The Free Will Problem

[ateista]

I just want to clarify that the Church teaches realism, that we do percieve truth through our senses. This is what I believe. The problem is that I see no reason to believe that realism is true without an intelligence programming our minds that way.

I understand. As usual I don’t see any reason for this assumption.

Look at a rat. Not very intelligent, is it? But it is able to learn. Rats are able to make connection between one of them eating a poison and then dying, so they will not touch the poisoned bait again. That is why rat poisons are slow acting ones.

Look at bees. They actually have an elaborate language in their dance. They describe the direction and the distance of flowers to each others. Quite abstract “stuff”, actually.

They certainly are “realists”.

 

[Sarpedon]

Sorry, my friend, you lost me. In the post you replied I actually gave an example that the same “thing” can be perceived differently from two vantage points.

I asked you to argue for your proposition that existence is absolute. In your answer, you explained what an attribute was. Then, in the second to last sentence, you simply stated that existence cannot be seen as an attribute (thus, I’m inferring you mean absolute). You concluded by saying that theologians and philosophers have discarded the idea of existence being an attribute.

I’m not sure I would necessary believe that existence is relative, but I wanted to see how you justify your belief.

I will be happy to read it.

Please keep in mind that I use the word “knowledge” as having information about something. Information presupposes a source, a recipient and a cummunication channel. If either one of these is “missing” we cannot speak coherently about “knowledge”.

Alright. I’m not sure this human method translates perfectly to God. Can you argue the truth of this proposition? It seems to me that you take many very narrow interpretations of things, and I’m not sure why you do so and pick one possibility over the other. You could argue that knowledge is knowing something through whatever means. If a communication channel is necessary, then it is needed, if not, then not. Why do you pick your definition of knowledge over my example? Is there an argument in favor of yours?

 

[Sarpedon]

I understand. As usual I don’t see any reason for this assumption.

Look at a rat. Not very intelligent, is it? But it is able to learn. Rats are able to make connection between one of them eating a poison and then dying, so they will not touch the poisoned bait again. That is why rat poisons are slow acting ones.

There’s a big distance between that sort of practical survival technique and us sitting here thinking up abstract philosophical arguments.

Look at bees. They actually have an elaborate language in their dance. They describe the direction and the distance of flowers to each others. Quite abstract “stuff”, actually.

Magnetic orientation and geospatial distance are fairly concrete. Its not as abstract as say, whether a hypothetical creator is capable of knowing things that have not yet come into existence. The first example is science and math, the second philosophy.

Bees lack the ability to philosophize about such things. Lets assume for a second that such things can evolve and humans are far more evolved in this respect than bees. If this grade of philosophic ability exists, why should we assume that we have reached the point of being able to know everything through philosophy? Maybe we haven’t yet evolved to the point of being able to understand how God can know the future.

Of course, I see no safeguards in this hypothetical process to guard against incorrect perceptions about philosophic reality. Atheists must believe that a fully functioning and intact physcial brain guarantees accuracy. I see no reason for the brain to have evolved in this way, and we would have no way to know for sure without faith in intelligence.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Of course it would not have been an injustice. So far I agree with you. I strongly disagree with the second part. You cannot do anything for someone who does not exist. Existence - in and by itself - cannot be said to be always a positive “thing”. How would you substantiate this assertion?

I base it on talking to people - just about everyone I’ve ever talked to is glad they were born and is glad to be alive. Even the people with a long list of complaints still usually see it as overall positive.

I’m sure you can come up with exceptions, and I’m sure there are some. But even the poor people I’ve talked to through sponsoring kids in poor countries seemed glad to be alive. I suppose the mentally ill and some terminally ill people might be the exceptions.

I never saw a qualification there. Pride is always said to be a sin - a mortal one.

The sin of pride isn’t exactly the same thing as how we use the word in day to day speech. We’re allowed to recognize our good qualities, but we should give God credit for them. And we should look as hard for the good qualities of others. Having good self-esteem isn’t the same as having pride.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The point of problem is the word “to know” something. It means to have information about something. It is nonsensical to say that one can have information about something that does not exist.

The “present” exists - therefore it is knowable. That “past” existed - so it was knowable, and if one has perfect memory, we can sensibly say that the past is still knowable. The “future”, however, does not exist - in any sense of the word.

So to say that the future is “knowable” is only sensible if the future is fully deterministic. To say that God knows what we shall do in the future implictly assumes that our actions are predetermined - or that the future already “exists” - and that is nonsensical.

To watch from a hill a column of soldiers on the ground does not affect them - nor does the fact that one can see the whole column at once, even though they can’t see all of them at once, affect them.​

For the viewer, the entire column is seen simultaneously - for the soldiers in it, only some of it is visible at any one moment. God sees all things “simultaneously” - even if we can’t For God, there is no future, so no determinism: we get that, only by importing our limitations into God, which makes Him less than God, so not God at all. IMHO, the whole determinism issue is a spook

 

[ateista]

I asked you to argue for your proposition that existence is absolute. In your answer, you explained what an attribute was. Then, in the second to last sentence, you simply stated that existence cannot be seen as an attribute (thus, I’m inferring you mean absolute). You concluded by saying that theologians and philosophers have discarded the idea of existence being an attribute.

I’m not sure I would necessary believe that existence is relative, but I wanted to see how you justify your belief.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Let’s take the example of an apple. Some of its attributes are “red, delicious and without blemish”. These attributes could be different (for example: “green, tart and bruised”), and it would still be an apple. Its “appleness” is decided by its genetic makeup and structure. We can tell it apart from a pear, for example.

Now can existence be treated the same way? If it can, then it is justifed to call it an attribute, if it cannot, then it cannot be treated as an attribute. Do you agree?

So let’s suppose that existence is just another attribute, and extend the above example: “red, delicious, without blemish and it also exists”. If you change it to “red, delicious, without blemish and nonexistent”, then on what grounds would you still call it an “apple”? How could you tell it apart it from a nonexistent pear or car or building? Obviously you cannot. So the apple lost its “appleness” by virtue of being nonexistent.

Therefore “existence” cannot be treated as an attribute. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation.

Alright. I’m not sure this human method translates perfectly to God. Can you argue the truth of this proposition? It seems to me that you take many very narrow interpretations of things, and I’m not sure why you do so and pick one possibility over the other.

Well, I like to be precise when I can. It does cut down on misunderstandings.

You could argue that knowledge is knowing something through whatever means.

And this would be an example of intentional vagueness.

If a communication channel is necessary, then it is needed, if not, then not. Why do you pick your definition of knowledge over my example? Is there an argument in favor of yours?

Now, it is true that I left the precise nature of a communication channel vague, just so we can be as generic as necessary. To leave it out completely would be tantamount to “magic”. And that is where all meaningful communication breaks down and becomes impossible.

 

[ateista]

There’s a big distance between that sort of practical survival technique and us sitting here thinking up abstract philosophical arguments.

Magnetic orientation and geospatial distance are fairly concrete. Its not as abstract as say, whether a hypothetical creator is capable of knowing things that have not yet come into existence. The first example is science and math, the second philosophy.

Bees lack the ability to philosophize about such things. Lets assume for a second that such things can evolve and humans are far more evolved in this respect than bees. If this grade of philosophic ability exists, why should we assume that we have reached the point of being able to know everything through philosophy? Maybe we haven’t yet evolved to the point of being able to understand how God can know the future.

You have my total agreement.

Of course, I see no safeguards in this hypothetical process to guard against incorrect perceptions about philosophic reality. Atheists must believe that a fully functioning and intact physcial brain guarantees accuracy.

What do you mean by accuracy? Atheists (materialists) do not assert that we always interpret the incoming signals accurately. But we argue that the signals of external reality exist in an objective manner, our senses (or their extentions) percieve these signals correctly.

What we do with them, how we interpret them is a different ballgame. It is an entirely subjective process.

I see no reason for the brain to have evolved in this way, and we would have no way to know for sure without faith in intelligence.

Why not? It is useful, helps the survival of the species. Simple, natural way of looking at it.

 

[ateista]

I base it on talking to people - just about everyone I’ve ever talked to is glad they were born and is glad to be alive. Even the people with a long list of complaints still usually see it as overall positive.

I’m sure you can come up with exceptions, and I’m sure there are some. But even the poor people I’ve talked to through sponsoring kids in poor countries seemed glad to be alive. I suppose the mentally ill and some terminally ill people might be the exceptions.

That is ok, but it does not establish that existence in principle is preferable to non-existence. And you see it perfectly correctly that exceptions exist.

The sin of pride isn’t exactly the same thing as how we use the word in day to day speech. We’re allowed to recognize our good qualities, but we should give God credit for them. And we should look as hard for the good qualities of others. Having good self-esteem isn’t the same as having pride.

Ok.

 

[ateista]

To watch from a hill a column of soldiers on the ground does not affect them - nor does the fact that one can see the whole column at once, even though they can’t see all of them at once, affect them.​

For the viewer, the entire column is seen simultaneously - for the soldiers in it, only some of it is visible at any one moment. God sees all things “simultaneously” - even if we can’t For God, there is no future, so no determinism: we get that, only by importing our limitations into God, which makes Him less than God, so not God at all. IMHO, the whole determinism issue is a spook

As usual, the analogy has good and bad points. The observer can see more, but cannot see everything.

He cannot know in advance that the soldiers will (possibly) take a sudden turn and march into the forest - unless (and this is an important unless) - he is the general who ordered the whole exercise and commanded (preordained) that they do take a turn at the specified mile-marker - thus overriding the soldiers “free will” - of which they have precious little, anyway. .

 

[planter654]

God told Moses that Israelities were going to be rebellious even before they even got to the promise land. That is why God gave Moses his laws, commandments, percepts, statues and ordinances before Moses died to give to the Israelities. For their own good! God knows all things, thank God, for God has a great plan of salvation for all…not till all the gentles are in!

God has given us the “human wisdom” to know right from wrong, good from evil, but it is “our choice” to believe in God or not!

Right in the beginning of Creation God told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of good and evil did he not? Before hand also God told them what would happen if they choose not to obey, for God is “All Truth”. God said: if they did “THEY WOULD SURLEY DIE”. God is not a LIAR.

They would not live eternally with God in his Kingdom where they would not have to labour and God would provide all goodness for them.

It was a blessing to them if they obeyed and believed that God is all truth. But a curse if they choose not to obey and believe in God.

God gives His Blessings and His Curses he means what he says!
God is not a liar or deceiver like Satan. Good and Evil. God gives all that is good. God has given us human wisdom and his grace to know right from wrong, good or evil.

God is all Holy! God would not be “All Holy” if he joined himself with evil.

Obey or not obey. Blessing if you obey, a Curse if you choose not to obey. What did Adam and Eve choose to do? Not obey…for if you do eat from the tree of good and evil “YOU WILL SURLEY DIE”. God forces no one to love him or obey him, or choose to believe in him. It is your "FREE WILL’ . It was their “Free Will” to choose and God for warned them, God is not a LIAR!

God is All Good, created All Good and gave All Good. God did not even want them to “KNOW” there was evil. For that would not be All Good to know and not warn or protect them, like any good Father would give to his children. God only gives what is all good!

Adam and Eve choose to disobey God who loved them dearly.

Our own human parents tell us not to play in traffice or we could get hurt or killed, do they not give us commandments to obey them for our own good? If we choose not to obey and do so who’s fault is it? Our own is it not?

God has given his instructions, his commandments, his blessings and his curses, his graces need for all human wisdom to know him, but it is your choice. God forces no one to love him, for that is not true love and would not be All Good to do so!

God Bless

 

[Sarpedon]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Let’s take the example of an apple. Some of its attributes are “red, delicious and without blemish”. These attributes could be different (for example: “green, tart and bruised”), and it would still be an apple. Its “appleness” is decided by its genetic makeup and structure. We can tell it apart from a pear, for example.

(quotes from the newadvent.org article on essence and existence)

This is what Catholic theology considers an essence. Essence can be defined to the best of our ability as “that whereby a thing is what it is.” In other words, appleness. This is from what properties of the specific thing radiate from (attributes). They are composed of the form of what something is, which is not necessarily the visible or structure of the thing. For example, man has a physcial essence of body and soul. In God alone are existence and essence identical, hence “I am who am”. I also want to point out that essence apart from God is created.

So let’s suppose that existence is just another attribute, and extend the above example: “red, delicious, without blemish and it also exists”. If you change it to “red, delicious, without blemish and nonexistent”, then on what grounds would you still call it an “apple”? How could you tell it apart it from a nonexistent pear or car or building? Obviously you cannot. So the apple lost its “appleness” by virtue of being nonexistent.

Therefore “existence” cannot be treated as an attribute. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation.

I would call it an apple in potentiality because appleness as an essence is distinct from existence. Existence is “that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being”. “Created essences are divided into both possible and actual, existence is always actual and opposed by its nature to simple potentiality.”

I can tell the apple in potentiality apart from those other things in potentiality because they have different essences. These essences can pass in and out of existence, but they remain immutable. (More to come)

This is a complex topic, so I could be wrong in my understanding of what the Church teaches.

 

[Sarpedon]

Thus, we can know things that do not exist, because they have distinct essences that can be known. Naturally, essences in potentiality are different from those in actuality, because they have the “attribute*” of existence, so to speak. The essence can still be known even if the essence has not gone from potentiality to actuality (the future). God can know the future because He can know the essence of what the future is, even if it has not gone into actuality yet. This is probably the best I can explain it using human terms, for I have no idea what it is like to be transcendant of time and pure actuality.

Of course, you may not accept this idea of essence and existence as distinct. I can try to find arguments for it if you want, but I hope you’ll agree that this is at least logically possible, even if not the truth.

Again, I could be wrong in my interpretation of this in regards to the Church.

• I hesitate to call it an attribute, because I’m unclear on whether existence becomes part of the essence itself among other issues. On a general level I think you could call it this, though.

 

[Sarpedon]

And this would be an example of intentional vagueness.

Even if so, this wouldn’t make it wrong. We lack the ability to understand everything (for example, the Trinity for us). I was using it more as an example than an actual postion I am adovocated

Now, it is true that I left the precise nature of a communication channel vague, just so we can be as generic as necessary. To leave it out completely would be tantamount to “magic”. And that is where all meaningful communication breaks down and becomes impossible.

Having clusters of neurons in my head that lack a guarantee of accuracy makes meaningful communication break down as well. If magic was real and made meaningful communcation impossible, this would not make magic any less real. Of course, as a Catholic, I have faith that my mind can come to know truth through reason. As an atheist, do you have any sort of faith in the accuracy of your mind?

 

[Sarpedon]

What do you mean by accuracy? Atheists (materialists) do not assert that we always interpret the incoming signals accurately. **But we argue that the signals of external reality exist in an objective manner, our senses (or their extentions) percieve these signals correctly.**What we do with them, how we interpret them is a different ballgame. It is an entirely subjective process.

(my emphasis)

Why?
I see no reason to, assuming atheism.

Why not? It is useful, helps the survival of the species. Simple, natural way of looking at it.

How does it help? I can understand why things like being able to build machines and heal each other would be beneficial, but abstract philosophy that has little bearing on day-to-day life? Of course, for those who believe in God, it takes on a special importance.

 

[ateista]

(quotes from the newadvent.org article on essence and existence)

This is what Catholic theology considers an essence. Essence can be defined to the best of our ability as “that whereby a thing is what it is.” In other words, appleness. This is from what properties of the specific thing radiate from (attributes). They are composed of the form of what something is, which is not necessarily the visible or structure of the thing.

So far so good.

For example, man has a physcial essence of body and soul. In God alone are existence and essence identical, hence “I am who am”. I also want to point out that essence apart from God is created.

I am sure you understand that this has no meaning for me.

I would call it an apple in potentiality because appleness as an essence is distinct from existence. Existence is “that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being”. “Created essences are divided into both possible and actual, existence is always actual and opposed by its nature to simple potentiality.”

I can tell the apple in potentiality apart from those other things in potentiality because they have different essences. These essences can pass in and out of existence, but they remain immutable.

There is no potential apple apart from a “seed”, which may grow into a tree, which in turn may produce more apples. The “essence” of an apple is its genetic structure, nothing more.

Please remember, that we try to clarify the proposition that “existence” is a “property” or not. Calling a nonexistent apple a “potential” apple, which has all the “essence” of an apple it completely nonsensical to me. Attributes (or essence) are ontingent upon existence. If something does not exist, it has no essence.

I am asking you: how can you devise an experiment which will show that a nonexistent apple is different from a nonexistent piano?

 

[davidv]

I am asking you: how can you devise an experiment which will show that a nonexistent apple is different from a nonexistent piano?

Experiment:

1. Imagine an apple. Take note of its color, size and shape.
2. Imagine a piano. Take note of it color, size and shape.
3. Compare 1. and 2. How are the different? How are they the same?

 

[ateista]

Why?
I see no reason to, assuming atheism.

Simply because we are not solipsists, we accept the the reality of the universe as existing apart from our concepts. Because we experince reality, and accept that if we cut our finger, it actually bleeds and hurts, and this pain is not a figment of our imagination. One can try to ignore reality, but reality will not ignore us.

Where does God enter into this picture?

How does it help? I can understand why things like being able to build machines and heal each other would be beneficial, but abstract philosophy that has little bearing on day-to-day life? Of course, for those who believe in God, it takes on a special importance.

It looks like your answered your own question. The corollaries of metaphysics are important for us, too. It is important to us not to spend our life on meaningless rituals (which are meaningful to you).

 

[ateista]

Experiment:

1. Imagine an apple. Take note of its color, size and shape.
2. Imagine a piano. Take note of it color, size and shape.
3. Compare 1. and 2. How are the different? How are they the same?

Imagination is not an experiment. They are not actual apples and pianos. They have no attributes, except imagined attributes. And imagination should never be confused with reality.

 

[davidv]

Imagination is not an experiment. They are not actual apples and pianos.

Why not? Aren’t thought experiments valid?

They have no attributes, except imagined attributes. And imagination should never be confused with reality.

That’s the point. With out an essence, we could not imagine an apple. Since in this case it is an imaginary one it only exists in potential. Since it potential is not yet in a seed, it may never be actualized. However, to an orchard grower it may be the idea that results in a new variety of actual apples.

 

[Sarpedon]

There is no potential apple apart from a “seed”, which may grow into a tree, which in turn may produce more apples. The “essence” of an apple is its genetic structure, nothing more.

I disagree. Can you provide an argument to support your proposition?

Obviously, you do not accept our notion of essence and existence. However, do you agree it is logically consistent? Would you agree that if essence and existence are as Catholics view them, that our explanation would make sense? Just because something is logically possible does not mean that it is true, but rather that it is not contrary to reason.