Predestination and free will

[TheQuestioner]

There’s no proof, I’ll grant you that. But like I said before, a lot of suffering in the world (such as someone abducting, raping, and murdering a 7 year old now multiply that by millions) that seems gratuitous.

While that is not empirical proof, it is certainly empirical evidence.

There are victims who survive, yet become alcoholics/drug addicts, become molesters themselves. In those cases to the observer it would seem that not only was there no benefit from the suffering, but there was further harm.

Those are our observations. You don’t need faith to notice that. You do need a great deal of faith in my opinion to believe that it’s all for the best in the long run and that there are hidden benefits to the raped/murdered/tortured kids.

And so I would not say that our positions are equivalent, I am going by what I experience in this world, what I observe with my senses. And I ask, how likely is it that this is the best possible world? You are assuming (because of religious considerations), that this is the best possible world.

Again, a purely emotional argument. Just because evil seems gratuitous doesn’t mean it is. And one could simply say that you merely focus on the bad parts. As far as arguing against these emotional arguments I wont bother. It will get us nowhere.

Would you agree that God’s omniscience is compatible with you having free will?

If so, then I don’t see how your argument works. Either way, God knows what you will do. Since you have true free will, you can do just about anything possible. (In particular, not steal the apple).

Completely wrong. Foreknowledge does not imply causation. I can know the sun will rise, it does not mean that I make it so. This too is a very weak argument. You are trying to link God’s foreknowledge with some sort of causal effect and it just doesn’t work.

All things being equal, since you are truly free, for any world where you freely choose to steal the apple there is a world where you freely choose not to steal the apple. It is precisely the independence of your choice from your environmental circumstance that allows for this argument.

You cannot freely choose to do anything if the choice depends on the world you exist in. It can only depend on an internal disposition for it to be free will, not an external one.I don’t know how to clarify this more. There is no world in which I would have freely chosen to not steal the apple because if there was then my choice no longer depends on my will, but on the world I exist in. If the world you exist in has such a profound effect on your moral decisions that you can do a 180 then you will really isn’t free.

If you think that by instantiating a world where you would not steal the apple God would choose for you, then you have to believe that God’s omniscience is incompatible with your free will, in which case you have bigger problems anyway.

Not at all. God would merely actualize a world in which the choice of not stealing the apple would not be so hard for me that I couldn’t bare it (God does not test us beyond our limits, and knowing man’s limits has nothing to do with affecting his free will, if his choice was not a morally free one he cannot be judged based upon it). In this best world possible if I steal the apple then I would have stolen it in any other world. God can make the surrounding circumstances around our decisions such that we can choose good (even though it may be hard), hence no one will have an excuse for their actions. Thus, those sins that happen that you cannot bare you will not be judged for it, but those sins that happen when you could have born them you will be judged gor.

 

[flyingfish]

Again, a purely emotional argument. Just because evil seems gratuitous doesn’t mean it is. And one could simply say that you merely focus on the bad parts. As far as arguing against these emotional arguments I wont bother. It will get us nowhere.

Just because trees seem to grow out of the ground, doesn’t mean they are? You do realize that the kind of argument you’re making would undercut evidence-based conclusions as a whole. If we can’t trust our senses and observations, we can’t do science, we can’t reason about the observed world in general.

Completely wrong. Foreknowledge does not imply causation. I can know the sun will rise, it does not mean that I make it so. This too is a very weak argument. You are trying to link God’s foreknowledge with some sort of causal effect and it just doesn’t work.

No, I’m saying that the underlying argument behind what you said is that God’s foreknowledge implies causation.

You said that if God instantiates a world where you don’t steal the apple, then God makes the choice for you and you have no free will. Well, guess what, God instantiated a world where you will do what you will do. Even if you would steal the apple in all the worlds that have an apple, there are still worlds that have no apples, and where you wouldn’t have stolen it.

Either way, God instantiated a world knowing that you will do what you did/are doing/will do. You can similarly argue God made your choices for you by making this particular world. If that is compatible with free will, then God’s choosing a world where everyone freely does the right thing (logically possible) is also compatible with free will.

You cannot freely choose to do anything if the choice depends on the world you exist in. It can only depend on an internal disposition for it to be free will, not an external one.I don’t know how to clarify this more.

I’m not arguing with this point. I’m saying that if your free will is truly free, and doesn’t depend on the world you’re in, then you can make any logically possible choice in any world. The point Daneel was making included your choices as part of a world, it was just a definitional issue. He made the W_i’s consist only of people’s free choices, they didn’t depend on any other elements.

If your will truly doesn’t depend on the circumstances of a given world, then for each physical configuration of a given world there are as many possible worlds as logic allows you to make choices. Any of them could exist. And it’s up to God to choose which. If God creating you while knowing what you will choose is compatible with free will, then no reason this can’t work. God would make a wold where he’d know everyone would freely choose the right thing.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The fact that people who reject God through mortal sin aren’t immediately in the state of hell (or the place of hell) proves that hell is not necessary. If people actually exist in hell for an eternity, it’s because God it’s what wants.

Not to mention that, in the context of Catholic theology everything that exists has to be sustained by God.

It’s perfectly possible for anyone who is in mortal sin on earth. If you believe there are people in mortal sin, then it’s not just possible, but actual.

I don’t believe in hell anymore, so I don’t need to feel better about it. What I don’t understand is why you would choose to believe these things and argue for them.

Even C.S. Lewis, a highly regarded Christian thinker viewed hell as an Earth like place anyone could leave at any time if they so chose.

Cslewis is correct, but not in the sense that you think. Nobody that will choose God at any time is in hell; Hell is define as a permanent state brought on by the will of the unrepentant heart; and that is a heart that is opposed to greatest good. So perhaps you are accusing me of defending your straw-man version of hell; which i am not. Nobody in hell wants to leave; even though they don’t want to suffer. Their not wanting to leave is an expression of their selfishness, their opposition to the glory of love; and their opposition does not allow them to experience the beatific vision. These people are quite happy to use love as a tool for their own glory, but they do not want to **serve **love for all eternity. They are there because they oppose God. And only God knows their hearts. God being love, knows who will choose love, and those who choose love, but also need further time for development, God sends to purgatory.

Its quite telling that you failed to quote the part where i say that the only time we can possibly sin and have love is in the allotted and finite time given to us in order that we can freely choose love. It is in the necessary nature of love to give freedom of choice; and in giving that freedom we can possibly experience some good in this life.

 

[flyingfish]

Cslewis is correct, but not in the sense that you think.

Its quite telling that you failed to quote the part where i say that the only time we can possibly sin and have love is in the allotted and finite time given to us in order that we can freely choose love. It is in the necessary nature of love to give freedom of choice; and in giving that freedom we can possibly experience some good in this life.

C.S. Lewis’ book about hell, the Great Divorce IIRC, features a man who starts out in hell but makes it to heaven in the end.

For your second point, the fact that people here on Earth sin and have love demonstrates that it’s logically possible to sin and have love, and so there is no reason why these people a) have to die b) can’t be reborn right back to Earth c) have sin and love in some other (logically possible) state.

If it were logically impossible to be in moral sin and experience love and happiness, it wouldn’t be possible on Earth either. The fact that it is possible on Earth, means it’s possible in general. That was my point.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

C.S. Lewis’ book about hell, the Great Divorce IIRC, features a man who starts out in hell but makes it to heaven in the end.

Its really irrelevant since i am not basing my argument on what C.s Lewis said. I only care about what follows logically and necessarily. If Cs Lewis really meant what you have contextualized him to have meant, then i disagree with him.

For your second point, the fact that people here on Earth sin and have love demonstrates that it’s logically possible to sin and have love

Relative to our existence on earth

a) have to die b)

They do if its a necessary part of our salvation.

can’t be reborn right back to Earth c)

Perhaps they can, but then perhaps God knows the hearts of human beings and thus he doesn’t need to. The purpose of life is to love; if you choose not to then you lose your right to life since you have given up on it. Also, bringing back evil people constantly does not benefit the good of everybody else. What is the point? God only acts for the greatest good, not for the pleasure of selfish people. God has knowledge that we don’t and acts accordingly.

have sin and love in some other (logically possible) state.

The purpose of life is to love perfectly; and those who oppose it will not experience the beatific vision. If life was just about pleasure there would be no such thing as God.

If it were logically impossible to be in moral sin and experience love and happiness, it wouldn’t be possible on Earth either.

It is possible because its in the necessary nature of God to will the greatest good, and the greatest good is that we have the freedom of choice and the possibility of experiencing happiness and good in various forms throughout our journey toward making that ultimate choice. We do not experience “heaven” in this life, that is what is impossible. We experience degrees of good insofar as it points to the greatest good that exists in heaven. We exist to experience good. But we experience analogies of good; shades of good in things, while we exist on earth. Spiritual fulfillment in heaven is more than just the possible happiness we experience in this life. Logic comes from Gods nature as perfect love and being; its not something that exists by itself.

The fact that it is possible on Earth, means it’s possible in general.

What you are saying is false. God is love, the essence of heaven. Hell necessarily follows from the rejection of the beatific vision. It is the individual that rejects God, it is not God rejecting the individual.

 

[flyingfish]

The purpose of life is to love perfectly; and those who oppose it will not experience the beatific vision.** If life was just about pleasure there would be no such thing as God.**

Why? Think about it from God’s point of view. You’re an omniscient, all powerful, benevolent being. You are complete. Why would you make anything if not for their own sake? God doesn’t need us, doesn’t need our services, doesn’t need us to love him, the only reason that makes sense to me as to why such a being would make us would be for our own benefit.

Assuming a benevolent God, could also have a malevolent God who creates others for the purpose of watching them suffer. Could have a God who doesn’t have a choice in creation. Various possibilities.

 

[desertflower23]

I too have struggled with the issue of God’s perfect love and His knowledge of all things. I think the confusion is partially based on an incomplete or selective view of God. If you actually believe that God created all things and has revealed Himself to man in the church, then you must believe that He is perfectly loving and just. If you follow the idea that God is a cruel creator who uses us as His pawns you run into a wall. Logically, if God wanted to, He could fool us into believing He was loving when He was really just amusing Himself at our expense. Being much more intelligent than us by virtue of having created us, He could convince us of His good intent and we would have no doubts. Our very ability to doubt God reveals that He has given us a free will, and allowed us the freedom of choice because of His Love. Our ultimate joy is found in relationship with God. Our pride leads us to believe that we do not need God, or that He should bend to our standards. But how can we really say that God is incompetent or unfair still call Him God? “God is not man that He should lie, nor the Son of man that He should be changed.” His wisdom and knowledge are infinite, as is His love. His knowledge and love are two sides of the same coin, and we cannot view one without the other. If this post is confusing, forgive me, my thoughts are a bit scattered.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I too have struggled with the issue of God’s perfect love and His knowledge of all things. I think the confusion is partially based on an incomplete or selective view of God. If you actually believe that God created all things and has revealed Himself to man in the church, then you must believe that He is perfectly loving and just. If you follow the idea that God is a cruel creator who uses us as His pawns you run into a wall. Logically, if God wanted to, He could fool us into believing He was loving when He was really just amusing Himself at our expense. Being much more intelligent than us by virtue of having created us, He could convince us of His good intent and we would have no doubts. Our very ability to doubt God reveals that He has given us a free will, and allowed us the freedom of choice because of His Love. Our ultimate joy is found in relationship with God. Our pride leads us to believe that we do not need God, or that He should bend to our standards. But how can we really say that God is incompetent or unfair still call Him God? “God is not man that He should lie, nor the Son of man that He should be changed.” His wisdom and knowledge are infinite, as is His love.** His knowledge and love are two sides of the same coin**, and we cannot view one without the other. If this post is confusing, forgive me, my thoughts are a bit scattered.

I disagree with the possibility that God could deceive us in the manner you describe. You imply further on that such a deceiver would not be God by definition, which is true. Apart from that i agree with the rest of your post. I think it was well presented. I especially liked the part that i have highlighted in bold type.

Godbless.

 

[desertflower23]

You are right to disagree. I did not present the fact that this is against God’s nature. Thank you for the revision