Molinism, Predestination, Free Will, Grace?!

[thinkandmull]

OK, I actually went back and read all your posts. I can see why you’re getting frustrated, because you’re saying the same thing over and over. But I hope you can see why we lesser mortals are also getting frustrated: to us you are saying, “Look at the grass! Isn’t it a nice shade of red!” and we say, “Huh???”

I think your argument is fairly simple: God created everything; God has foreknowledge of the future; therefore there is no free will.

But try as I might, I don’t see the logic in your conclusion. I read your analogy about the room several times, but I still don’t get it. Yes, I’m created with certain tendencies (my own post above) and certain limitations, but no matter how limited they are, I still have the ability to make choices. And of course most choices aren’t moral choices.

I might suggest that what you are overlooking is that God created men (and animals) with free will. If I create a dog with certain abilities and tendencies, and if I have foreknowledge that if I throw a ball the dog will try to catch it, I am not determining the dog’s actions–the dog can decide not to catch it if he wants to.

The closest I can come (although you probably don’t like this example) is another analogy: I create a model airplane; it will respond to the controls. If I push the button to make it go left, it goes left, etc. It seems to me you are comparing people to the airplane–we’re simply programed to do certain things. I can’t see that. It’s sort of like BF Skinner’s psychology: your mind is programmed. I completely agree, as I’ve said several times, that options are limited by several factors, including reality. But there are always options. We’re not programmed or controlled.

To me, God creates everything–including built-in free will; he has foreknowledge of the future because God’s outside of time–everything is laid out simultaneously. But knowing something is going to happen isn’t the same as causing it to happen–although you could argue that God could simply decide not to create people that opened door A instead of door B. But that still doesn’t restrict the free will of the people God created who open door B–they could have opened A, but decided not to. If you can bridge the gap here without simply repeating what you’ve said once more, great. Otherwise, you’re just telling me that the grass is red, and I don’t get that.

Part of their concern is having a God who creates people who He knows are going to hell. My argument is that our choices come between God deciding to create and His foreknowledge

 

[AyJSimon]

OK, I actually went back and read all your posts. I can see why you’re getting frustrated, because you’re saying the same thing over and over. But I hope you can see why we lesser mortals are also getting frustrated: to us you are saying, “Look at the grass! Isn’t it a nice shade of red!” and we say, “Huh???”

I think your argument is fairly simple: God created everything; God has foreknowledge of the future; therefore there is no free will.

But try as I might, I don’t see the logic in your conclusion. I read your analogy about the room several times, but I still don’t get it. Yes, I’m created with certain tendencies (my own post above) and certain limitations, but no matter how limited they are, I still have the ability to make choices. And of course most choices aren’t moral choices.

I might suggest that what you are overlooking is that God created men (and animals) with free will. If I create a dog with certain abilities and tendencies, and if I have foreknowledge that if I throw a ball the dog will try to catch it, I am not determining the dog’s actions–the dog can decide not to catch it if he wants to.

The closest I can come (although you probably don’t like this example) is another analogy: I create a model airplane; it will respond to the controls. If I push the button to make it go left, it goes left, etc. It seems to me you are comparing people to the airplane–we’re simply programed to do certain things. I can’t see that. It’s sort of like BF Skinner’s psychology: your mind is programmed. I completely agree, as I’ve said several times, that options are limited by several factors, including reality. But there are always options. We’re not programmed or controlled.

To me, God creates everything–including built-in free will; he has foreknowledge of the future because God’s outside of time–everything is laid out simultaneously. But knowing something is going to happen isn’t the same as causing it to happen–although you could argue that God could simply decide not to create people that opened door A instead of door B. But that still doesn’t restrict the free will of the people God created who open door B–they could have opened A, but decided not to. If you can bridge the gap here without simply repeating what you’ve said once more, great. Otherwise, you’re just telling me that the grass is red, and I don’t get that.

I’m sorry to disappoint you - but there’s really nothing else I can do but repeat my point. There is no logical room for our free will if we’re created by a being who has perfect foreknowledge of everything we’ll ever do. I’m more than willing to concede that free will could possibly exist if God didn’t have perfect foreknowledge, or if God didn’t create us and everything else. But I’ve yet to meet the Christian who’s willing to give up either of those. Rather, they would cling to both of those claims, then just plug free will in, based on what seems like little more than sheer intuition. You created your hypothetical dog with perfect foreknowledge that he will try to catch the ball when you throw it. Then you throw it, and the dog asserts his free will to not catch it and thus contradict your perfect foreknowledge (Now it’s my turn to say 'Huh?)?

If God created you, and knows everything you’ll ever do, where is your free will? He cannot simply “create you with free will” - he’s creating you to behave exactly as he’s always known you will behave. You behaving exactly as your Creator has always known you would behave is the exact opposite of free will. Regardless of how you “feel” about it, that’s the only logical conclusion.

 

[mamlukman]

You created your hypothetical dog with perfect foreknowledge that he will try to catch the ball when you throw it. Then you throw it, and the dog asserts his free will to not catch it and thus contradict your perfect foreknowledge (Now it’s my turn to say 'Huh?)?

Thanks for trying to explain your point, but I’m afraid I still don’t get it. You’re simply asserting that creation + foreknowledge negates free will. But how? Why? Going back to the dog example, I as creator know he will always catch the ball, but that’s not the same as me making him catch the ball. He catches the ball because he wants to. I happen to know the outcome, but I don’t determine it. The dog determines it. To go back to my other example with the school bus and the train, just because I can predict that they’re going to crash if they keep going at the same speed and nothing intervenes doesn’t mean I caused the crash. I’m simply observing. If that doesn’t make sense, why not?

Again, it seems to me (this addresses thinkandmull’s point, which I agree with) that God could, if He wanted, choose to create only dogs who He knew would catch balls, and decide not to create dogs who he knew wouldn’t want to catch balls. Or create people who would go to Heaven and not create people who would go to Hell. Same thing. But two points: 1) that still wouldn’t affect the free will of the dogs who wanted to catch balls or people who wound up in Heaven. 2) --and maybe this is the key to this??–we don’t know why God would choose to create both types of dogs or both types of people. You could speculate that it’s to demonstrate free will. But who knows. It’s a mystery. You could go to a related question: why did God create a world filled with sickness and natural disasters that cause death and suffering? You can speculate all you want, but it’s a mystery. We simply don’t have an answer. And to try to solve it with human knowledge and logic is impossible. Isaiah: “My ways are not your ways…” etc.

Perhaps part of this issue is that you are looking for people who disagree with you to “prove” the existence of God. That can’t be done. Why not? Because if I could “prove” it like a math equation, there wouldn’t be any free will! How could you not “believe” that 2+2 = 4? If I could “prove” God in the same way, there is no room for free will. Kierkegaard: there is a “leap of faith.” At some point you have to look at whatever evidence you want and decide (free will!) to believe or not. It’s up to you. You can logically argue either position.

If God created you, and knows everything you’ll ever do, where is your free will? He cannot simply “create you with free will” - he’s creating you to behave exactly as he’s always known you will behave. You behaving exactly as your Creator has always known you would behave is the exact opposite of free will. Regardless of how you “feel” about it, that’s the only logical conclusion.

Perhaps we’ve discovered a clue to your logic: “He’s creating you to behave exactly as he’s always known you will behave.” Well no. He’s not creating you to behave either this way or that way (always excepting tendencies, environment, etc.). If God is outside of time, it’s hard to say if creation or foreknowledge is “first” so let’s assume they’re simultaneous. Your actual actions are in time-space. They follow “creation” and “foreknowledge.” But again, I don’t see why that means they are determined. If A follows B, it doesn’t mean that A is caused by B.

 

[oldcelt]

I’m sorry to disappoint you - but there’s really nothing else I can do but repeat my point. There is no logical room for our free will if we’re created by a being who has perfect foreknowledge of everything we’ll ever do. I’m more than willing to concede that free will could possibly exist if God didn’t have perfect foreknowledge, or if God didn’t create us and everything else. But I’ve yet to meet the Christian who’s willing to give up either of those. Rather, they would cling to both of those claims, then just plug free will in, based on what seems like little more than sheer intuition. You created your hypothetical dog with perfect foreknowledge that he will try to catch the ball when you throw it. Then you throw it, and the dog asserts his free will to not catch it and thus contradict your perfect foreknowledge (Now it’s my turn to say 'Huh?)?

If God created you, and knows everything you’ll ever do, where is your free will? He cannot simply “create you with free will” - he’s creating you to behave exactly as he’s always known you will behave. You behaving exactly as your Creator has always known you would behave is the exact opposite of free will. Regardless of how you “feel” about it, that’s the only logical conclusion.

I gave the example of a human creator who builds a machine that he absolutely knows will cause great harm. The act of building that machine with the absolute foreknowledge that it would cause harm would be enough to convict that man in any court in the world.
The same applies to a deity, in my belief.

 

[AyJSimon]

Thanks for trying to explain your point, but I’m afraid I still don’t get it. You’re simply asserting that creation + foreknowledge negates free will. But how? Why? Going back to the dog example, I as creator know he will always catch the ball, but that’s not the same as me making him catch the ball. He catches the ball because he wants to. I happen to know the outcome, but I don’t determine it. The dog determines it. To go back to my other example with the school bus and the train, just because I can predict that they’re going to crash if they keep going at the same speed and nothing intervenes doesn’t mean I caused the crash. I’m simply observing. If that doesn’t make sense, why not?

Because if your Creator has perfect foreknowledge of what you will do, he’s already determined it for you. In other words, it’s been determined. That’s what it means to have perfect foreknowledge. What you’re talking about with the dog isn’t determining to catch the ball - it’s simply acting based on what’s been determined prior. That’s not free will - not by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps part of this issue is that you are looking for people who disagree with you to “prove” the existence of God. That can’t be done. Why not? Because if I could “prove” it like a math equation, there wouldn’t be any free will! How could you not “believe” that 2+2 = 4? If I could “prove” God in the same way, there is no room for free will. Kierkegaard: there is a “leap of faith.” At some point you have to look at whatever evidence you want and decide (free will!) to believe or not. It’s up to you. You can logically argue either position.

I don’t believe in free will in any case - but for the sake of this argument, I’m assuming that God does exist just to illustrate how a God who creates everything, and who has perfect foreknowledge, cannot allow us free will. I’m not asking anyone to prove the existence of God - I’m willing to grant it as a given, just to make my point.

 

[AyJSimon]

I gave the example of a human creator who builds a machine that he absolutely knows will cause great harm. The act of building that machine with the absolute foreknowledge that it would cause harm would be enough to convict that man in any court in the world.
The same applies to a deity, in my belief.

True.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

I gave the example of a human creator who builds a machine that he absolutely knows will cause great harm. The act of building that machine with the absolute foreknowledge that it would cause harm would be enough to convict that man in any court in the world.
The same applies to a deity, in my belief.

People are successfully sued and thrown in jail for much less! No human being has the level of knowledge or power God has. We only suppose or suspect a machine will do great harm. God actually knows, and willfully sustains the existence of the machine!

To me, whether or not there is free will is an open question. However, given RC metaphysics, it is unquestionable that God bears moral responsibility to at least some degree for, well absolutely everything!

If he isn’t, why call him good? Why praise him for creation? Believers say the universe is a great work of God and praise him for it (I agree). However, if he isn’t responsible for evil because of “free will” then he is not responsible for good either. The responsibility functions for both aspects. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

 

[oldcelt]

People are successfully sued and thrown in jail for much less! No human being has the level of knowledge or power God has. We only suppose or suspect a machine will do great harm. God actually knows, and willfully sustains the existence of the machine!

To me, whether or not there is free will is an open question. However, given RC metaphysics, it is unquestionable that God bears moral responsibility to at least some degree for, well absolutely everything!

If he isn’t, why call him good? Why praise him for creation? Believers say the universe is a great work of God and praise him for it (I agree). However, if he isn’t responsible for evil because of “free will” then he is not responsible for good either. The responsibility functions for both aspects. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I believe in a creator, but not a micro-manager. I also believe that we, as humans, have absolute free will and hold total responsibility for our decisions and actions. That is my view…for whatever it is worth.

 

[tonyrey]

How about 18?

3, 39, 45, 51, 53, 61, 67, 69, 71, 77, 100, 116, 119, 131, 273, 283, 285, and 290.

3.It isn’t just about God’s foreknowledge of human events. It’s about the fact that God created everyone of which he has foreknowledge. That’s why God’s essence is not compatible with our having free will.

1. (Post by thinkandmull).

1. God creates our choices. That’s what makes him ultimately responsible. If I had foreknowledge of your choices, that wouldn’t make me responsible for them, because I didn’t create the environment in which you choose what you choose.

God creates us with the power to choose for ourselves regardless of our environment. Surely that is not impossible for the Creator of everything that exists? What possible obstacle could there be?

If we don’t have free will and cannot choose what to think we cannot be rational - which invalidates the conclusion that we cannot choose what to think! Our conclusions are untrustworthy if they are forced upon us. Do you believe a computer has any insight into the nature of reality? Do you rely on its output as much as a child’s?

1. It’s not - but it misses the point - a God who creates everything and has foreknowledge is responsible for all of it - the good and the bad.

It would be evil not to create anything simply because there is evil in the world. Thomas Nagel, an atheist, has pointed out that life is good because it is a source of opportunities. On the other hand, “Nothing shall come of nothing.” - King Lear

 

[tonyrey]

I believe in a creator, but not a micro-manager. I also believe that we, as humans, have absolute free will and hold total responsibility for our decisions and actions. That is my view…for whatever it is worth.

You are right because without free will our conclusions would be valueless. They would be the results of events beyond our control. Yet you need to explain the origin of free will because it cannot be explained by natural causes…

 

[AyJSimon]

God creates us with the power to choose for ourselves regardless of our environment. Surely that is not impossible for the Creator of everything that exists? What possible obstacle could there be?

The same obstacle that prevents God from creating a stone so heavy he can’t lift it. It’s logically impossible for God to create us with the power to freely choose what he already knows we will choose. If God created us knowing what we will choose, then our choices are determined, then they can’t be freely chosen by us.

If we don’t have free will and cannot choose what to think we cannot be rational - which invalidates the conclusion that we cannot choose what to think! Our conclusions are untrustworthy if they are forced upon us. Do you believe a computer has any insight into the nature of reality? Do you rely on its output as much as a child’s?

Whether or not we have free will, we can still be capable of rational thought. To think rationally simply means to have thoughts which track with reality as it’s objectively understood. Even if we were all biological robots, programmed in advance by God, reality would still be what it is, and we would still be capable of rationally understanding it. It would simply be up to God to determine for us whether we each, individually, are capable of rationally understanding it.

 

[davidv]

The same obstacle that prevents God from creating a stone so heavy he can’t lift it.

Red herring.

It’s logically impossible for God to create us with the power to freely choose what he already knows we will choose. If God created us knowing what we will choose, then our choices are determined, then they can’t be freely chosen by us.

So far, this claim has been unsupported by evidence and logic. Repeating this assertion does not make it more true.

Whether or not we have free will, we can still be capable of rational thought. To think rationally simply means to have thoughts which track with reality as it’s objectively understood.

I think this is a straw man of thinking and rational thought.

Even if we were all biological robots, programmed in advance by God, reality would still be what it is, and we would still be capable of rationally understanding it. It would simply be up to God to determine for us whether we each, individually, are capable of rationally understanding it.

 

[AyJSimon]

Red herring.

So far, this claim has been unsupported by evidence and logic. Repeating this assertion does not make it more true.

By definition, a logical syllogism can’t be supported with logic. If you don’t value logic, there is no logical proof I can offer to make you value it.

 

[davidv]

By definition, a logical syllogism can’t be supported with logic. If you don’t value logic, there is no logical proof I can offer to make you value it.

See post 300. I have not seen a valid logical syllogism from you.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If God created us knowing what we will choose, then our choices are determined, then they can’t be freely chosen . . .

Huh?
God is eternally present.
He creates you as a being who will make of yourself what you will, given your circumstances.
Success or failure are within your grasp, of course defined by the degree to which you give of yourself and grow in Love.
How does He as your Creator, simultaneously One in His eternal now, at your conception, birth, all through life and at your death bed alter the fact that you do what you will?

From my iPhone in the middle of almost nowhere - sorry for typos.

 

[tonyrey]

God creates us with the power to choose for ourselves regardless of our environment. Surely that is not impossible for the Creator of everything that exists? What possible obstacle could there be?
The same obstacle that prevents God from creating a stone so heavy he can’t lift it.
That is an imaginary obstacle because it begs the question! What evidence is there that God cannot lift anything He Creates? None whatsoever.
It’s logically impossible for God to create us with the power to freely choose what he already knows we will choose. If God created us knowing what we will choose, then our choices are determined, then they can’t be freely chosen by us.

You have never explained how God’s knowledge causes us to make our choices. The fact that God creates us is irrelevant. He is omnipotent but you are arbitrarily restricting His freedom as if you have privileged insight into what the Creator of the universe can and cannot do. That is presumptuous to say the least…

If we don’t have free will and cannot choose what to think we cannot be rational - which invalidates the conclusion that we cannot choose what to think! Our conclusions are untrustworthy if they are forced upon us. Do you believe a computer has any insight into the nature of reality? Do you rely on its output as much as a child’s?

Whether or not we have free will, we can still be capable of rational thought. To think rationally simply means to have thoughts which track with reality as it’s objectively understood. Even if we were all biological robots, programmed in advance by God, reality would still be what it is, and we would still be capable of rationally understanding it. It would simply be up to God to determine for us whether we each, individually, are capable of rationally understanding it.

The questions remain:

Do you believe a computer has any insight into the nature of reality? Do you rely on its output as much as a child’s?

Reasoning cannot be programmed because it is creative, intuitive and often inspired. Persons are in an entirely different category from robots, biological or not. Otherwise we would have no right to life, freedom or happiness. We would live in an absurd world where nothing makes sense because everything would be composed of mindless molecules which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever. In fact reason itself would become an illusion which is nothing more than the aimless metamorphosis of physical and chemical reactions. Absurdity would reign supreme if insight and knowledge were merely infantile fantasies created by lumps of matter. “Garbage in garbage out” sums up materialism perfectly. Getting sense out of nonsense is a self-refuting, metaphysical conjuring trick equivalent to destroying the foundation on which your conclusion is based. To reduce oneself to the level of a robot is self-destructive insanity. The best test of any theory is whether it works in practice. Do we regard and treat ourselves and others as impersonal machines? If not why not?

 

[AyJSimon]

See post 300. I have not seen a valid logical syllogism from you.

You have seen it. You just ignore it, pretending that we’re in an Intro Philosophy undergraduate course and I’m somehow required to put it in a (P1, P2, C) form, otherwise it doesn’t “count.”

 

[davidv]

You have seen it. You just ignore it, pretending that we’re in an Intro Philosophy undergraduate course and I’m somehow required to put it in a (P1, P2, C) form, otherwise it doesn’t “count.”

I have seen the argument. It is not valid. It is a non sequitur.

The conclusion is not justified by the premises that have been offered.

 

[tonyrey]

I had a thread on this recently. Aquinas didn’t believe that Trinity could be proved and believed that creation was not necessary, so he did not believe that God of necessity had to have someone to love in order to be all-Good. He may be wrong on this point

Belief in love and the Blessed Trinity go hand in hand because a solitary Person would be the apotheosis of egoism! That is why Aquinas was right in his belief that creation was not necessary but the essence of love is that it is not only creative but unselfish in an even wider sense. To share power is usually contrary to human nature but it is a sign of divine perfection. To create beings who can rebel against you is unimaginable by worldly standards yet it is the only way of making them capable of the highest form of love. They can also cause a horrific amount of suffering which makes people reject the very existence of a loving Father without realising there is no alternative. Life is composed of two extremes: heaven and hell. It is an illusion that one can exist without the other any more than good can exist without evil. Ironically it was an atheist, Sartre, who pointed out that we cannot be persons unless we are free and capable of self-determination. He was right because the only alternative is nihilism…

 

[tonyrey]

You have never explained how God’s knowledge causes us to make our choices. The fact that God creates us is irrelevant. He is omnipotent but you are arbitrarily restricting His freedom as if you have privileged insight into what the Creator of the universe can and cannot do. That is presumptuous to say the least…

The questions remain:

Do you believe a computer has any insight into the nature of reality? Do you rely on its output as much as a child’s?

Reasoning cannot be programmed because it is creative, intuitive and often inspired. Persons are in an entirely different category from robots, biological or not. Otherwise we would have no right to life, freedom or happiness. We would live in an absurd world where nothing makes sense because everything would be composed of mindless molecules which exist for no reason or purpose whatsoever. In fact reason itself would become an illusion which is nothing more than the aimless metamorphosis of physical and chemical reactions. Absurdity would reign supreme if insight and knowledge were merely infantile fantasies created by lumps of matter. “Garbage in garbage out” sums up materialism perfectly. Getting sense out of nonsense is a self-refuting, metaphysical conjuring trick equivalent to destroying the foundation on which your conclusion is based. To reduce oneself to the level of a robot is literally self-destructive insanity. The best test of any theory is whether it works in practice. Do we regard and treat ourselves and others as impersonal machines? If not why not?