Predestination

[belorg]

In other words, it does remove the problem of predetermination by God of all human choices - exactly what I asserted above.

Sure, if creation isn’t completely created by God, it removes the problem of predetermination. But it also removes the God of Christianity who is suposed to be the creator of everything.

Ah. And why should I accept that agent causation entails complete randomness? You say it does, but that isn’t a sufficient reason.

I argued for it.

I have no reason to compare a self-caused choice of a soul to the decay of the nucleus of an atom. You are imposing your own materialistic/reductionist worldview onto the metaphysic of the theist. If the soul is the immaterial enduring substance of man that is the mechanism for choice then there is no necessity for an antecedent cause.

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?

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.

Choices are non-deterministic in the sense that there is no antecedent cause to analyze, but that doesn’t mean they occur randomly. In fact, we can point to the precise cause of the choice, even if we can’t predict exactly what that choice will be outside of actually asking the agent.

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

I’m not getting this. Are you suggesting that random events are uncaused?

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

 

[Timonator348]

Belorg:

I’m sure although you don’t believe in God per se you try and live a good, decent life by your conscience or some internal compass of morality. If you could, please tell me what determines your actions under given situations if God is not controlling you? Thank you!

 

[belorg]

Well that’s one viewpoint…

Well frankly, the fact that you, “can see no way to do that”, does not make it undoable.

Well, it seems that you can so no way to do that either.

If the creator creates a “learning” creation, then as the creation learns it changes. It’s decision at one point may be different than it’s decision at another point in it’s life - based, not on a randomizer as I mentioned in the first, and admittedly, very simple analogy, but rather on a very complex system that is not interfered with once the creator sets it in motion.

Sure, I can accept that, but the colmplex system is either the same for everyone or it isn’t. If it is, then how can there be differences? And if it’s different, then the choices seem to be based on the original differences, which means thye are predetermined.

I do not pretend to understand this system but I accept it.

Before you accept something, you should understand it.

Not necessarily.

You know of another process that would be unknowable for an omniscient God?

This is where we differ…I do not accept that the decision is based on anything other than who the person is.

Fine, so the A’ decision to do a is based on who A is and A who A is, is determined by God.

Fair, but unconvincing…

Peace
James

Oh that’s fine. If everybody were convinced by my arguments, there wouldn’t be any theists left.

 

[belorg]

Belorg:

I’m sure although you don’t believe in God per se you try and live a good, decent life by your conscience or some internal compass of morality. If you could, please tell me what determines your actions under given situations if God is not controlling you? Thank you!

What determines my actions?
My actions are probably determined by who I am and who I am is determined by the material I consist of, and the structuring of that material in my body, which results in a person who can respond to stimuli from his environment etc. That is what determines my actions. And maybe there is some randomness involved too.

 

[tonyrey]

You ignore the fact that God **shares His power **

Your logic is defective because the decision of God to share His power does not imply that our decisions are the result of His decision. He is sharing **power **not decisions!

Nor do you explain how you can have free choice if you are a biological machine…

Since I have never claimed that if I am a biological machine I have libertarian free will, I do not need to explain anything.

You need to explain:

1. Why we are not biological machines **if **we are created by physical processes
2. How biological machines have freedom of choice when all their activity has physical causes

 

[Tomb54]

What determines my actions?
My actions are probably determined by who I am and who I am is determined by the material I consist of, and the structuring of that material in my body, which results in a person who can respond to stimuli from his environment etc. That is what determines my actions. And maybe there is some randomness involved too.

Then you are saying that the Christian God has determined every person you will meet and when you will meet them that person will not be affected by all that came before in making that person so you will have a predetermined outcome based on how you were made. Sorry does not make sense unless God controls everything and every thought of every person every minute of every day. In other words you and I are a robots which must be controlled in our thoughts and our actions every minute or we will have a different outcome than what is predetermined to be. If that is the case then creation itself does not make sense but if you take God out of the equation that also does not make sense because there would be no order in what would happen in random situations. In otherwise why does not the atom blow up sometimes when it randomly decays like a nuclear bomb if nothing is there to make sure it follows certain laws of physics? If there is not God there could be no laws to govern these thing as it would all be random.

 

[tdgesq]

Sure, if creation isn’t completely created by God, it removes the problem of predetermination. But it also removes the God of Christianity who is suposed to be the creator of everything.

This is inconsistent with your previous post where you conceded (I assume for the sake of argument) that God could create a soul that is self-determining:

“The soul may very well be immaterial or possessing the attribute of self-cause or self-determination, but that does not remove the problem.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7819508&postcount=29

Now you seem to be contending that God’s creation of the soul precludes self-determination, but that isn’t what we were discussing.

I argued for it.

You concluded it. An argument requires premises and a valid logical structure that leads to a conclusion. Merely stating that agent causation is random is not an argument, at least not a logical argument.

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?

There is no antecedent cause outside of the actor’s self-cause that produces the result. The primary difference is that a quantum particle can’t communicate to you why it decayed. Human souls can tell you why they made choices.

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.

And what I am saying is that self-determination apart from other antecedent causes does not entail a random choice. I could leave it here and have just as “valid” of a conclusion as you do. But I have support for my conclusion. I am making choices right now (so are you) and I have reasons for doing so that I can explain to you. I can also describe to you choices I am about to make, which will give you predictive power as to the choice made. This is not randomness however defined, whether as causeless acts or unpredictable acts.

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

The self-determining immaterial power of the human soul. The choice is not causeless, as it has already been stipulated that the soul can cause the choice. The only question is whether that choice is a “random” event. If randomness is defined as an unpredictable event then neither does it describe human choices since they can be described to you in advance of being made.

Your analogy is flawed because you are attempting to apply observation of material quantum phenomena to the acts of an immaterial soul. It isn’t a good analogy in any case because large scale particle decay can be predicted to some degree of certainty.

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

It is because of differences between A and B - differences that they cause apart from other external causes. They are not causeless acts. They are not always unpredictable acts either, although they may sometimes appear to be that way if you don’t ask the actor.

 

[belorg]

Your logic is defective because the decision of God to share His power does not imply that our decisions are the result of His decision. He is sharing **power **not decisions!

It’s not about power. Power can easily be shared. But it’s about how we use that power. And that is a decision. My question is: how do we arrive at that decision? Do you have an answer to that?

You need to explain:

1. Why we are not biological machines **if **we are created by physical processes

AFAICT, we are biological machines. So, why do I have to explain why we are not biological machines? It seems to me you are the one who needs to explain why we are not immaterial machines if we are created by an omniscient and omnipotent God.

1. How biological machines have freedom of choice when all their activity has physical causes

I don’t think biological machnines have libertarian freedom of choice. That’s why I am a compatibilist.

 

[JRKH]

Sure, I can accept that, but the complex system is either the same for everyone or it isn’t. If it is, then how can there be differences? And if it’s different, then the choices seem to be based on the original differences, which means they are predetermined.

If I wasn’t so tired, I’d take more time to try and figure out what you just said…
Sounds like gobbledy-gook to me…

Before you accept something, you should understand it.

Why?
I accept Love but don’t understand it. If I had to understand it first, I wouldn’t be married to the finest woman in the whole world right now…

Fine, so the A’ decision to do a is based on who A is and A who A is, is determined by God.

Perhaps - but then God didn’t give us an “Owners manual” of what to do when presented with situation “a” or situation whatever…What he gave us is the ability to absorb, learn, make decisions, adapt etc. but leaves it up to us to develop figure things out on our own and make our own decisions.
Now - I call that Free Will. You apparently do not…
That’s fine…
But then we are both talking about different things and talking past each other.

The bottom line on this is that the question of “Predestination”, as an intellectual excersize it might be interesting, but it has zero effect on my Daily Walk with God.

Oh that’s fine. If everybody were convinced by my arguments, there wouldn’t be any theists left.

Not so - you see your argument here is basically a Calvinist Argument. That man has no free will. So you see - there is a branch of Christianity that already has this covered…

Peace
James

 

[belorg]

This is inconsistent with your previous post where you conceded (I assume for the sake of argument) that God could create a soul that is self-determining:

“The soul may very well be immaterial or possessing the attribute of self-cause or self-determination, but that does not remove the problem.” forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7819508&postcount=29

Now you seem to be contending that God’s creation of the soul precludes self-determination, but that isn’t what we were discussing.

An immaterial soul is no different from a material brain in this respect. The structure of a brain determines how it reacts to stimuli and as the brain acquires content , in the from of memories and thoughts etc , it develops and you could say it determines (or causes) itself. Who we are is determined by the memories and thoughts generated by our brain. Our choices are the result of how our brain reacts. My brain reacts differently than yours because its basic structure is different and because the stimuli it has received are also different.
But we neither detremine the brain’s basic structure nor the external stimuli. That’s something we cannot do anything about. In that way it is predestined by either evolution or God.

You concluded it. An argument requires premises and a valid logical structure that leads to a conclusion. Merely stating that agent causation is random is not an argument, at least not a logical argument.

Just reread my posts.

There is no antecedent cause outside of the actor’s self-cause that produces the result. The primary difference is that a quantum particle can’t communicate to you why it decayed. Human souls can tell you why they made choices.

Oh, it’s just a matter of communication? So you agree with me that it’s similar to a quantum fluctuation.

And what I am saying is that self-determination apart from other antecedent causes does not entail a random choice. I could leave it here and have just as “valid” of a conclusion as you do. But I have support for my conclusion. I am making choices right now (so are you) and I have reasons for doing so that I can explain to you. I can also describe to you choices I am about to make, which will give you predictive power as to the choice made. This is not randomness however defined, whether as causeless acts or unpredictable acts.

Yes, but can you explain why you make the choices you do and not my choices?

The self-determining immaterial power of the human soul. The choice is not causeless, as it has already been stipulated that the soul can cause the choice. The only question is whether that choice is a “random” event. If randomness is defined as an unpredictable event then neither does it describe human choices since they can be described to you in advance of being made.

The ultimate causes of your choice cannot be described.

Your analogy is flawed because you are attempting to apply observation of material quantum phenomena to the acts of an immaterial soul. It isn’t a good analogy in any case because large scale particle decay can be predicted to some degree of certainty.

An analogy is never perfect.

It is because of differences between A and B - differences that they cause apart from other external causes.

A and B cause thier differences, that’s fine, but if they are completely the same to begin with, can you describe what caused their first different choice?

 

[belorg]

If I wasn’t so tired, I’d take more time to try and figure out what you just said…
Sounds like gobbledy-gook to me…

Well, I agree that solme of my statements might seem gobbledy-gook, but this one seems pretty straightforward. Just sleep on it.

Why?
I accept Love but don’t understand it. If I had to understand it first, I wouldn’t be married to the finest woman in the whole world right now…

Love is an emotion, emotions do not need to be understood.

Perhaps - but then God didn’t give us an “Owners manual” of what to do when presented with situation “a” or situation whatever…What he gave us is the ability to absorb, learn, make decisions, adapt etc. but leaves it up to us to develop figure things out on our own and make our own decisions.
Now - I call that Free Will. You apparently do not…

As a matter of fact, I do, but it is not libertarian free will.

That’s fine…
But then we are both talking about different things and talking past each other.

I don’t think we are really talking past each other.

The bottom line on this is that the question of “Predestination”, as an intellectual excersize it might be interesting, but it has zero effect on my Daily Walk with God.

Well, if you are satisfied with being either predestined or the result of randomness, just go ahead.

Not so - you see your argument here is basically a Calvinist Argument. That man has no free will. So you see - there is a branch of Christianity that already has this covered…

Peace
James

No, it’s not basically a Calvinist argument. that other branches of Christians do not like it and therefore reject it, does not mean it isn’t true.

 

[JRKH]

Well, I agree that solme of my statements might seem gobbledy-gook, but this one seems pretty straightforward. Just sleep on it.

I did - Still don’t understand it…Oh well…

Love is an emotion, emotions do not need to be understood.

1. You didn’t omit “emotion” when you said that I whould understand something before I accept it.
2. Love (eros) may be an emotion, but Love (agape) is a decision.

No, it’s not basically a Calvinist argument. that other branches of Christians do not like it and therefore reject it, does not mean it isn’t true.

Your comment was that if every excepted your arguments there would be no theists left. This is not true since that there ARE theists who already accept predestination and thus agree with your basic argument.

Peace
James

 

[belorg]

Your comment was that if every excepted your arguments there would be no theists left. This is not true since that there ARE theists who already accept predestination and thus agree with your basic argument.

Peace
James

They accept predestination but they do not accept my argument about it. Believe me, I have discussed this with several Calvinists and they do not want to accept the logical consequences of predestination.
Anyway, I wasn’t talking just about this argument. I have lots of others, which, if accepted by every teist, would completely destroy theism. of course, that’s one of the reasons theists do not want to accept them.

 

[JRKH]

Anyway, I wasn’t talking just about this argument. I have lots of others, which, if accepted by every theist, would completely destroy theism. of course, that’s one of the reasons theists do not want to accept them.

Couldn’t be because the arguments are wrong could it?..

Peace
James

 

[Timonator348]

What determines my actions?
My actions are probably determined by who I am and who I am is determined by the material I consist of, and the structuring of that material in my body, which results in a person who can respond to stimuli from his environment etc. That is what determines my actions. And maybe there is some randomness involved too.

So you feel your actions are entirely dictated by outside forces or your mechanical body responding to external stimuli. I guess I’m confused about how we can simply be a function of the matter with which we were created if we learn and change over the course of our lives. Can you explain this please?

 

[tdgesq]

An immaterial soul is no different from a material brain in this respect. The structure of a brain determines how it reacts to stimuli and as the brain acquires content , in the from of memories and thoughts etc , it develops and you could say it determines (or causes) itself. Who we are is determined by the memories and thoughts generated by our brain. Our choices are the result of how our brain reacts. My brain reacts differently than yours because its basic structure is different and because the stimuli it has received are also different.

This presupposes two things: (1) that we know the material brain only reacts to stimuli in a predictable way and (2) that the immaterial soul functions the same way to external stimuli. The first proposition is faith-based on your part. We do not understand the physical brain sufficiently to know whether your assertion is correct. There is no biological or other scientific study that can conclude this. It is, no doubt, an assertion that one who already believes in a materialist view of reality might make, but it lacks justification from the materialists own formulation of scientific knowledge. Therefore, I reject it, as should all truly faithful materialists. The second proposition will be treated below.

Oh, it’s just a matter of communication? So you agree with me that it’s similar to a quantum fluctuation.

The matter of communication is precisely why it is not similar to quantum fluctuation. A human being can tell you why a decision was made that may otherwise appear to be random. A quantum particle cannot. You may not agree that this is sufficient justification, but then you would have to explain why you accept what people tell you about other things - say - materialism, for example.

Yes, but can you explain why you make the choices you do and not my choices?

Yes. I can.

The ultimate causes of your choice cannot be described.

You mean it can’t be described to your satisfaction. Agent causation isn’t difficult to describe or comprehend. It just doesn’t fit into your notion of reality.

A and B cause thier differences, that’s fine, but if they are completely the same to begin with, can you describe what caused their first different choice?

They did. A & B did. That is what self-determination means. What you would really like to know is what external cause, whether it be something inherent in the soul itself or something outside of the soul, required A to make a different decision from B. But this is just your ontological presupposition again. There is no external cause. Apparently you call this randomness, but just ask any human being who does it and you will discover differently.

 

[belorg]

This presupposes two things: (1) that we know the material brain only reacts to stimuli in a predictable way and

No, that it is only presupposed that we know the material brain reacts to stimuki, whether it does in a predictable way is another question.

(2) that the immaterial soul functions the same way to external stimuli.

The immaterial soul, if it exists, reacts to external stimuli and again, whether it does so in a predictable way is another question. There is no a priori reason why an immaterial soul would recat in a differnt way than a material brain.

The first proposition is faith-based on your part. We do not understand the physical brain sufficiently to know whether your assertion is correct. There is no biological or other scientific study that can conclude this.

I didn’t assert that it reacts in a predictable way. there is more than enough scientific study to coclude that the brain doe srecat to external stimuli and if some aspects of this are not predictable does not even matter that much.

It is, no doubt, an assertion that one who already believes in a materialist view of reality might make, but it lacks justification from the materialists own formulation of scientific knowledge. Therefore, I reject it, as should all truly faithful materialists. The second proposition will be treated below.

I do not know what exactly youy are rejecting here.

The matter of communication is precisely why it is not similar to quantum fluctuation. A human being can tell you why a decision was made that may otherwise appear to be random. A quantum particle cannot.

That presupposes that a quantum particle has reasons for its ‘decision’ but just lacks the means to communicate them. That is very weird.

You may not agree that this is sufficient justification, but then you would have to explain why you accept what people tell you about other things - say - materialism, for example.

I do not accept whaty other people tell me, that’s precisly why I am not a Christian.

Yes. I can.

Would you be so kind as to do so, then?

You mean it can’t be described to your satisfaction. Agent causation isn’t difficult to describe or comprehend. It just doesn’t fit into your notion of reality.

Then by all means, describe it to your own satisfaction. But, keep in mind that I am not satisfied with mere assertions.

They did. A & B did. That is what self-determination means. What you would really like to know is what external cause, whether it be something inherent in the soul itself or something outside of the soul, required A to make a different decision from B. But this is just your ontological presupposition again. There is no external cause. Apparently you call this randomness

If somerthing just happens without either an inherent or an external cause, it is random by definition, it’s not just me who calls this randomness, it is actually the definition of randomness.

but just ask any human being who does it and you will discover differently.

You may be surprised, but I am a human being and I wouldn’t be able to answer your question. So, ask any human being but one could work, but I very much doubt it.

 

[belorg]

So you feel your actions are entirely dictated by outside forces or your mechanical body responding to external stimuli. I guess I’m confused about how we can simply be a function of the matter with which we were created if we learn and change over the course of our lives. Can you explain this please?

Because matter changes too, of course. Our material mind has the capacity to process and store information, just like a computer memory has this capacity. Iit is not an accurate analogy of course, but a computer is also dictated by outside forces, such as a progarmmer and by its own hardware (its mechanical body) and it also learns and changes. In a much more primitive way than we do of course.

 

[belorg]

Couldn’t be because the arguments are wrong could it?..

Peace
James

Yes, of course, I am open to the possibilities that my arguments (or some of them) are wrong. But that has to be argued for, and, honestly, this discussion so far hasn’t given me any reason to think they are wrong.

 

[Timonator348]

Because matter changes too, of course. Our material mind has the capacity to process and store information, just like a computer memory has this capacity. Iit is not an accurate analogy of course, but a computer is also dictated by outside forces, such as a progarmmer and by its own hardware (its mechanical body) and it also learns and changes. In a much more primitive way than we do of course.

So, if I’m understanding correctly, you believe human beings are simply the most advanced “learning computer” out there. Is this accurate? Also, could you explain your view on things like love, anger, sadness and other emotions? From the science I’ve seen on these matters there is certainly a physiological aspect of electrical impulses in the brain and hormones and other chemicals released by the brain. All that being said, I’ve never seen science claim to be able to define these things, which are immaterial by nature, and are experienced by individuals in very different ways that are not accounted for within the confines of our physical nature.