Problem with free will

[ynotzap]

Also in humility we admit we are not infallible, but we do emphasize that the Church in teaching of Faith and morals is infallible based on our belief in the promises of Jesus Christ.and in Him.

 

[polytropos]

If God were to give a person absolute knowledge of all the choices he would ever make, then at least in a sense, that person’s freedom would be ended, because they would always make the choice that would necessarily happen in the future, without the possibility of other choices.

How do you know that they do not have other choices? Jesus could tell Peter that Peter would betray him three times before the cock crowed, and Peter did so, freely. But then he realized that he had fulfilled the prophecy. Peter still could have avoided it.

One might object that with that knowledge one could go on to falsify God’s prediction. But in this case, it would be logically impossible for God to inform you of your future actions.

It is also difficult to accept that God has free will. If God’s goodness necessitates his will always choosing to bring about the greatest good(not sure if this is doctrine or not, but it is reasonable) He is incapable of choosing otherwise. If our wills are too, necessarily ordered to the good, or something that appears good, it seems to contradict the definition of free will, “to do as we wish.”

God’s goodness does not necessitate that he always brings about the greatest good, because there is no greater good. For any good world, there is conceivably a greater one. So God creates some world that is good. (The other issue is that no created good could rival God’s own goodness, which is all that God wills necessarily.)

 

[polytropos]

why do so many catholics say, ‘in my view’?

There are several different approaches that philosophers (Catholic and otherwise) have taken to resolving the issue of freedom and foreknowledge. I believe one of them in particular works. However a full defense would be inappropriate in a forum post. That doesn’t mean that someone who prefaces his opinion with “In my view…” has absolved himself of any possible reproach, obviously.

There is no Catholic doctrine on the question of freedom and foreknowledge; the Church has never condemned Molinism, for instance, but Catholics aren’t required to be Molinists.

On the other hand, it would be odd for a Catholic to say, “In my view, Mary was a perpetual virgin,” for that is the Church’s view.

 

[blase6]

How do you know that they do not have other choices? Jesus could tell Peter that Peter would betray him three times before the cock crowed, and Peter did so, freely. But then he realized that he had fulfilled the prophecy. Peter still could have avoided it.

One might object that with that knowledge one could go on to falsify God’s prediction. But in this case, it would be logically impossible for God to inform you of your future actions.

God’s goodness does not necessitate that he always brings about the greatest good, because there is no greater good. For any good world, there is conceivably a greater one. So God creates some world that is good. (The other issue is that no created good could rival God’s own goodness, which is all that God wills necessarily.)

If Peter did not deny knowing Jesus three times, then Jesus’ prediction would be false, which contradicts his omniscience. So in this case, Peter knew the choice he would certainly make, and he would not/could not change it. So Peter’s course of action was definitely set, at least by Jesus’ prediction.

You might be able to conceive, by your limited intellect, of a universe greater than this, because you see faults in this world, but I believe God seeks the greatest good, in the salvation of as many persons as possible, and designed this world for that goal. This of course is just speculation, but it makes sense to me.

 

[polytropos]

If Peter did not deny knowing Jesus three times, then Jesus’ prediction would be false, which contradicts his omniscience. So in this case, Peter knew the choice he would certainly make, and he would not/could not change it. So Peter’s course of action was definitely set, at least by Jesus’ prediction.

If Peter violated Jesus’s prediction, then Jesus’s prediction would have been false, yes. That does not imply that Peter could not have acted otherwise. Peter didn’t know about the choice he would make, since he forgot about Jesus’s prediction (and certainly didn’t act the way he did in order to fulfill it–but even if he did, this could still be done freely).

So then in what way was Peter’s course of action “set”?

You might be able to conceive, by your limited intellect, of a universe greater than this, because you see faults in this world, but I believe God seeks the greatest good, in the salvation of as many persons as possible, and designed this world for that goal. This of course is just speculation, but it makes sense to me.

But then why couldn’t there be another world that is identical but in which one more person is saved? (Or–to simplify–there is one more beautiful flower.) God can’t be compelled to create the greatest good if there is no greatest good.

 

[blase6]

Peter’s actions were “set” because Jesus’ prediction was true. The supposition that Peter forgot the prediction does not change that. Peter would not have chosen otherwise, because a choice otherwise would be false and contradictory.

Also, someone brought up that I was arguing against “license” and not “free will.” I think you are saying that acting against God’s will is an abuse of freedom, so it cannot be called “free?” However, even though an evil act is an abuse of freedom, it still results from and is a possibility under free will. The problem is that we cannot will evil directly, we can only will it indirectly through something contrary to the law of God but what we perceive to be good. We cannot will just anything for its own sake, we can only will something if it appears good to us. In this sense, “free will” is an oxymoron.

 

[polytropos]

Peter’s actions were “set” because Jesus’ prediction was true.

Or did Jesus predict the way he did because he knew (eternally) that Peter would choose to behave the way he did?

Peter would not have chosen otherwise, because a choice otherwise would be false and contradictory.

It would contradict what God knows (from eternity) Peter would do. But that does not imply that Peter did not have the potentiality to do otherwise (ie. the condition for his freedom). Coupled with the account I sketched on the first page of God’s role in creaturely freedom, there is no reason to think that God’s knowing that Peter behaves in a certain way (and indeed efficiently causing Peter to behave in that way, in the specified sense) determines Peter to make the choice that Peter does in fact make.

Also, someone brought up that I was arguing against “license” and not “free will.” I think you are saying that acting against God’s will is an abuse of freedom, so it cannot be called “free?”

That’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that God’s knowing what you will do (whether it’s a sin or not) does not make it unfree.

The distinction between license and freedom is of moral (and perhaps political) interest but not of much ontological interest. The distinction is invoked to deny that there is such a thing as “a right to go wrong.” But we can of course go wrong in actuality.

 

[blase6]

Or did Jesus predict the way he did because he knew (eternally) that Peter would choose to behave the way he did?

It would contradict what God knows (from eternity) Peter would do. But that does not imply that Peter did not have the potentiality to do otherwise (ie. the condition for his freedom). Coupled with the account I sketched on the first page of God’s role in creaturely freedom, there is no reason to think that God’s knowing that Peter behaves in a certain way (and indeed efficiently causing Peter to behave in that way, in the specified sense) determines Peter to make the choice that Peter does in fact make.

That’s not what I’m saying. I am saying that God’s knowing what you will do (whether it’s a sin or not) does not make it unfree.

The distinction between license and freedom is of moral (and perhaps political) interest but not of much ontological interest. The distinction is invoked to deny that there is such a thing as “a right to go wrong.” But we can of course go wrong in actuality.

Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s actions does determine his choice, and makes choosing the other option impossible. “Potentially” assumes that an action would not contradict another truth if it happened. Peter choosing to act against Jesus’ prediction would make Jesus’ statement false, and Jesus would not make a false statement because he will not deceive. Unless you reject the principle of non-contradiction, in which case Peter still could choose against the prediction, even though it was a correct prediction.

 

[blase6]

Another thing. If in fact God does not determine our choices but we do, this elevates us to being our own gods, in this respect. Why should the power to determine what will happen in the universe belong to anyone but God? To add on to the Peter argument, if he were to decide to not deny Jesus, would it make sense for him to say, “Since I’m going to deny Jesus three times, like He said, I will not deny Him three times?”

 

[ynotzap]

Supposing we had no free will. we were determined to act the way we do. Every thing we call crime would be determined by God. Our justice system would be expendable because the one accused of guilt couldn’t be held responsible for his acts, he had no choice to act otherwise. So why have a justice system. There is nothing to judge, it’s been settled. Why would God reveal His commands and then blame people for not keeping them, they were pre-determined with no free will. And even if God did not reveal His commands, they could come up with some social rules that would benefit society, but why bother we are predetermined, and we don’t need rules, we have no choice, logic and reason don’t matter either why would we need them?

Then is would be perfectly acceptable for God to contradict Himself, punishing those He predetermined and rewarding those He predetermined not matter how they acted

Is this really God? or the creation of a sick mind devoid of all reason? Personally I think many people would like to escape the responsibility of their choices, and try to rationalize them out of existence. It would also provide an imagined freedom to do what they desired, and some really feel that there is no choice because they are controlled by passions, or other forces they can’t control. Poor humanity it desperately needs a Savior

 

[polytropos]

Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s actions does determine his choice, and makes choosing the other option impossible. “Potentially” assumes that an action would not contradict another truth if it happened.

No, it doesn’t. I am using potential in the technical Aristotelian sense to denote a non-actual principle of what a thing can change to become. Peter, before betraying Christ, had a potential not to do so; this is the simple consequence of his intellect presenting him with separate goods-as-perceived, namely courageously standing by his Master and self-preservation.

In fact, God knew eternally that Peter would betray him, and that his telling him that he would betray him would not alter the fact that he would betray him.

 

[Amandil]

Another thing. If in fact God does not determine our choices but we do, this elevates us to being our own gods, in this respect. Why should the power to determine what will happen in the universe belong to anyone but God?

1. God created man to have a priestly role in His creation. We are/were to rule over it with Him.
   2)What make you think that the power doesn’t belong to God?

To add on to the Peter argument, if he were to decide to not deny Jesus, would it make sense for him to say, “Since I’m going to deny Jesus three times, like He said, I will not deny Him three times?”

This simply doesn’t follow, blase6. Peter learned a future choice that he made from Jesus. It’s necessarily a choice that Peter balks at.

When they come to arrest Jesus Peter tries to stand by his proclamation yet is commanded to stand down by Christ. He flees like the other disciples.

He follows them to the place where Jesus is brought before the Sanhedrin but does not go inside but instead remains in the courtyard.

There next to the fire he is recognized, and thus it follows.

The fact remains that if Peter had the courage to go inside, or perhaps never when to the home of Caiaphas at all, he probably wouldn’t have been recognized by those people by the fire and would have never denied Christ.

His free choice placed him there. Thus his free choice to deny Christ.

This is what happens when we are given such knowledge, especially knowledge which we don’t like. We will do everything we can and make every choice we think which will avoid the outcome we want to avoid when in the end every choice we make invariably leads to the precise outcome we wish to avoid.

In every case, the will is still free.

 

[blase6]

2)What make you think that the power doesn’t belong to God?

I wasn’t saying that the power didn’t belong to God. I was saying that it seems impossible for this power to be possessed by creatures alongside God. Before this thread I assumed that God has an ultimate plan for the universe, where every human choice is known and planned. We might be the immediate cause of our own actions, but it is extremely difficult to believe that we are the first cause of our choices. God is the First Cause of everything and this is difficult to reconcile with the belief that we decide our own actions. I hope I have made my point clearer now.

 

[tdgesq]

I wasn’t saying that the power didn’t belong to God. I was saying that it seems impossible for this power to be possessed by creatures alongside God. Before this thread I assumed that God has an ultimate plan for the universe, where every human choice is known and planned. We might be the immediate cause of our own actions, but it is extremely difficult to believe that we are the first cause of our choices. God is the First Cause of everything and this is difficult to reconcile with the belief that we decide our own actions. I hope I have made my point clearer now.

No doubt that God is the first cause of all creation, including our human souls that are responsible for free will. What I’m not understanding is how that conflicts with our ability to have free will.

My mother and father are also a cause of me having free will. Unless they had conceived me, I would not have been ensouled such that I could have free will. Yet no one argues that mothers and fathers being a cause of human free will somehow conflicts with free will.

There is an almost naturalistic assumption here that if God creates a human soul, then it must operate exclusively according to preset causes determined by God. That seems to be an unwarranted assumption though. The only question in my mind is whether it is logically impossible for God to create an immaterial soul that allows for personal agency. I’ve not seen any argument for that.

 

[Bahman]

I have some problems with the logic regarding the Catholic definition of free will that has made it hard to accept. It is hard for me to put into words, but it seems like free will contradicts God’s omnipotence and omniscience. One argument was that because God knows all that we will do, we cannot change the future. The argument against that was that God sees what you will do but does not cause you to make decisions. So I will not use that argument.

My reasoning was this: Say that on a specific point of time in the history of the universe you have the decision to buy a large coffee or a small coffee. According to free will, you are not entirely bound by motives which will ultimately determine which coffee you will buy. By choosing either, you are making it reality that you bought one, and falsifying that you bought the other. So ultimately, despite a possibly infinite list of options for you to act in that point of time and regard, there is only one real choice that was made, and all other options are now impossible. You could take the (maybe) infinite list of choices you could ever make at any time in your life, and in every instance there is only one reality. God knows this reality and placed you in your life with this knowledge, but still you have the freedom to choose. So in this way, it seems like free will supposes that God has given us the power to change the ultimate reality of the universe, something which seems to me that only God should have the power for. And it just sounds logically absurd.

I do go even one step further: beings with free will, creative thoughts, consciousness are primary since they cannot be created.

 

[hasantas]

I have some problems with the logic regarding the Catholic definition of free will that has made it hard to accept. It is hard for me to put into words, but it seems like free will contradicts God’s omnipotence and omniscience. One argument was that because God knows all that we will do, we cannot change the future. The argument against that was that God sees what you will do but does not cause you to make decisions. So I will not use that argument.

My reasoning was this: Say that on a specific point of time in the history of the universe you have the decision to buy a large coffee or a small coffee. According to free will, you are not entirely bound by motives which will ultimately determine which coffee you will buy. By choosing either, you are making it reality that you bought one, and falsifying that you bought the other. So ultimately, despite a possibly infinite list of options for you to act in that point of time and regard, there is only one real choice that was made, and all other options are now impossible. You could take the (maybe) infinite list of choices you could ever make at any time in your life, and in every instance there is only one reality. God knows this reality and placed you in your life with this knowledge, but still you have the freedom to choose. So in this way, it seems like free will supposes that God has given us the power to change the ultimate reality of the universe, something which seems to me that only God should have the power for. And it just sounds logically absurd.

Mankind has a free will. That will can not create but just can make choice. For humanbeing behaviour God’s will relates to mankind will. God creates what human will chooses that it may be good or evil. God creates good or evil. Here chooiser is human will so responsible belongs to mankind will. Already God will judge humans for their choices. God does not create only good acts but all acts including human bad choices. We have no power to change universe but we have a free will to form our destiny.

God is out of time and place so God knows our decision timelessly. But humanbeing can not know the conclusion of his decision if he would make a different decision. Forexample assume someone shot and killed other. Question:What would be if he did not shout? Would he die because that is his destiny or would he not die because shouting not happened?. But the fact is that we can not know if he would die or not because God can know that kind of knowledge.

God does not force human to do something but with scriptures, prophets and some special angel revelation God advise man to do good deeds.

 

[Bahman]

Mankind has a free will. That will can not create but just can make choice.

That is not correct since we are very aware of our choices hence the act decision is equal to act creation otherwise you will be trapped in chain of causality.

For human being behaviour God’s will relates to mankind will. God creates what human will chooses that it may be good or evil. God creates good or evil. Here chooiser is human will so responsible belongs to mankind will. Already God will judge humans for their choices. God does not create only good acts but all acts including human bad choices. We have no power to change universe but we have a free will to form our destiny.

That doesn’t help you since we are eventually responsible for our actions only if we could create them from scratch.

God is out of time and place so God knows our decision timelessly. But human being can not know the conclusion of his decision if he would make a different decision. For example assume someone shot and killed other. Question:What would be if he did not shout? Would he die because that is his destiny or would he not die because shouting not happened?. But the fact is that we can not know if he would die or not because God can know that kind of knowledge.

God does not force human to do something but with scriptures, prophets and some special angel revelation God advise man to do good deeds.

God in fact force human when he declare things through revelation. At the end God does exactly what he prohibited us to do, simply torture being in state of misery and helplessly at the same time being a forgiver and lovely God.

 

[fred_conty]

I wasn’t saying that the power didn’t belong to God. I was saying that it seems impossible for this power to be possessed by creatures alongside God. Before this thread I assumed that God has an ultimate plan for the universe, where every human choice is known and planned. We might be the immediate cause of our own actions, but it is extremely difficult to believe that we are the first cause of our choices. God is the First Cause of everything and this is difficult to reconcile with the belief that we decide our own actions. I hope I have made my point clearer now.

“We might be the immediate cause of our own actions, but it is extremely difficult to believe that we are the first cause of our choices. God is the First Cause of everything and this is difficult to reconcile with the belief that we decide our own actions. I hope I have made my point clearer now.”

To put your throught directly, maybe God is the only cause, that he is the only one making decisions.

I think we can see the answer to that in man’s ability to sin and do himself harm. Noone would sin if God is the first cause and only cause, or the only decision maker. The fact that we make bad decisions makes it apparent that we are responsible for our decisions and therefore free.

“…free will contradicts God’s omnipotence and omniscience.”

The fee will is free because it is God’s divine plan and not contrary to it.
This is indeed the beauty of being human and its crown is the gift from God.

God supports our freedom to choose, even if a bad choice, tho he may not approve the consequences for our sakes. The conflict in thinking is, that God loses control some how, when we make bad choices. But this isn’t the case at all. He supports them and has not lost control, but merely does not approve because of the suffering it will bring on ourselves. So God’s providence most assuredly includes right and wrong decisions.

It is not going against his will, but fulfilling the will of God, in the sense that he has provided for all decisions to be made giving us our freedom.
But in different sense, it is going against his will and our own good, when we make bad decisions.

These two options are not contrary. Parents do it all the time. It is an important part of the process of growing into a mature person. Human providers are providers much like the divine provider.

So then it isn’t against God’s omnipotence control for he has wanted us to have a certain say in how we live our life and shared with us his control to make those decisions. Even tho we don’t know the nuts and bolts of how this all works, we can see that he did that he gave us freedom to move.

His omniscience is not a power which is a force of any kind. If I know something, does that knowing compel something to happen? Knowledge of itself and in itself does not force anything in anyway. Knowledge is in the intellect and may influence a person but it is not the power that is used to force. Can I make something happen by just thinking about it? So too with God, forcing someone is not precisely done by the intellect. So his omniscience does not make something happen. However if we knew in advance something that God knows will happen, it is because God knows all events that will transpire to bring it about in one all including unlimited “flash”.

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

 

[oldcelt]

To put your throught directly, maybe God is the only cause, that he is the only one making decisions.

I think we can see the answer to that in man’s ability to sin and do himself harm. Noone would sin if God is the first cause and only cause, or the only decision maker. The fact that we make bad decisions makes it apparent that we are responsible for our decisions and therefore free.

The fee will is free because it is God’s divine plan and not contrary to it.
This is indeed the beauty of being human and its crown is the gift from God.

God supports our freedom to choose, even if a bad choice, tho he may not approve the consequences for our sakes. The conflict in thinking is, that God loses control some how, when we make bad choices. But this isn’t the case at all. He supports them and has not lost control, but merely does not approve because of the suffering it will bring on ourselves. So God’s providence most assuredly includes right and wrong decisions.

It is not going against his will, but fulfilling the will of God, in the sense that he has provided for all decisions to be made giving us our freedom.
But in different sense, it is going against his will and our own good, when we make bad decisions.

These two options are not contrary. Parents do it all the time. It is an important part of the process of growing into a mature person. Human providers are providers much like the divine provider.

So then it isn’t against God’s omnipotence control for he has wanted us to have a certain say in how we live our life and shared with us his control to make those decisions. Even tho we don’t know the nuts and bolts of how this all works, we can see that he did that he gave us freedom to move.

**His omniscience is not a power which is a force of any kind. If I know something, does that knowing compel something to happen? Knowledge of itself and in itself does not force anything in anyway. Knowledge is in the intellect and may influence a person but it is not the power that is used to force. Can I make something happen by just thinking about it? So too with God, forcing someone is not precisely done by the intellect. So his omniscience does not make something happen. However if we knew in advance something that God knows will happen, it is because God knows all events that will transpire to bring it about in one all including unlimited “flash”. **

May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.

His foreknowledge, combined with his creative powers have obvious consequences according to Christianity. If we have foreknowledge of a crime that is going to be committed, we are bound by morality and sometimes by law, to take action to prevent the crime. With knowledge comes responsibility.

 

[ynotzap]

How do you know that they do not have other choices? Jesus could tell Peter that Peter would betray him three times before the cock crowed, and Peter did so, freely. But then he realized that he had fulfilled the prophecy. Peter still could have avoided it.

One might object that with that knowledge one could go on to falsify God’s prediction. But in this case, it would be logically impossible for God to inform you of your future actions.

God’s goodness does not necessitate that he always brings about the greatest good, because there is no greater good. For any good world, there is conceivably a greater one. So God creates some world that is good. (The other issue is that no created good could rival God’s own goodness, which is all that God wills necessarily.)

Polytropos gave a good example about St.Peter who was told that he would deny Christ three times. Mk; 14:30 Peter said “Even though I should have to die with you, I will never deny you, and others spoke similarly” Peter knew that Jesus told him about the denial, but apparently he didn’t believe Jesus, because of his determination not to deny Christ. But as the scene progresses when approached out of fear and human weakness of will he did deny Christ. Did Jesus cause Peter to deny Him because He knew (He is God-man) or was it a lack of courage, and strength of will that caused Peter to deny Christ, he was threatened with death indirectly if he was proven to be an associate of Jesus. Peter was human wilh all the weakness and fallibility of humans no matter how determined he was not to deny Christ. It is a fact of life, we are very changeable,its in our nature. This is where we depart from Philosophy and get into our Catholic Faith. St.Thomas Aquinas synthesized reason and Faith, to show faith is reasonable, but Faith reveals the rest of the story. Since sin came into the world, all mankind was affected with weakness of will, and darkness of mind, because of the loss of the Holy Spirit who makes one strong, and enlightened. Peter later when he received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost underwent a big spiritual change, he became so strong that he gave his life for his Faith in Jesus Christ

Peter had free will but it was weakened. St. Paul stated and verifies this truth :" The things I want to do are not the things I do, and the things I do are not the things I want to do, who will help me; Jesus Christ my Lord" This is the problem with freedom of will.