that happens as the soul enters Heaven.

The resurrected saints on the new Earth will be soul and resurrected body, and therefore will have some kind of temporality in a state of eternal life, much like Mary now.

Since the saints have responsible positions (like judging angels), they obviously will have free will and creativity of some kind. But the saints will have freely aligned their will to God’s will as parts of the Body of Christ, so they will no longer want to sin. The question is whether it is “being smarter and more loving than that”, or “being no longer capable of that”, or if those are the same thing.

There is no moral virtue in knowing and repeating the times table, and thus always getting one’s math right. The moral virtue and merit accrued was in the effort of memorizing the table.

But the whole point is to be able to use the times table to do things and make things, and that is like eternal life.

 

[thistle]

I dare to hope that all will, in the end, be saved—that Hell will eventually be emptied of human souls.

That is universalism and is a heresy. Hell is forever and those in it remain in it forever.

 

[laylow]

Man would be a simple animal, incapable of sin, but also being incapable of love … incapable of true happiness

Man WAS a simple animal, until the slow process of evolution transformed his intellectual capacity.

 

[Gorgias]

But likewise you can’t say: “I don’t believe X , so you must be wrong.” A “debate” is supposed to be a rational exchange of ideas, and so far you simply disregarded the three “legs” that the libertarian definition is based upon.

Actually, in fact, if you fail to substantiate your claims, then I may do precisely that. So… how do you reason for your claims?

You never brought up any arguments for your position

Fair enough. But, we’ve got your assertion on the table at the moment. Let’s dissect it. If you’re able to support it, then we’ll move on to mine (and yes, I’ll bring in the philosophers who have argued for it – you know, the old ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ thing)…

tell that to 99% of humanity throughout history. I’m guessing if they could, they would vehemently disagree with you.

OK… you’ve made a postive claim. Please substantiate it. Please demonstrate that 99% of all humanity throughout history perceived the raison d’etre of human life to be ‘trials and suffering.’

I have read many faith-based explanations and theodicies and have not found them satisfying to the problem. I suppose why not read another attempt?

Because if you didn’t, then you’d have to relinquish your claim of rationality and open-mindedness…

Which is different than how they did on earth, hence “altered.”

My car operates differently under water than it does on the freeway. Has it been ‘altered’? Or is it simply operating differently?

you cannot Love someone (or thing) without the option of going against it (or hating it). If in Heaven, people can’t go against God, then by this logic, can they still truly love him?

The option remains (and hence, free will still remains).

Is it possible to love “love?”

You’ve never been – or been around – a teenaged girl, have you?

That is universalism and is a heresy. Hell is forever and those in it remain in it forever.

That is one flavor of universalism. The broader concept can also embrace the proposition that no one is ever sent to hell, rather than saying “they get there and then they check out after a time.”

 

[laylow]

OK… you’ve made a postive claim. Please substantiate it. Please demonstrate that 99% of all humanity throughout history perceived the raison d’etre of human life to be ‘trials and suffering.’

Sure. But since I’m a nice guy, I will let you go first! Your claim: Life includes trials and suffering, but the telos of life on earth isn’t ‘trials and suffering’. Please substantiate it. Hint: stating that God influenced men to write it in a book and pass it down as tradition will not stand the test of reasonable scrutiny.

Because if you didn’t, then you’d have to relinquish your claim of rationality and open-mindedness…

Not necessarily. A rational decision to not read it could be made since if a revolutionary idea was advanced, it would probably become “Big News” and then I would hear about it.

My car operates differently under water than it does on the freeway. Has it been ‘altered’? Or is it simply operating differently?

It most certainly would be altered. You would literally be “dead in the water.” Your car would not run due to the “altered” state of your engine and exhaust system, due to the water.

The option remains (and hence, free will still remains).

OK, then there is no reason this type of free will couldn’t have bee implemented on earth in the first place.

You’ve never been – or been around – a teenaged girl, have you?

Still trying to wrap my head around this one.

 

[Gorgias]

Please substantiate it. Hint: stating that God influenced men to write it in a book and pass it down as tradition will not stand the test of reasonable scrutiny.

OK: since you raised the issue of what does not constitute reasonable substantiation, let’s agree on what does constitute reasonable substantiation, and why. Since you seem to have the restrictive opinions on the subject, I’ll let you go first. So… what would be reasonable, and why is it (and only it) reasonable?

It most certainly would be altered. You would literally be “dead in the water.” Your car would not run due to the “altered” state of your engine and exhaust system, due to the water.

It would be the same engine and the same exhaust system, unaltered. (Props for trying to hold to your assertion… but it really is sinking, here. )

OK, then there is no reason this type of free will couldn’t have bee implemented on earth in the first place.

Other than the ‘will of God’?

Still trying to wrap my head around this one.

So just answer ‘no’, then.

 

[Magnanimity]

In all honesty, it has been a while since I read him too. I am reasonably certain that I follow him on his views, but of course it’s possible that I’ve diverged a bit. Before I start a new thread, I will make sure to revisit his dare we hope.

 

[leonhardprintz]

It should also be noted that the Catholic Church has no dogmatic statements on how freedom of will is to be unified with God’s providence.

 

[stephenSTOSS1]

Man would be a simple animal, incapable of sin, but also being incapable of love … incapable of true happiness

I may be misunderstanding your terminology. If by “man” you mean homo sapiens … excluding man in the image and likeness of God …, than I would agree with you. If by man you mean biblical man … created in the image and likeness of God (Adam and Eve onward), than I would disagree with you.

I believe that the literalistic interpretation of the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation is very close to the literal interpretation. Those who believe that historical Adam and Eve where entirely products of evolution, are generally relying on research relating to so-called mtEve. These scientists start with an a priori assumption that there is no God or, if they do believe in God, that the truth of science will always trump the truth of Scripture. As a result, they failed to use (in scientific terms) a null hypothesis to test their interpretation of the results of their research. As a result, their research is not applicable (or even accurate) to biblical Adam and Eve.

Sooo … I stand by my post.

 

[Gorgias]

What is there to substantiate on a definition ?

Whether the definition is reasonable.

• The fact that “freedom to choose” requires at least two options to choose from?

This isn’t a fact – it’s an assertion. It needs to be substantiated. I’ve already challenged the claim, by asserting that a ‘choice’ can also be a choice to ‘do’ or ‘not do’. So… how can you substantiate the suggestion that there must be two alternate courses of action, in addition to “choose not to act”?

The fact that the agent must be able make the decision free from coercion or external force?

Again, this is merely an assertion. Why does an occasional instance of coercion negate the presence of free will in general?

Which one of these is not axiomatically true?

At least two of them.

If your view is rational, then there is no need to refer to others.

Every madman can make that claim.

Can’t you argue for yourself?

Of course I can. I just don’t subscribe to the particular kind of hubris that asserts that my every utterance must be assented to by everyone, merely by virtue of the fact that I’ve stated it.

 

[Gorgias]

You cannot choose if there is only one option or no option available.

Geddy Lee disagrees with you.

And, to tell the truth, we’ve beaten this point to death. So, unless you can substantiate it, we’ll have to agree to disagree that you’re making sense.

It is having at least two options to achieve that goal which is the aim of the “will” .

Again: this is assertion, not argumentation. You’re continuing to fail to substantiate your claim.

You keep disregarding the basic premise that a “will” cannot be “decoupled” from its aim or goal.

This is the closest you’ve come yet to arguing the point. (Yay!)

However, it still doesn’t hold to reason. The will isn’t ‘decoupled’ from an aim. The goal is there, and the will is either directed to achieving it, or directed to disregarding it.

Think about it for a second: each time I pull up this thread, I have the choice to post, or to ignore you. So far, I’ve chosen ‘post’. If you just keep repeating yourself without any new discussion, I’ll choose ‘ignore.’ See that? It’s a free will choice!

Not in “general”! In that particular instance .

Cool. What does making a choice in a stressful environment do, to advance your argument that free will doesn’t exist? Nothing.

There is no “free will” in general! There is no “free will” in general!

Again… you seem to be the king of unsubstantiated claims. I think I’m going to exercise my free will and choose to stop responding now…

 

[Gorgias]

A stupid song is your argument ?

No less substantiated than yours.

You are welcome to disagree with the libertarian definition, but then you need to show: “why is the definition incorrect” and offer a “different definition”.

I refer you to the standard literature.

You sound like a layman who asks a mathematician: “what is the definition of a circle”?

Red herring. The definition of a circle is not disputed; the definition of ‘free will’ is. (But hey… nice try. )

There is no “free will” in general! There is no “free will” in general!

Free will not “absolute”, it is contingent upon the circumstances.

You keep making this claim (again, without support). If you’re suntanning on the beach, and I put an umbrella over you, would you then claim “there is no ‘sun’ in general! There is no ‘sun’ in general!”…? Of course not. You would simply claim (one hopes) that in that particular instance, you did not have direct access to the sun.

If you choose to disregard it, it will cease to be a “goal”.

Again… foolishness. If I choose to disregard you, will you cease to be a person? Of course not. So… if I choose not to pursue an action, it continues to exist – it’s just an action not pursued.

I can do without these nonsensical exchanges.

Apparently… you can’t. (Nor can I, it seems.) Oh noes! We don’t have free will!!!

 

[CradleRC58]

Why can’t God do the impossible?

He can do as He wants. He is also Supernatural and we are mortal. All these questions you ask, you will not find any answers for.

You are trying to know what we can’t know. All we can know about God is what He has chosen to reveal to us.

We can accept it and strive for perfection or we can reject it at our own peril.

It’s as simple as that.

 

[Justin_Mary]

Because what you’re describing is a contradiction in terms. You want God to make it so that we all go to heaven–which we must freely choose to do–without interfering with our free will?

What if the question was phrased as, “Why didn’t God make us all like The Virgin Mary?”

 

[laylow]

OK: since you raised the issue of what does not constitute reasonable substantiation, let’s agree on what does constitute reasonable substantiation, and why. Since you seem to have the restrictive opinions on the subject, I’ll let you go first. So… what would be reasonable, and why is it (and only it) reasonable?

It’s not surprising that you are willing to “concede” the burden of proof to your “opponent” as it is advantageous to your argument. But would you allow the same tactic if it were done by an advocate for another religion, say Islam, or Hinduism? What would constitute reasonable substantiation for Islam, for Hinduism? Put differently, how would your substantiation exceed those from Muslims (1.8 billion followers) or Hindus (1 billion followers)?

My simple answer would be “it depends.” Substantiation would have to transcend bias and upbringing and emotional influence to start.

It would be the same engine and the same exhaust system, unaltered. (Props for trying to hold to your assertion… but it really is sinking, here. )

Not at all. The crux of my statement is that based on the definitions discussed in this forum and in my experience with the Catholic church, there is a distinction between the free will in Heaven and the free will on earth. It sounds like we all agree on that. I’m not sure the word for it is important, whether it is altered, changed, transformed, etc., but that this is a distinction. And what the apologist must answer is why the distinction is necessary.

Other than the ‘will of God’?

That is essentially an infinite regress, cannot be proven wrong per se.

So just answer ‘no’, then.

Although in and of itself I do not have issue with an attempt at humor to deflect a philosophically question, I cannot deny that it rather leads to the appearance of trying to skirt the question.

 

[laylow]

I may be misunderstanding your terminology. If by “man” you mean homo sapiens … excluding man in the image and likeness of God …, than I would agree with you. If by man you mean biblical man … created in the image and likeness of God (Adam and Eve onward), than I would disagree with you.

I believe that the literalistic interpretation of the biblical account of Adam and Eve’s creation is very close to the literal interpretation. Those who believe that historical Adam and Eve where entirely products of evolution, are generally relying on research relating to so-called mtEve. These scientists start with an a priori assumption that there is no God or, if they do believe in God, that the truth of science will always trump the truth of Scripture. As a result, they failed to use (in scientific terms) a null hypothesis to test their interpretation of the results of their research. As a result, their research is not applicable (or even accurate) to biblical Adam and Eve.

Sooo … I stand by my post.

So it seems that you would be OK with the explanation that sometime in the ever-so-gradual process of humans evolving into more-or-less their current state (the process is forever on-going, as are evolving even as we speak), God decided that he would drop in a “soul” which would change their substance from being an unimportant animal, to an eternal being?

 

[Gorgias]

It’s not surprising that you are willing to “concede” the burden of proof to your “opponent” as it is advantageous to your argument.

No, not the ‘burden of proof’. I’m still willing to make my argument. I just want to save us some time, and know what kinds of evidence you refuse to accept.

My simple answer would be “it depends.”

C’mon. You can do better than that.

there is a distinction between the free will in Heaven and the free will on earth.

I think I would nuance that by saying that there’s a difference between the operation of free will during our earthly lives and our eternal lives.

And what the apologist must answer is why the distinction is necessary.

I think we already have, but it’s worth going over it again. In heaven, our free will is perfected, such that it fulfills its raison d’etre. That doesn’t mean that it goes away – it just works perfectly and in perfect union with God.

That is essentially an infinite regress, cannot be proven wrong per se.

That’s not what an ‘infinite regress’ is.

I cannot deny that it rather leads to the appearance of trying to skirt the question.

The ‘question’, if you recall, is your assertion that one cannot be in love with love. Are you really confused by my response?

 

[laylow]

No, not the ‘burden of proof’. I’m still willing to make my argument. I just want to save us some time, and know what kinds of evidence you refuse to accept.

I gave some examples above.

I think I would nuance that by saying that there’s a difference between the operation of free will during our earthly lives and our eternal lives.

How does said nuance change the definition?

I think we already have, but it’s worth going over it again. In heaven, our free will is perfected, such that it fulfills its raison d’etre . That doesn’t mean that it goes away – it just works perfectly and in perfect union with God.

I see flaws in the declaration itself, but for a moment, for sake of the argument, pretend I accept it. It still does not answer why “unperfected” free will was necessary in the first place.

That’s not what an ‘infinite regress’ is.

Basically saying it is God’s will could be an answer to any question in the world.

The ‘question’, if you recall, is your assertion that one cannot be in love with love. Are you really confused by my response?

Using antonyms demonstrates the foolishness of the statement. Can you be in hate with hate?

 

[Gorgias]

How does said nuance change the definition?

The car remains the car. It operates differently under water.

It still does not answer why “unperfected” free will was necessary in the first place.

It gives us the opportunity to work on it and perfect it ourselves, while living on earth. It’s the difference between being given a puzzle in a box and a framed, finished puzzle. The whole point is working on it yourself.

Using antonyms demonstrates the foolishness of the statement. Can you be in hate with hate?

It’s not as foolish as you might presume. Think about it for a second. What’s the definition of ‘hate’? “The absence of love” might work. So… in the absence of love, can you be in the absence of love?

 

[laylow]

The car remains the car. It operates differently under water.

By choosing not to answer the question, I will assume you know there is no sufficient answer.

It gives us the opportunity to work on it and perfect it ourselves, while living on earth. It’s the difference between being given a puzzle in a box and a framed, finished puzzle. The whole point is working on it yourself.

Is the one month-old baptized child who dies as result of a birth defect afforded that same opportunity?

“The absence of love” might work. So… in the absence of love, can you be in the absence of love?

Can you be in absence of love with absence of love? (word substitution of: in love with love)