Predestination

[JDaniel]

God shares His power with A and because A is A (which was God’s decision), A chooses to do a (let a be 'rejecting God). And God shares His power with B because B is B (which was God’s decision), B chooses to do b (let b be ‘not rejecting God’). Still God’s decision, not A’s or B’s.

The nature of each being belongs to each being and is not a mere manipulation of each being by God. That said, God can and does lavish out and withhold His graces. Graces I have herein described as paths. One of which we may take at our own discretion - even though He knows which one we will choose. One path will be fairly easy. One will be moderately difficult. One will be nearly impossible. So far as we know, there aren’t any paths that are completely impossible for our wills to overcome.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, I’m referring to all sorts of Christians. I am well aware that Catholics do not believe God controls us, but that just is the logical consequence of God being the creator of everything.

That Sir (or Madame), is no “logical consequence.” That is a misrepresentation and a strawman.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The soul may very well be immaterial or possessing the attribute of self-cause or self-determination, but that does not remove the problem.
Either soul A was created completely the same as soul B, in which case A becoming different from B is purely coincidental.
Or A becomes differnent from B because A wants to be different from B. But if A was created just the same as B, then A’s wanting to be diffrerent is also purely coincidental.
Or A was created differently from B, in which case God is responsible for A’s choosing a and B’s choosing b.

That is an argument dependent upon the severe and arbitrary limitation of the choices. The choices of a man, or woman, have, may be several, or they may be nearly limitless. In fact, one of the choices is that of not making a choice. Again, Divine foreknowledge does not mean Divine puppetry. And, even if hombre A chooses a it is irrelevant. Hombre B still gets a choice, completely un-coerced by God.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Sounds like the religious background of scientific determinism.

Levinas12:

That’s very interesting. I had not thought of that, but it makes sense.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If a nucleus decays then the nuclear decay is the mechanism for decay and there is no necssity for an antecedent cause. How is that different?

Belorg:

Well, that’s certainly mechanistic. But, the nucleus of an atom has no real choice. It can do nothing other than what it is limited to do by its Creator. But, a man can choose not from hundreds of potential choices, but perhaps from a potential infinity of choices.

One could argue that because there are only a finite number of exigencies in the universe, then we are limited by that and therefore not capable of exercising absolute freedom of will. If those are the parameters then that is so. And, the same could be said of an entity that is capable of learning. Its choices are limited by what it knows. But, a true learning entity may continue to learn throughout its life. Then, when one considers the juxtapositioning of the myriad things that it knows, its choices can become more and more limitless with each passing day.

Humans have that potential propensity for such grace. Few if ever achieve complete knowledge of all things. But, that is a senseless argument. If one has but three choices: to do “a” or, to do “b”, he always has a third choice: to not act. Each and all of these may be grounded in a specific rationale as its ‘cause’. Or, each and all of these may be grounded in no specific rationale as its ‘cause’. The choice of one or the other, of the three, can be nothing more than choosing to choose.

What I’m saying is that either the immaterial enduring substance of person A is different form that of person B and therefore A makes different choices than B, or A and B’s immaterial enduring substances are the same, in which case if A makes a different choice than B that can only be based on pure random.

But aren’t you ignoring, with this logic, that one human being can do both: make a random choice, or make a studied choice? And, each of us has that capability.

The precise cause of A’s choosing a and B choosing b is what exactly?

It may be precise or imprecise. That’s the point.

I don’t know. Do you have a suggestion as to what causes choices if it’s not the difference between A and B?

I do. A simple one: A and B are carefully positioned to follow the same learning path. A is born one day earlier than B. So A gets to incur an additional 24 hour’s worth of information than B. Now, his choices may be due in some measure to that additional learning. Or, they may not. But, what can be said is that that additional 24 hours of learning will more than likely color the future decisions of A just as the lack of those 24 hours of learning will color the decisions of B. Of course, one can say, well, God is still the ultimate cause because He created each of them - on different days. But, that’s a stretch.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, a cause where everything must necssarily follow from the nature of the being is an inherent cause, but not the only possible inherent cause. An inherent cause is a cause that is inherent to the agent. If this is predictable, then the effect necessarily follows. If it is not predicatble, the outcome is random.

Belorg:

I am always amazed at how people skew definitions of things. The definition of ‘randomness’ is one of those words that has been seriously skewed: seriously contorted, along the way, by people who needed it to mean something that they needed it to mean. ‘Random’ and ‘randomness’ means homogeneity. It means, mathematically and causally, the result one achieves when one thoroughly mixes, e.g., 600 black beans with 400 red beans. Randomness occurs when any scoop of 100 beans reveals 60% black and 40 % red ones.

You, and others, seem to be using the word as a replacement for the word chance. “Chance” is quite a different thing. Chance is anything but homogeneity. When two people accidentally meet, after 30 years of separation, in some middle-of-the-country motel, where one is checking out and the other is checking in: that is “chance.” A cow, or a tree hit by lightening, is a “chance” event (the parameters of which may merely be poorly understood). Chance is a cause. ‘Randomness’ is not. ‘Randomness’ is itself caused.

No, the definition of randomness does not require it, but an event that the result of neither an inherent nor an external external cause is random. But I agree, there are random events that are caused. If I draw a lottery number out of a box containing a thousand tickets, the outcome is random, but I caused it.

No, that is chance. Purely and simply. There is no homogeneity in that box of a thousand tickets.

No, I don’t experinece my choice that way, but the logical conclusion that they are that way seems inevitable to me. That’s what compatibimism is all about. I do choose what to do but I don’t choose who I am and since my choice depends on who I am, the ultimate cause of my choice is not me but whatever is responsible for my being me. For a theist, that’s God, for an atheist, those are the laws of nature.

The laws of nature are relatively few, compared to the potentially infinite entities that exist in the universe. If it were all purely chance, as opposed to the improperly used other word, the universe, including nature, would consist of extraordinarily few regularities. Instead, the universe and nature consist of a potential infinity of regularities.

God bless,
jd

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

Well, that’s certainly mechanistic. But, the nucleus of an atom has no real choice. It can do nothing other than what it is limited to do by its Creator. But, a man can choose not from hundreds of potential choices, but perhaps from a potential infinity of choices.

One could argue that because there are only a finite number of exigencies in the universe, then we are limited by that and therefore not capable of exercising absolute freedom of will. If those are the parameters then that is so. And, the same could be said of an entity that is capable of learning. Its choices are limited by what it knows. But, a true learning entity may continue to learn throughout its life. Then, when one considers the juxtapositioning of the myriad things that it knows, its choices can become more and more limitless with each passing day.

Humans have that potential propensity for such grace. Few if ever achieve complete knowledge of all things. But, that is a senseless argument. If one has but three choices: to do “a” or, to do “b”, he always has a third choice: to not act. Each and all of these may be grounded in a specific rationale as its ‘cause’. Or, each and all of these may be grounded in no specific rationale as its ‘cause’. The choice of one or the other, of the three, can be nothing more than choosing to choose.

The way you describe it here, the only difference between the ‘choice’ of a nucleus and the choice of a humen being is that the causes of the choice of human beings is much more complex.

But aren’t you ignoring, with this logic, that one human being can do both: make a random choice, or make a studied choice? And, each of us has that capability.

A combination of both is of course possible, but it odes not remove the problem. Why is my ‘studied’ choice diffrent from yours? Partly because we’ve stuided different things, of course, but why have we studied different things?

It may be precise or imprecise. That’s the point.

You mean: it may be simple or complex.

I do. A simple one: A and B are carefully positioned to follow the same learning path. A is born one day earlier than B. So A gets to incur an additional 24 hour’s worth of information than B. Now, his choices may be due in some measure to that additional learning. Or, they may not. But, what can be said is that that additional 24 hours of learning will more than likely color the future decisions of A just as the lack of those 24 hours of learning will color the decisions of B. Of course, one can say, well, God is still the ultimate cause because He created each of them - on different days. But, that’s a stretch.

No, that is not a stretch. If this 24 hours make a genuine diffrence, then God, being omniscient, when he creates A 24h earlier than B, knows what is the consequence of that.
Omniscience in istelf may be a stretch, but once you assert omniscience, you cannot say that whetver consequence of your assertion is a stretch. It’s like saying: God knowing beforehand whether you are going to have tea of coffee is absurd. That may be true, but if He’s omniscient, He knows what you are going to choose.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I am always amazed at how people skew definitions of things. The definition of ‘randomness’ is one of those words that has been seriously skewed: seriously contorted, along the way, by people who needed it to mean something that they needed it to mean. ‘Random’ and ‘randomness’ means homogeneity. It means, mathematically and causally, the result one achieves when one thoroughly mixes, e.g., 600 black beans with 400 red beans. Randomness occurs when any scoop of 100 beans reveals 60% black and 40 % red ones.

You, and others, seem to be using the word as a replacement for the word chance. “Chance” is quite a different thing. Chance is anything but homogeneity. When two people accidentally meet, after 30 years of separation, in some middle-of-the-country motel, where one is checking out and the other is checking in: that is “chance.” A cow, or a tree hit by lightening, is a “chance” event (the parameters of which may merely be poorly understood). Chance is a cause. ‘Randomness’ is not. ‘Randomness’ is itself caused.

Ok, I’ll use ‘chance’ instead od randomness. Does not alter my argument, though.

No, that is chance. Purely and simply. There is no homogeneity in that box of a thousand tickets.

OK, chance then.

The laws of nature are relatively few, compared to the potentially infinite entities that exist in the universe. If it were all purely chance, as opposed to the improperly used other word, the universe, including nature, would consist of extraordinarily few regularities. Instead, the universe and nature consist of a potential infinity of regularities.

That may are may not be the case, but it has nothing to do with my argument.

 

[JDaniel]

The way you describe it here, the only difference between the ‘choice’ of a nucleus and the choice of a humen being is that the causes of the choice of human beings is much more complex.

Belorg:

Why not? If there are a finite number of human beings in the universe coexisting with an infinity of choices, each human being can easily own, so to speak, its own plethora of choices. That’s not a matter of complexity, it is a matter of sheer numerical superiority. It is ultimately a matter of individuation.

A combination of both is of course possible, but it odes not remove the problem. Why is my ‘studied’ choice diffrent from yours? Partly because we’ve stuided different things, of course, but why have we studied different things?

Well, God created us to coexist in a material universe. That means that we are each affected by time, space, place, and by a potential infinity of quanta. By “coexist” I don’t mean only with other people, rather I mean with quanta. And, by quanta I mean stuff.

No, that is not a stretch. If this 24 hours make a genuine diffrence, then God, being omniscient, when he creates A 24h earlier than B, knows what is the consequence of that.Omniscience in istelf may be a stretch, but once you assert omniscience, you cannot say that whetver consequence of your assertion is a stretch. It’s like saying: God knowing beforehand whether you are going to have tea of coffee is absurd. That may be true, but if He’s omniscient, He knows what you are going to choose.

Why? Why does foreknowledge necessarily mean that God must pre-know even before He Creates? While there is not a continuum of “time,” for God, might there still be sequence? Durational existence? Simultaneous but sequential occurrences? Does He create a material being absolutely simultaneous with its existence? He creates where there was nothing. There is at least a sequence then, wouldn’t you say? This is difficult for us to comprehend but that is because we are mastered by time.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That may are may not be the case, but it has nothing to do with my argument.

Belorg:

You said essentially that you were a product of what you are rather than who you are. I’m having a bit of trouble digesting that. If we are all the same, in other words, why do we each consist of different choices up to and including a different plethora of choices? Why are our appearances so different? More to the point: why are our personalities so very different? Why is it that no two people can compare all of the choices they have made in the course of their lives and never find that they match up? Why is it that a thousand people can hold a thousand differing opinions?

God bless,
jd

 

[tdgesq]

I experience these as a combination of inherently and externally caused. But there are times when I don’t like to do something and I still do it, and there are times when I don’t like to do that very same thing and decide not to do it. It depends on how I feel. But what odes how I feel depend on? etc.

Feelings are, in my worldview, considered to be passions. They are controllable. If what you are asserting is that you must follow your strongest desire then you are only proposing a tautology. It gives us no knowledge other than the conclusion that is already contained in the premises. It is why you “feel” the way you do that is in question. I suspect it is much closer to “what you want to do” than what you “feel.”

True to my word though, I did my part of the experiment. There was a moment when I was awoken by a phone call that I expected to receive. I answered the call without thinking about why I did it. I just did it. It was a decision on my part I suppose. I did decide to answer it. I don’t think I could have done anything differently than that. But it was not a decision the way I experience other decisions that I call choices. It was not at all like the decision I made to respond to this post. I consider it a choice.

Anyway, I hope that you come to trust your experiences. The reliability of direct experience must be presupposed before we can even begin to do science. Thank you for the civil discussion.