Is Free Will Really Worth It?

[laszlo]

I can only present a subjective opinion from my part. Having been a designer and implementor of many complex computer systems, it is my view that unlimited “freedom” to deviate from the design specs is a very bad idea. Freedom to deviate is a “bug”.

God’s design determines only the the (name removed by moderator)ut, the working environment, and the output. The (name removed by moderator)ut and out is preferably He (the bug lands in the Hell) the environment is the creation, almost everything in between is subject to the freedom. God is not micromanaging designer.

The only important decisions relate to the eternal life, anything centered about earthly things is insignificant.

At least half of the grave sins are omissions, and among then not to use one’s talents. To use talents need freedom of choices.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Here is our exchange:
Luvya: If someone has absolutely no need, why do anything? Totally against logic.
JD: Whose law is it that God must be totally logical?
Luvya: If God is not logical, then he is not rational. Christians say that God is perfect in every respect. An illogical God is not perfect in that respect.
JD: But, what is logical to us may not be logical to God.
There is only one logic, there is no such thing as “human” logic and “divine” logic.

I see the word “logic” thrown around quite a bit in the vernacular. Without qualifying your terms you run into a lot of trouble and confusion in an academic setting. An action can be both logical and not logical at the same time if we are not speaking about formal, mathematical logic. I see right away that you are not.

Take for example the case of someone who is robbed and stabbed at an ATM machine. To the victim, being stabbed and robbed is illogical and irrational.

And yet to the thief, the action is perfectly logical and entirely rational. He needed cash and took easiest, necessary steps to achieve his goal.

It then follows that there are many types of “logic”. If you don’t believe me, look up the word “logic” or “logical” in the oxford english dictionary.

It does also not follow that…(hmm let me use some real logic here )

1. You believe that God is not logical.
2. Perfection includes complete and utter subjection to your subjective conception of perfection.
3. Therefore God is not perfect.

2 is an unproven blanket statement. Hmm so is 1.

Concerning the philosophy of freedom, Catholics have been “soft-determinists” since St.Augustine. In our view an action is free if it falls under what is called “will and capacity”; that is to say if you have the ability to drink a cold glass of milk, you desire to drink a cold glass of milk (it is in your will), and you have just drank a cold glass of milk, then that action was a free action. We also believe that there are some determined events…this belief is irreconcilable with scripture…Jesus knew beforehand that Peter would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed,…the coming of Jesus was predicted in Tanakh many times (to the exact day in the book of Daniel) [unlike Muhammed who was not foretold]…etc

And Catholics also believe in completely random events. By this I mean the exact opposite of necessary, or determined events. Logically it follows that these events are completely “free” in that they are uncaused. Examples would include the movement of quantum particles, the products of random number generators, and the products of a roulette wheel.

The alternatives to the Catholic position on freedom are hard determinism, indeterminism, libertarianism, or some sort of existential position on freedom. I think very few people actually hold the position that “there are only random events”.

As far as the question “do we have a free will”, my answer is that if your friend is a lawyer, then he can write your will for free. No, but seriously it makes no practical difference, has no pragmatic effect on your life and everyday decision making (should i eat a cheeseburger or a burrito???!?!?!), and is therefore irrelevant. It’s just a dumb academic question.

The most interesting reading you can do can do on the topic can be found here. Dostoevsky will make you rethink what “Freedom” really is.

Conforming to what society deems as “logical” or “rational” could be a kind of slavery in and of itself.

 

[Luvya]

I see the word “logic” thrown around quite a bit in the vernacular.

Well, I am not writing an academic paper here, so some looseness is expected. Here is the concept it all started: “For someone, who has absolutely no needs, who is completely self-sufficient, it is illogical, irrational or unreasonable to do ANYTHING”. To do anything indicates either an actual need or the activity serves absolutely no purpose. If the acting agent does something that serves absolutely no purpose, then that agent is blatently irrational. Stay within this framework, because that is what I say, not the strawman argument you presented.

It does also not follow that…(hmm let me use some real logic here )

1. You believe that God is not logical.
2. Perfection includes complete and utter subjection to your subjective conception of perfection.
3. Therefore God is not perfect.

2 is an unproven blanket statement. Hmm so is 1.

Since I did not say 2), your “victory” is only over yourself. Congratulations.

Concerning the philosophy of freedom, Catholics have been “soft-determinists” since St.Augustine.

Did you read the whole thread? I made sure that we differentiate between “pure freedom of will” and “freely chosen activities”. Out “freedom to will something” is unbounded. Our ability to carry out our will is very much limited. The whole point of this thread is to examine the limitation of our ability to act on our will (or want or desire). If you would concentrate on this, we might have a chance of engaging in a meaningful conversation.

The current assertion is that our ability to cause harm to others is far too much, and our ability to remedy harm to people is woefully small. So far I did not meet anyone who would actually address these points.

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Well, I am not writing an academic paper here, so some looseness is expected. Here is the concept it all started: “For someone, who has absolutely no needs, who is completely self-sufficient, it is illogical, irrational or unreasonable to do ANYTHING”. To do anything indicates either an actual need or the activity serves absolutely no purpose. If the acting agent does something that serves absolutely no purpose, then that agent is blatently irrational. Stay within this framework, because that is what I say, not the strawman argument you presented.

If the “someone” above (excuse the bad pun) you are using to refer to God, then Congratulations on strawmanning the Catholic Faith. Or it is just a misunderstanding on your part, for which you are forgiven. Catholics like myself believe that God is the AUTHOR of logic, rationality, reason, and purpose. “To do anything indicates either an actual need or the activity serves no purpose”

…hmmm…NO! As the author of purpose, God has the authority to assign meaning to activities or actions that seem superfluous to us–finite minds—and it just so happens to be the case that for many of these activities we are not privaledged to the purpose, which is also, in and of itself, a purposeful act included in a mysterious master plan.

To say that the author of Purpose had no purpose for creating the notion of purpose itself…is a logical contradiction.

If on the other hand the “someone” above refers to the atheistic existential dilemma, then you sir, are spot on, and I agree completely. All atheist activities are inherently irrational, except maybe suicide…see Albert Camus.

Since I did not say 2), your “victory” is only over yourself. Congratulations.

There are no victors in philosophy. There are only more and more questions raised. It is an infinite process.

Did you read the whole thread?

No I haven’t. And after reading a few of your posts, I can’t say that I am actually enticed…

I made sure that we differentiate between “pure freedom of will” and “freely chosen activities”. Out “freedom to will something” is unbounded. Our ability to carry out our will is very much limited. The whole point of this thread is to examine the limitation of our ability to act on our will (or want or desire). If you would concentrate on this, we might have a chance of engaging in a meaningful conversation.

The current assertion is that our ability to cause harm to others is far too much, and our ability to remedy harm to people is woefully small. So far I did not meet anyone who would actually address these points.

Well if you believe in a resurrection and a place of infinite bliss then our ability to harm others, however great or small, is meaningless.

 

[Luvya]

Catholics like myself believe that God is the AUTHOR of logic, rationality, reason, and purpose.

Your belief is yours. Now, if only you could prove that your belief actually mirrors reality (and it is not just wishful thinking), there would be something to talk about. There is a true proverb: “from the pinnacle all roads lead downhill” - which reflects what I was arguing: “for a perfect being all activites are irrational”.

No I haven’t. And after reading a few of your posts, I can’t say that I am actually enticed…

And yet you take time to answer. Do you consider yourself rational?

Well if you believe in a resurrection and a place of infinite bliss then our ability to harm others, however great or small, is meaningless.

Again, the unsubstantiated belief. And the utter lack of rationality and the abundance of hypocrisy. I would bet dollars to cents that you conduct your life as if this life mattered. As if it would be preferable not to hurt others, even if it is your belief that hurting others is meaningless. Hypocrisy! And you have the gall to say that everything atheists do is irrational, except suicide? On the very contrary, this is true only for theists. They are the ones, who devalue this existence (according to your current post), not the atheists. Atheists value this existence, precisely because it is the only one we have.

 

[DPMartin]

Solutions to the “problem of evil” always includes the premise that:

“This world with human beings free to choose between good and evil is better than a world with humans who did not have free will but always did good”.

Can anyone prove or disprove this?

Neil_Anthony

Yes but you exclude God’s Choice, and His Choice is always good, and His Choice is always well with Him. So since man’s choice has no bearing on God’s Choice, how is it that man’s choices can be good?

 

[Sair]

Neil_Anthony

Yes but you exclude God’s Choice, and His Choice is always good, and His Choice is always well with Him. So since man’s choice has no bearing on God’s Choice, how is it that man’s choices can be good?

God’s choice…was to create beings who could commit evil. Is that a good choice?

 

[AndyF]

A world where all classes of choices were honored would be an improvement. More importantly, choices should have substance outside the parameters of a temptoral situation. The choice has value only in the final summation of a combative situation where opposing forces were at work.

However, ravaged by the same temptation for years, an individual in the peaceful confines of his room, not influenced by an opposing force, and after much anguished decision makes a choice through prayer to sacrifice his sexual ability for the sake of his salvation. (“What the left hand is doing…”)

The latter carries no weight, but the former does.

This is what’s puzzling. ALL choices should carry the same weight and should be honored has such if indeed making the right choices is the prime goal, or, if it is actually the interest of the individual that is of concern. One would think that if this were so then angels would rejoice at this choice also.

Andy

 

[DPMartin]

God’s choice…was to create beings who could commit evil. Is that a good choice?

Sair

thanks for the reply

good question

Could it be that God created beings that can agree to His Choice for them, trusting in His Choice for them, with expectation in His Choice for them? In the face of that which is otherwise. What would make you think that the Lord God hasn’t done this, Himself already? Since man is made to be in God’s image, and likeness, doesn’t man have to walk His Way?

God’s Choice doesn’t destroy man. Man destroys himself, by his own choices.

 

[tonyrey]

A world where all classes of choices were honored would be an improvement. More importantly, choices should have substance outside the parameters of a temptoral situation. The choice has value only in the final summation of a combative situation where opposing forces were at work.

However, ravaged by the same temptation for years, an individual in the peaceful confines of his room, not influenced by an opposing force, and after much anguished decision makes a choice through prayer to sacrifice his sexual ability for the sake of his salvation. (“What the left hand is doing…”)

The latter carries no weight, but the former does.

This is what’s puzzling. ALL choices should carry the same weight and should be honored has such if indeed making the right choices is the prime goal, or, if it is actually the interest of the individual that is of concern. One would think that if this were so then angels would rejoice at this choice also.

Andy

Not all choices should carry the same weight because some have far more significance than others, e.g. whether to worship God or yourself…

 

[Qoheleth]

If you want to understand anything …look to our Father he has much to say to us.!

Matthew 18:3

Isiah 55:8

Romans 9: 19-24

Peace!

 

[dostoyevskyfan]

Your belief is yours. Now, if only you could prove that your belief actually mirrors reality (and it is not just wishful thinking), there would be something to talk about.

We aren’t discussing proofs of God in this thread. You are forced out of necessity to entertain the proposition that God hypothetically exists in order to have a meaningful conversation with someone like me. You are logically forced to,…if you want to attempt to find a contradiction in the nature of the God I believe in.

There is a true proverb: “from the pinnacle all roads lead downhill” - which reflects what I was arguing: “for a perfect being all activites are irrational”.

That would be a true proverb if we were discussing a limited god. Like God were the summit of some imaginary mountain, and the only direction God could go was back down the mountain–but the God I believe in is a mountain of infinite heights. you have to conceive of God like you would the concept of infinity in mathematics. I know it is hard for someone of limited finite intellect.

And yet you take time to answer. Do you consider yourself rational?

By your standard of the term “rationality”…no I do not, and yet if you were to ask me if I considered you rational…I would say no. The term “rationality” is relative and it is usually championed by someone who wishes to elevate themselves above a contrary position in an argument.

For example, I love and I have been in love. Love is not rational or reasonable. People who are in love exhibit a lot of irrational and unreasonable behaviors that sometimes they themselves cannot account for or explain. If you have ever been in love, then you would know this. I assume you have not because you don’t seem to understand.

Even if you haven’t experienced love of the rapturous kind, it is highly likely that you have opened a book on world history. On those pages you will not find a single “rational” or “reasonable” person. The reason for this is…“rational” and “reasonable” people never make history. It is always the mad genius or psychotic dictator who alters history.

Again, the unsubstantiated belief. And the utter lack of rationality and the abundance of hypocrisy. I would bet dollars to cents that you conduct your life as if this life mattered. As if it would be preferable not to hurt others, even if it is your belief that hurting others is meaningless.

Strawman. I never said that hurting others is “meaningless”; only that one’s ability or hypothetical freedom to hurt others is meaningless. I believe this life is meaningful because your actions here dictate your unalterable eternal state either in one of the rings of Dante’s inferno or some degree of bliss in heaven.

And you have the gall to say that everything atheists do is irrational, except suicide?

Yes absolutely. It is my contention that man is fundamentally an irrational animal irrespective of what he believes or does not believe (atheist or theist). From a logical perspective, there is more philosophical justification for someone who does not believe in God or an afterlife, only complete and utter inevitable annihilation of being, to commit suicide rather than do something else…such as go eat a double cheeseburger and McDonalds and just delay absolute annihilation for one more day. So that’s the summation of my argument. It is irrational for you to eat cheeseburgers. I tried to simplify it so you could understand.

On the very contrary, this is true only for theists. They are the ones, who devalue this existence (according to your current post), not the atheists.

Strawman. Read the CCC.

Atheists value this existence, precisely because it is the only one we have.

Who made you the spokesperson for all atheists? I can point out plenty of atheists who did not value existence. Sigmund Freud (suicide), columbine killers (mass shooting and suicide), stalin, mao, pol pot, etc…

Having only one quantity of something superfluous is no logical or rational reason to value it. I had only one wisdom tooth. It was a superfluous tooth. Yet I only had one. It caused me no discomfort, it was in the back of my mouth where no one could see it, and I had to real reason to have it removed or to leave it in my mouth. Needless to say, I personally know a dentist and I had it removed for free. I in no way valued my only wisdom tooth solely for the reason that I only had one of them. That would have been an illogical line of reasoning…and completely irrational.

 

[Spirithound]

If all the believers would commit suicide and abort the next generation of the believers, where would the money come from to maintain the institution?

If all the believers committed suicide, there would be no one left in the institution. To be clear, there would be no one left to miss the institution.

 

[John_Martin]

I can only present a subjective opinion from my part. Having been a designer and implementor of many complex computer systems, it is my view that unlimited “freedom” to deviate from the design specs is a very bad idea. Freedom to deviate is a “bug”. Now, it is quite possible that the designer builds in generic guidelines to allow a certain amount of freedom, but that amount of freedom cannot create a scenario which the designer definitely does not want to occur.

To allow a state of affairs, that the designer does not want to happen is either illogical or it shows that the creator does not care about its creation. If the creator is still in the design phase and realizes that the intended working of the system is impossible to achieve without risking a total deviation from the design specs, and still goes ahead and implements the system, then he must take full responsibility for the incorrect performance of the system. He cannot use the excuse: “but I told them not to do it!”.

It is not really the same, the designer (or implementer) of the computer system is not the computer system itself.
A software designer does not design the software programmer. (God & Creature is not Designer & Programmer, but God & Creature IS Designer and Software Package).
A programmer may take liberties with your design, but that programmer is not your creature.

Explanations of “Free Will” are an attempt to put into words (and into thoughts and into categories) what people experience in dealing with God and with His Christ as citizens of the Kingdom He established. They experience the appearance of being able to make “good” or “bad” decisions and do “good” or “bad” actions. They also read Scriptures that seem to hint that Free Will is a valid theory. But, whether you believe in or understand or have even heard of Free Will, there is still the proclamation of the “Kingdom of God is here; come turning from your own ways and we will grant you also citizenship, baptizing you and teaching you all that we have received from our King, our Brother, our Friend”.

John Martin

 

[PJM]

=Neil_Anthony;7927586]Solutions to the “problem of evil” always includes the premise that:

“This world with human beings free to choose between good and evil is better than a world with humans who did not have free will but always did good”.

Can anyone prove or disprove this?

Hi Neil; GREAT Q!

The logic flows like this:

1. God is “All Good Things Perfected”
2. Because IS both “all-good” and “perfect” he can’t be wrong
3. **Gen. 1: 26-27 ** tells us clearly that God FREELY choose to CREATE us in His immage.

HOW? God is “Spirit and Truth” [Jn. 4:24]

God Created BILLIONS of stars, planets and galaxies BUT; ONLY ONE; Earth can be PROVEN today to support life forms. Planet Earth.

On Planet earth God CREATED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of living thing things; BUT ONLY ONE; Humanity has what is necessary to LOVE.

With ODDS of Billions to one and Hundreds of thousands to one; coincedience seems an impossibility.

Humanity alone has a mind, intellect, FREEWILL conncect to our SOULS. This can be shown but none of them can be quantified> How Big is you’re freewill? What’s it’s shape? What color is it? How much does it weigh?

We can’t answer because these are like God, “Spiritual Things.” Because "like [things] can ONLY come from “like things,” we can know that God gives them to us for a precise purpose which is articulated by the Prophet Issiah.

**WHY?**Isaiah 43 7, 21: “every one who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.” AND “the people whom I formed for myself ***that they might ***declare my praise”.

The ISSUE for God [and by command for us too], is LOVE.

God IS Love

Humanity alone of ALL CREATED THINGS can love God in return for loivng and Creating us.

Because God “is perfect”; God desires at a minimum, “Perfected Love” in return.

In order for love to be “perfect” it MUST [absolutley] be given FREELY!

John.14: 15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. 21 He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”

John.15: 10 “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love”.

**Matt.19: 17 …“If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” **

So my friend that is the HOW and The WHY:thumbsup:

God Bless you,
Pat**