Predestination

[belorg]

So, if I’m understanding correctly, you believe human beings are simply the most advanced “learning computer” out there. Is this accurate?

That’s more or less my position, yes. I se no reason to assume anything else for the time being, but of course, I may stand corrected some time.

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.

Well, I ve never heard a scientist say they are not accounted for within the confines of our physical nature. I don’t think anyone actualy knows what the confines of our physical nature actually are, for that matter.
It seems strange that you call anger e.g. ‘immaterial by nature’. I have no idea what you even mean by that.

And the fact that science is not able to define something does not mean it is something metaphysical or supernatural. It just means science is imperfect.

 

[tdgesq]

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?

That is an excellent question, although I’m not sure you received an adequate answer.

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.

We can agree on that, but not that it only reacts 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.

True again, but then not having any a priori reason to believe does not justify a conclusion that it reacts the same as the material brain. Of course, there are a posteriori reasons to conclude that it doesn’t.

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 matters a great deal since it is the nature of this unpredictability we are exploring.

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

That would be weird if that is what I proposed, but it isn’t what I proposed. I do agree that certain behavior of individual quantum particles is not predictable, which at a minimum means we do not understand the causal mechanism at work. The problem is an epistemic one. There is an ontological reality to what is happening, but we have insufficient understanding to explain it. On the other hand, we do not have the same problem of knowledge when it comes to human choices because a person can explain to you why he made a choice. You may not believe that this constitutes knowledge of the ontic nature of the human mind, but then you would have to give reasons for your belief. You attempt to do so below.

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

You do accept what other people tell you everyday about myriad subjects. Unless you want to tell me that you don’t believe anything anybody tells you unless you have independently verified it, you need to retract the statement. Scientists out of necessity rely upon the findings of other scientists without independent verification. Of course, we don’t even need to do this when it comes to the human mind. We have the experience of our own minds to rely upon.

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

Sure. I am choosing to respond to your post right now, not as a random act or as a result of outside influences that compel me to do so. I have just given you an example of a choice that is directed, not random. If you respond to this post, I will in turn respond. Now you also have knowledge of an act that will occur in the future. Again, directed and predictable.

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.

The primary definition of randomness is an unpredictable or undirected event. Even random events are caused. I dispute your definition in any case because it contains an ontological bias that there must be an “inherent” cause. Apparently that means a cause where events must necessarily follow from the nature of the being. I dispute that, and the definition of randomness does not require it.

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.

Gentlemen, start your engines. My question is very similar to the one Timonator asked. Oh yes, I am surprised. So you experience your choices as undirected events that are determined by external forces outside of your control? If so, that would explain some things. If that is what you personally experience when you make a decision, please step up to the microphone. I think we all suspect otherwise.

 

[tonyrey]

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!

How do we arrive at which decision?

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.

Because machines cannot choose of their own free will. All their activity is due to physical causes.

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

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

Then how does self-control exist without a self to do the controlling?

 

[belorg]

We can agree on that, but not that it only reacts to external stimuli.

No, that’s true it may also have completely uncazused reactions.

True again, but then not having any a priori reason to believe does not justify a conclusion that it reacts the same as the material brain. Of course, there are a posteriori reasons to conclude that it doesn’t.

Since we have never seen an immaterial mind, there are no a posteriori conclusions.

It matters a great deal since it is the nature of this unpredictability we are exploring.

No, we are talking of predestination, not of predictablility.If I program a robot and ,as a result of this programming it kills you, then it does not matter whether I was able to predict this outcome or not, I predestined the robot to do what it did.

That would be weird if that is what I proposed, but it isn’t what I proposed. I do agree that certain behavior of individual quantum particles is not predictable, which at a minimum means we do not understand the causal mechanism at work. The problem is an epistemic one.

Or an ontological one. Maybe there is no ‘causal mechanism’ at work at all.

There is an ontological reality to what is happening, but we have insufficient understanding to explain it.

That’s a possibility, but it is also possible that there is no ontological reality at all to what is happening at a certain level.

On the other hand, we do not have the same problem of knowledge when it comes to human choices because a person can explain to you why he made a choice.

To a certain extent, yes. But does he know the ultimate cause of his decision?

You may not believe that this constitutes knowledge of the ontic nature of the human mind, but then you would have to give reasons for your belief.

No, it does not constitute knowledge of the ontic nature of the human mind, at most it constitutes knowledge of the immediate cause of the choice.

You do accept what other people tell you everyday about myriad subjects. Unless you want to tell me that you don’t believe anything anybody tells you unless you have independently verified it, you need to retract the statement.

I want to tell you I don’t believe anything anybody tells me unless I have independently verified it. I sometimes do temporally accept what other people tell me but no, I do not believe it.

Scientists out of necessity rely upon the findings of other scientists without independent verification.

Sure, but just as I they accept it until evidence to the contrary, and they do so because verifying everything yourself isn’t possible in reality. But they do not accept anything as a belief until they’ve personally investigated it.

Of course, we don’t even need to do this when it comes to the human mind. We have the experience of our own minds to rely upon.

Well, my mùind tells me something different than yours.

Sure. I am choosing to respond to your post right now, not as a random act or as a result of outside influences that compel me to do so.

That’s seem so, but is it really true?

I have just given you an example of a choice that is directed, not random.

The choice is directed, but is the choice to make that choice also directed?

If you respond to this post, I will in turn respond. Now you also have knowledge of an act that will occur in the future. Again, directed and predictable.

But you need things to be unpredictable.

The primary definition of randomness is an unpredictable or undirected event. Even random events are caused. I dispute your definition in any case because it contains an ontological bias that there must be an “inherent” cause. Apparently that means a cause where events must necessarily follow from the nature of the being.

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.

I dispute that, and the definition of randomness does not require it.

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.

Gentlemen, start your engines. My question is very similar to the one Timonator asked. Oh yes, I am surprised. So you experience your choices as undirected events that are determined by external forces outside of your control?

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.

If so, that would explain some things. If that is what you personally experience when you make a decision, please step up to the microphone. I think we all suspect otherwise.

The decision making process is too complex to base any conclsuion on just out personal experience with it.

 

[belorg]

How do we arrive at which decision?

The decision how to use this power.

Because machines cannot choose of their own free will. All their activity is due to physical causes.

And an imaterial mind cannot choose out if its own free will because all its activity is due to non-physical causes.

Then how does self-control exist without a self to do the controlling?

How does self-control exist withuit a self controlling the self who controls the self?
You may think this is just me being funny, but I believe 'a self to to the controliing of the self" leads to an infinite regress of selves.
Unless of course there is one ultimate ‘self’ , like God, who controls all ‘selves’. But that would mean predestination is true.

 

[tonyrey]

And an immaterial mind cannot choose out if its own free will because all its activity is due to non-physical causes.

How do you know that? There is plenty of evidence that we are the cause of our decisions - an explanation that is the basis of all legal systems throughout the world…

Then how does self-control exist without a self to do the controlling?

How does self-control exist without a self controlling the self who controls the self?
You may think this is just me being funny, but I believe 'a self to to the controlling of the self" leads to an infinite regress of selves.

An infinite regress is generally regarded as an unsatisfactory explanation. It would undermine science.

Unless of course there is one ultimate ‘self’ , like God, who controls all ‘selves’. But that would mean predestination is true.

You have omitted the possibility that God shares His power with us…

 

[tdgesq]

Since we have never seen an immaterial mind, there are no a posteriori conclusions.

There are many things we haven’t seen but still draw a posteriori conclusions about. No one has seen a strange quark, but we draw conclusions about their existence and characteristics anyway.

No, we are talking of predestination, not of predictablility.If I program a robot and ,as a result of this programming it kills you, then it does not matter whether I was able to predict this outcome or not, I predestined the robot to do what it did.

Which requires that we explore the nature of the mind, at least when it comes to human beings.

Or an ontological one. Maybe there is no ‘causal mechanism’ at work at all.

That would be contrary to our experience. The point is that if there is no causal mechanism then the empriometric sciences cannot explain it. Thus the epistemic problem. This will be important later on.

That’s a possibility, but it is also possible that there is no ontological reality at all to what is happening at a certain level.

I’m not sure what to make of this statement. There is something real that is happening in random systems, otherwise it is unreal. I don’t believe there is any alternative.

To a certain extent, yes. But does he know the ultimate cause of his decision?

He claims he does from his own experience. He also claims he is experiencing pain at this very moment. Is this not sufficient justification of what he is experiencing?

No, it does not constitute knowledge of the ontic nature of the human mind, at most it constitutes knowledge of the immediate cause of the choice.

That’s not the way he is experiencing it though. It is not like the reflex blink of the human eye. He has experienced that. This is something different. What is the justification for your proposition that this is only knowledge of the immediate cause of his choice? It seems that you would need some justification for the ultimate cause of the choice. If it involves no causal mechanism then it appears science cannot justify it.

I want to tell you I don’t believe anything anybody tells me unless I have independently verified it. I sometimes do temporally accept what other people tell me but no, I do not believe it.

Acceptance of a proposition requires a belief, even if it is limited to acknowledging that a proposition has been made to you. I think we may be dealing with an equivocation of the word “belief.” In any case, if you analyze this thoroughly I think you will have to conclude that you haven’t independently verified all the principles of mathematics, physics, biology, etc. that you believe.

Sure, but just as I they accept it until evidence to the contrary, and they do so because verifying everything yourself isn’t possible in reality. But they do not accept anything as a belief until they’ve personally investigated it.

I submit that it is practically impossible for a scientist to personally investigate everything he believes using the method that science requires for knowledge (the scientific method). Unless you do the scientific tests yourself, you are relying upon the experiences of another scientist.

Well, my mùind tells me something different than yours.

And what is that?

 

[tdgesq]

The choice is directed, but is the choice to make that choice also directed?

The term “choice” at a minimum requires that I have the ability to select one act ‘X’ over another act ‘Y’, independent of an external cause. I don’t see how there could be a choice to make another choice that doesn’t destroy the definition of the term.

But you need things to be unpredictable.

I don’t need any such thing. I don’t believe choices are random. I believe they are self-directed, although sometimes they may appear random.

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.

I understand. What I am proposing is that choices are not the result of inherent causes or external causes. I am also proposing that these choices are not random ie. unpredictable or undirected. They may appear that way to the scientist searching for a material cause. All he can say is that we do not know what is happening because the choices are not predictable. But they are quite predictable to the person making the choices.

My point is that, from a scientific standpoint, an assertion of randomness gives us very little knowledge (if any) of what is happening. It is an admission of lack of knowledge, not the other way around. In this instance the person about to make the decision is in a superior position to give us knowledge about the choice to be made. The choice is no longer seen as unpredictable and undirected once that is communicated.

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.

Then you as a materialist who believes in compatiblism must believe, in part, that some events that cause choices are random. That is an admission that you don’t know what is happening. I as a metaphysical Thomist who believes in a form of libertarian free will have a system that accounts for choices and that is epistemically justified. All because I believe my own experiences constitute knowledge as opposed to a scientific theory of randomness that does not purport to give us knowledge.

 

[belorg]

How do you know that? There is plenty of evidence that we are the cause of our decisions - an explanation that is the basis of all legal systems throughout the world…

Now, I shall repeat what I said: “an immaterial mind cannot choose out if its own free will because all its activity is due to non-physical causes.”. Either a cuase is physoval (or material if you like) or the cause is non-physical. You somehow seem to think that physical causation entails no free will while non-physical causation entails free will. But both kinds of causes are causes which are either internal causes or external causes.
So to answer the question how I know that? Because if you assert that “All their activity is due to physical causes” and you assert that therefore we cannot have free will. So, why would we have free will if we are immaterial machnines?
So far, I haven’t seen any sort of argument for this.

An infinite regress is generally regarded as an unsatisfactory explanation. It would undermine science.

That is true, but remember your answer leads to an infinite regress, mine doesn’t.

You have omitted the possibility that God shares His power with us…

No, I haven’t. God can share whatever power with us, but it doesn’t remove the problem. that we have a ‘self’ which has received some msyterious power from God to control controls our ‘other self’ in a way God wants the first self to control the second self. This is still predestination. It doesn’t matter how many ‘go-betwens’ there are, because ultimately, it’s either God who is in total control or nothing is in control at all.

 

[belorg]

There are many things we haven’t seen but still draw a posteriori conclusions about. No one has seen a strange quark, but we draw conclusions about their existence and characteristics anyway.

Based on evidence. we have no such evidence for immaterial minds.

Which requires that we explore the nature of the mind, at least when it comes to human beings.

No, it doesn’t require that we explore the nature of the mind at all. No matter what the nature of the mind is, iether what the mind does is the result of internal or inherent causes or of external causes, or of ansolutely nothing.

That would be contrary to our experience. The point is that if there is no causal mechanism then the empriometric sciences cannot explain it. Thus the epistemic problem. This will be important later on.

That is begiining to sound very much like the principle of sufficient reason, which is self-defeating.

I’m not sure what to make of this statement. There is something real that is happening in random systems, otherwise it is unreal.

Sure thre is something real happening in random systems, but that does not require that random systems have some hidden causes.

He claims he does from his own experience. He also claims he is experiencing pain at this very moment. Is this not sufficient justification of what he is experiencing?

If someone claims to have ‘experienced’ a ghost, that may be justification to his experience of a ghost but it is not justification for the actual existence of a ghost.
People e.g. experinece pain in amputated limbs. Is that sufficient justification to conclude they still have a left arm?

That’s not the way he is experiencing it though. It is not like the reflex blink of the human eye. He has experienced that. This is something different. What is the justification for your proposition that this is only knowledge of the immediate cause of his choice?

The justification is that neither I, not you not anyone else can define the ultimate cause of ourt decisions.

It seems that you would need some justification for the ultimate cause of the choice. If it involves no causal mechanism then it appears science cannot justify it.

And if it does involve a causal mechanism, everything is indeed predestined.

Acceptance of a proposition requires a belief, even if it is limited to acknowledging that a proposition has been made to you. I think we may be dealing with an equivocation of the word “belief.” In any case, if you analyze this thoroughly I think you will have to conclude that you haven’t independently verified all the principles of mathematics, physics, biology, etc. that you believe.

Of course I haven’t, but I do not ‘believe’ them.

I submit that it is practically impossible for a scientist to personally investigate everything he believes using the method that science requires for knowledge (the scientific method). Unless you do the scientific tests yourself, you are relying upon the experiences of another scientist.

And you choose to work from those experiences for the time being.

And what is that?

That I really do not know the cause of my decisions.

The term “choice” at a minimum requires that I have the ability to select one act ‘X’ over another act ‘Y’, independent of an external cause. I don’t see how there could be a choice to make another choice that doesn’t destroy the definition of the term.

The ability to select X over Y independent of an external cause is compatible with compatibilism.

I believe they are self-directed, although sometimes they may appear random.

Firstly, by your logic, since if they appear free will decisiopns, they are free will decisions, it follows that if they appear random, they are random., but more importantly, if choice are self-directed, they have nothing to do with anybody’s will.

My point is that, from a scientific standpoint, an assertion of randomness gives us very little knowledge (if any) of what is happening. It is an admission of lack of knowledge, not the other way around.

if something is random , it is random. It’s not a question of lack of knwoledge, it is a question of logical possibilities.

Then you as a materialist who believes in compatiblism must believe, in part, that some events that cause choices are random.

No, I do not need to believe that. on the other hand, the theist who does not not want predestination is the one who ‘must believe this’’.

I as a metaphysical Thomist who believes in a form of libertarian free will have a system that accounts for choices and that is epistemically justified.

No, it is not, because you simply cannot escape the dillemma between determinism (or predestination) and randomness. Neither can I, but it does not matter for me, beacsue I do not base an entire belief system on something I cannot possibly have a justification for.

All because I believe my own experiences constitute knowledge

Your own experiences tell you that at least some decisions seem random, so how does it ‘constitute knwoledge’?

 

[Timonator348]

Well, I ve never heard a scientist say they are not accounted for within the confines of our physical nature. I don’t think anyone actualy knows what the confines of our physical nature actually are, for that matter.
It seems strange that you call anger e.g. ‘immaterial by nature’. I have no idea what you even mean by that.

And the fact that science is not able to define something does not mean it is something metaphysical or supernatural. It just means science is imperfect.

Fist of all, I apologize for the delay of this response. My point in this is thing like anger, love, fear, etc. are emotions and therefore can not be defined or pinned down in a simply material way. Perhaps “intangible” would have been a better choice of words than “immaterial” but I think I made my point. I also was not asking whether or not science can define these things but wanted to see how you explain them if human beings are simply “biological machines” or “learning computers” whose actions are solely dictated by the material of our bodies.

I want to know how you explain these things I’ve mentioned, particularly LOVE, as they are purely feelings that may illicit a parasympathetic response within the body or even make us choose or not choose to act a certain way. Also, and I apologize in advance if I am jumping to conclusions, but I assume you believe in the theory of evolution. If this is the case, I also assume you believe in some degree with mother nature and natural law of science (chemistry, physics, etc.) If both of these hold true then please explain two things to me, we know from science that energy is never lost it simply transfers forms (ergo cause and effect) What caused the uncaused cause? In other words, if everything started from the Big Bang which led to the formation of the Earth and other planets and evolution of every single species of plant and animal…what started the Big Bang when there was no other energy? Also, please explain if evolution holds true, are human beings evolving into something greater, or are we the summit and perfection of the evolutionary ladder? Thank you!

 

[belorg]

Fist of all, I apologize for the delay of this response. My point in this is thing like anger, love, fear, etc. are emotions and therefore can not be defined or pinned down in a simply material way. Perhaps “intangible” would have been a better choice of words than “immaterial” but I think I made my point. I also was not asking whether or not science can define these things but wanted to see how you explain them if human beings are simply “biological machines” or “learning computers” whose actions are solely dictated by the material of our bodies.

I want to know how you explain these things I’ve mentioned, particularly LOVE, as they are purely feelings that may illicit a parasympathetic response within the body or even make us choose or not choose to act a certain way. Also, and I apologize in advance if I am jumping to conclusions, but I assume you believe in the theory of evolution. If this is the case, I also assume you believe in some degree with mother nature and natural law of science (chemistry, physics, etc.) If both of these hold true then please explain two things to me, we know from science that energy is never lost it simply transfers forms (ergo cause and effect) What caused the uncaused cause? In other words, if everything started from the Big Bang which led to the formation of the Earth and other planets and evolution of every single species of plant and animal…what started the Big Bang when there was no other energy? Also, please explain if evolution holds true, are human beings evolving into something greater, or are we the summit and perfection of the evolutionary ladder? Thank you!

With all due respect, Timonator, but this is way beyond the scope of this thread. If you want me to give you an answer to these questions, you will have to start a new one.

 

[tonyrey]

How do you know that? There is plenty of evidence that we are the cause of our decisions - an explanation that is the basis of all legal systems throughout the world…

We are not immaterial machines. We are causes capable of self-determination.

An infinite regress is generally regarded as an unsatisfactory explanation. It would undermine science.

That is true, but remember your answer leads to an infinite regress, mine doesn’t.

God is not an infinite regress! Neither is a person made in His image. We are “prime movers” solely and utterly responsible for our decisions. The buck stops with us…

You have omitted the possibility that God shares His power with us…

No, I haven’t. God can share whatever power with us, but it doesn’t remove the problem. that we have a ‘self’ which has received some msyterious power from God to control controls our ‘other self’ in a way God wants the first self to control the second self. This is still predestination. It doesn’t matter how many ‘go-betwens’ there are, because ultimately, it’s either God who is in total control or nothing is in control at all.

God is** not** in total control because He chooses to share His power with us. He can withdraw that power whenever He chooses but He does not do so because He is not inconsistent. What would be the point of defeating His own purpose in making us free?

 

[belorg]

We are not immaterial machines. We are causes capable of self-determination.

The point is, whether we are physical or non-physical or a combination of both does not make any difference in this.

God is not an infinite regress! Neither is a person made in His image. We are “prime movers” solely and utterly responsible for our decisions. The buck stops with us…

With which ‘us’? the ‘us’ making a choice, the ‘us’ controlling the ‘us’ making the choice, or the ‘us’ controling the ‘us’ who controls the ‘us’ making the decision, or the ‘us’…?
You postion logically leads to an infinite regress.

God is** not** in total control because He chooses to share His power with us.

And, the wat we use this power is either predetermined by God or it is purely random. there is o other alternative.

What would be the point of defeating His own purpose in making us free?

There is no point in defeating this purpose because He cannot make us free in any meaningful way. Either He causes (predstines) our decisions, or nothing causes pur decisions.

Now, with all due respect, I think I have tried to make my point as well as possible. There is not much I can add to this. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

 

[tdgesq]

belorg,

Because the discussion has been dissected into so many parts, I’m only going to respond to a few of these that I think are the most important. I don’t have the time to go back and examine the progression, which is no fault of yours. I apologize in advance if I miss something significant.

Based on evidence. we have no such evidence for immaterial minds.

It depends on what you will accept as evidence, or more generally, what human beings must accept as evidence to know anything. Human beings must accept their experiences as providing evidence, at least some of the time. Why? Because our experiences are the only (name removed by moderator)ut we have to know anything about the world. This is true even of purely mental concepts, which are also experiences. If experiences do not count as evidence at least some of the time then there would be no knowledge.

No, it doesn’t require that we explore the nature of the mind at all. No matter what the nature of the mind is, iether what the mind does is the result of internal or inherent causes or of external causes, or of ansolutely nothing

.

While this is true (and a truism) in a materialist view of reality, it is not necessarily true in a metaphysical system with immaterial categories, such as the soul. To say that the soul has inherent properties (whether deterministic or random) and reacts to external stimuli like a material object is not what the metaphysician asserts at all. Rather, he asserts it is unlike a material object in that it allows for decisions that are not caused by inherent properties of the soul and are not caused by external forces. I realize you think there is insufficient evidence supporting this assertion, but unless you can demonstrate that no such immaterial property can exist (whether logically or inductively) it is inaccurate to conclude that the only possibilities are inherent cause, external cause, or absolutely nothing.

Sure thre is something real happening in random systems, but that does not require that random systems have some hidden causes.

Assuming this is true, then science cannot explain it other than to say it is random, unpredictable and undirected. The primary task of science is to explain cause, which it can’t do without testing that yields predictable results.

People e.g. experinece pain in amputated limbs. Is that sufficient justification to conclude they still have a left arm?

You are correct that false inferences can be drawn from our experiences. In the case of phantom limb phenomena, it would be inaccurate for the amputee to infer that he still had the limb because of the sense of pain. He would only be correct in asserting that it seems he feels pain in a non-existent limb. He would do so after looking to see that he really doesn’t have a limb. But is this what is happening with our experiences of human choice? Do they constitute sufficient justification for the existence of an immaterial soul?

They do from my experiences. I experience my decisions not as compelled, either inherently or externally. I also experience me as enduring and unchanging in at least some respects. I am not a different person from millisecond to millisecond. Yet this would have to be the case if I am only material since a material brain is always changing. I also experience myself as morally responsible for the decisions I make - not as compelled and outside of my ability to direct my actions to an end. These are just some of the experiences from which I justify the existence of an immaterial soul that is not subject to the same forces as material objects.

That I really do not know the cause of my decisions.

Here is what I propose. I will do a thought experiment (described below) if you do the one I describe here. Then maybe we can compare our results and see what we learn. I propose that you purposefully and introspectively make a series of decisions that you dislike ie. giving up something that you like to do for a brief period or giving some time to a charitable cause when you would rather be doing something else. Then reflect on these decisions to see if you experience them in the category of inherently caused, externally caused, or random.

Your own experiences tell you that at least some decisions seem random, so how does it ‘constitute knwoledge’?

I will perform a thought experiment of your choosing in this regard. What I propose is that I reflect upon decisions that I make without any explicit reasoning behind it. I will attempt to place those in the category of immaterial self-directed decisions. Fair?

 

[belorg]

belorg,

Because the discussion has been dissected into so many parts, I’m only going to respond to a few of these that I think are the most important. I don’t have the time to go back and examine the progression, which is no fault of yours. I apologize in advance if I miss something significant.

OK. I don’t have time to go through everything you say, so I’ll just try once more to clarift my position.

While this is true (and a truism) in a materialist view of reality, it is not necessarily true in a metaphysical system with immaterial categories, such as the soul. To say that the soul has inherent properties (whether deterministic or random) and reacts to external stimuli like a material object is not what the metaphysician asserts at all.
Rather, he asserts it is unlike a material object in that it allows for decisions that are not caused by inherent properties of the soul and are not caused by external forces. I realize you think there is insufficient evidence supporting this assertion, but unless you can demonstrate that no such immaterial property can exist (whether logically or inductively) it is inaccurate to conclude that the only possibilities are inherent cause, external cause, or absolutely nothing.

Consider two ‘souls’, A and B, who are completely the same in every respect. Furthermore, let’s say they do not have any knowledge of the outside world, Let’s say that there are only two possible decisions, D and ~D. A decides D and B decides ~D.
What caused thart decision. it’s not an influence from the outside world, and it’s not something inherent to A or B since thy§e are completely the same. So, the only logical possibility is that the decision is uncaused, or random.

Assuming this is true, then science cannot explain it other than to say it is random, unpredictable and undirected. The primary task of science is to explain cause, which it can’t do without testing that yields predictable results.

Well, if there are truly random facts, science cannot explain why they happen, since there is no ‘why’. So much is obvious.

You are correct that false inferences can be drawn from our experiences. In the case of phantom limb phenomena, it would be inaccurate for the amputee to infer that he still had the limb because of the sense of pain. He would only be correct in asserting that it seems he feels pain in a non-existent limb. He would do so after looking to see that he really doesn’t have a limb. But is this what is happening with our experiences of human choice? Do they constitute sufficient justification for the existence of an immaterial soul?

According to must scientists, no, they don’t.

They do from my experiences. I experience my decisions not as compelled, either inherently or externally. I also experience me as enduring and unchanging in at least some respects. I am not a different person from millisecond to millisecond.

If you take a picture of a puppet every millisecond and then move its arm a tiny bit (say, one thousandth of a millimeter, then if you have a thousand pictures, the arm will have moved one millimeter. But if you look at two consecutive pictures, you do not notice the differnce. So, if you are slightly different from one millisecond ago, you will not notice that, but after a few days your hair will have grown, e.g.
So, the fact that you don’t experience a diffrence from millisecond to millisecond does not mean anything at all.

Yet this would have to be the case if I am only material since a material brain is always changing. I also experience myself as morally responsible for the decisions I make - not as compelled and outside of my ability to direct my actions to an end. These are just some of the experiences from which I justify the existence of an immaterial soul that is not subject to the same forces as material objects.

Here is what I propose. I will do a thought experiment (described below) if you do the one I describe here. Then maybe we can compare our results and see what we learn. I propose that you purposefully and introspectively make a series of decisions that you dislike ie. giving up something that you like to do for a brief period or giving some time to a charitable cause when you would rather be doing something else. Then reflect on these decisions to see if you experience them in the category of inherently caused, externally caused, or random.

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.

I will perform a thought experiment of your choosing in this regard. What I propose is that I reflect upon decisions that I make without any explicit reasoning behind it. I will attempt to place those in the category of immaterial self-directed decisions. Fair?

Sure.

 

[tonyrey]

We are not immaterial machines. We are causes capable of self-determination.

The point is, whether we are physical or non-physical or a combination of both does not make any difference in this.
That we are causes capable of self-determination and responsibility is a fact recognised by every legal system throughout the world…

God is not an infinite regress! Neither is a person made in His image. We are “prime movers” solely and utterly responsible for our decisions. The buck stops with us…

With which ‘us’? the ‘us’ making a choice, the ‘us’ controlling the ‘us’ making the choice, or the ‘us’ controling the ‘us’ who controls the ‘us’ making the decision, or the ‘us’…?
Your position logically leads to an infinite regress.
Only from the point of view of a materialist! The buck stops with us whether you like it or not - as you would find out in any law court.

God is not in total control because He chooses to share His power with us.

And, the way we use this power is either predetermined by God or it is purely random. there is no other alternative.
You are neglecting power-sharing.

What would be the point of defeating His own purpose in making us free?

There is no point in defeating this purpose because He cannot make us free in any meaningful way. Either He causes (predestines) our decisions, or nothing causes our decisions.
You claim to **know **what God can and cannot do! Where and how do you obtain this knowledge?

Now, with all due respect, I think I have tried to make my point as well as possible. There is not much I can add to this. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

Thank you for an entertaining one!

 

[JDaniel]

My basic question is does God ever mess with free will? When people are “full of grace” or in God inspiring the sacred authors do they still have free will to sin? Could people who were so called by God like Abraham, Moses or Mary could they have said no to God?

Timonator:

Think of Grace as the positioning of a path before us that, chosen, delivers us safely and contentedly to our destinations, without our having hardly noticed it. That is different from God’s commands, and Commandments. Everyone can always say “No” to any of God’s commands or Commandments, but that path will be quite a different one. It will be like walking along a narrow with one side leading down a great drop to an unseen bottom. The other side of that narrow will be straight up with no see-able ladder for climbing the escarpment. The path, however, has an ever so slight ascesis to it: an upward rise to it. It is hard work nonetheless.

Efficacious Grace may not be given to those who would be foreseen to waste it. For that we are given Sufficient Grace. Two very different Graces.

We are made of matter. Matter is corruptible. Matter is fragile. Matter is that which renders us at its mercies. In that way, does God “mess with free will.” Grace is the order out of chaos for us. We can never have enough of it. Grace will keep us on that narrow, upward path. But, we will and often do experience rock slides (oppositional choices).

Does that make sense to you?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If the God(s) of Christianity exist, there cannot be free will. So it’s not a matter of ‘messing with free will’.
God supposedly created all things and also all people.
He e.g. created person A, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perform action a under situation S and He also created person B, who, because of the way he was created, chooses to perfrom action b under situation S.

The choice A and B make is determined by two things: the external situation and who A and B are. Where is the room for free choice?

It seems that, if we presuppose the Christian God(s) exist, the calvinist notion of predestination is the only logically possible conclusion.

No; predestination equals foreknowledge. It does not equal puppetry. That God is infinite means that He cannot help but know all things at the same instant. But, it does not mean that He is causative of each and every action. Some occurrences are a part of the incessant roll-out of creation, while others - particularly man’s - are always subject to alterations within the continuum of ‘time’ as creation is rolling out.

Our problem, since we are immersed in ‘time’, is that we cannot extract ourselves from the conceptualization of a before and an after. This makes it appear that God ordains that all things occur precisely as He ordains it to occur. Remember, there is no "past for God. There is no “future” for God. There is only an eternal present. But just because He exists in an eternal Now does not mean He manipulates all events.

He sustains. He maintains. He props up. His painting, i.e., Creation, is not yet finished: nor will it ever be finished. God is Fecundity. From our limited standpoint, He cannot help but incessantly create.

But, perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps, on the other hand, all of this universe is the mundane action of pure ‘chance’. Not randomness: but, pure, unadulterated, chance. Every step of the way. Not just the finite occurrence of the beginning of the universe, but each and every alteration along the way: countless occurrences of pure chance. What fantastic luck. What tremendous fortune: that we just happen to be at that crossroad where countless events of pure chance are occurring simultaneously.

Do you have any idea what pure chance means?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The fact that a situation may be very complex does not alter anything. If situation S occurs, no matter how complex this situation S may be, then person A will choose action a and person B will choose action b.

And, how does that imply robotics? The robotization of human action and activity?

The choice we will make depends on who we are (which is completely under God’s control since He apparently created us)

I co-created my children. I do not have any control over them. Do you have children?

and the situation we find ourselves in (which is not under our complete control, but ,again, if God is the way Chrsitians claim he is, it’s under His complete control).

You are conflating Christianity with Calvinism. While I won’t speak for other religions under the umbrella of Christianity, I am certain that Catholicism is not Calvinism.

God bless,
jd