Predestination and free-will

[Freddy]

TULIPed:

And without God, where are we inclined towards?

Do you mean as an atheist without God or God not existing? An atheist would still be inclined towards the good because that’s the only way we desire anything (“how can this choice benefit me?”).

Then you might just as well call it a preference. And what else is a choice but selecting one’s preferred option? It’s a definition that adds nothing to the discussion. You’ve just defined what a choice actually is and I’m not sure anyone would disgree with it whatever position they hold.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Then, as is typically the case, we diverge at the semantic level.

As any good argument should be. As this is a Catholic forum that’s the standard understanding of Catholic predestination. What do you have difficulty with?

The silly, mistaken notion that any idea gets a pass or is assumed true without scrutiny, especially in the apologetics sub-forum

 

[Veritas6]

The silly, mistaken notion that any idea gets a pass or is assumed true without scrutiny, especially in the apologetics sub-forum

Okay what is this idea that is assumed to be true without scrutiny? Let’s not assume anything to be true. If you want to have a discussion no problem, tell me what you have difficulty with. You haven’t argued anything yet.

 

[Veritas6]

Then you might just as well call it a preference. And what else is a choice but selecting one’s preferred option? It’s a definition that adds nothing to the discussion. You’ve just defined what a choice actually is and I’m not sure anyone would disgree with it whatever position they hold.

What does it mean to have a preference? I’m identifying a gradation inherent in the world. We prefer things because we find subjective good within them. The good we desire is from God. I’m glad we agree

 

[Hume]

My challenge is that your definition is much too narrow. Remember semantics just a few lines up?

The conflict between destiny vs agency is older than Catholicism. I see no real reason to contain it with such.

 

[Hume]

And since semantics is largely (but not always) axiomatic, that’s the end of the discussion.

Me must agree to disagree.

 

[Neithan]

We have free will toward natural goods. Since eternal salvation is a supernatural good, it is not naturally possible for us to will (or even know about) it. Those who attain eternal salvation therefore must have been predestined. That doesn’t mean there was no free will to live their natural lives until their natural end.

 

[Veritas6]

And since semantics is largely (but not always) axiomatic, that’s the end of the discussion.

Me must agree to disagree.

So you can never have an argument about free will because my definition is too narrow? I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, we can never speak on the truth or falsity of free will here.