The Free Will Problem

[Sarpedon]

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?

In other words, on faith?

God enters the picture because intelligence can be a guaranteerer of accuracy, if you believe the intelligence programmed us that way.

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).

If we did not philosophize at all, then we would not waste our time on meaningless rituals. This would lead to greater evolutionary finesse, due to better utilized time.

 

[ateista]

Why not? Aren’t thought experiments valid?

Sure they can be.

But I sprecifically asked what kind of physical experiment will allows us to say: “ah, this hole in the reality is a missing (not imaginary) Granny Smith apple and that hole in the reality is a missing (not imaginary) wax apple?”.

Without existence there can be no attributes, there can be no “essence” - which is actually the collection of the most important attributes.

 

[ateista]

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

Sure. Does the apple change its “essence” if we peel it? It will be a peeled apple, but an apple nonetheless. How far can you go stripping away the specific attributes of an apple, before its “appleness” disappears? All the way to the genetic material.

Obviously, you do not accept our notion of essence and existence.

I accept existence as a physical object. I accept that some of the attributes of any object can be changed or missing, but the object is “essentially” the same. As I understood the quotation, the essence is the collection of the defining attributes.

But if you define “essence” as something apart from the attributes, then I will not agree. I will not even understand what are you talking about.

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.

I don’t know exactly what your definition of essence is. I thought I do when I read your quotation - and I agreed with it. Please amplify.

 

[ateista]

In other words, on faith?

If only you would specify what do you mean by “faith” I could answer your question. But this poor, abused word is used in so many meanings that I cannot know which one you talk about.

But, if you assert that I have to accept my existence on “faith” (whichever meaning you attach to it) then you are very wrong. My existence is an axiom. So is the existence of the physical reality outside me. The universe is an existential primary.

If we did not philosophize at all, then we would not waste our time on meaningless rituals. This would lead to greater evolutionary finesse, due to better utilized time.

Sure thing. But life is more than propagating our genes, no matter how pleasurable that activity is. It is also fun to exercise our minds, as long as we keep it light, and do not take it too seriously.

 

[ateista]

I am going to restate the question slightly modified. There is an empty notebook on my desk. There is an identical notebook next to it which is filled with notes, say a diary. They can be differentiated by looking at the pages.

How can you say that a nonexistent (not imaginary) notebook can be told apart from a nonexistent (not imaginary) diary? What “characteristics” would use use to tell which of is which? After all a nonexistent notebook has no characteristics, and neither does a nonexistent diary.

They are two missing or nonexistent objects. They are two identical “holes” in the reality.

 

[davidv]

Sure they can be.

But I sprecifically asked what kind of physical experiment will allows us to say: “ah, this hole in the reality is a missing (not imaginary) Granny Smith apple and that hole in the reality is a missing (not imaginary) wax apple?”.

Without existence there can be no attributes, there can be no “essence” - which is actually the collection of the most important attributes.

Actually you didn’t specify it that way in tour orginal request see below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ateista forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I am asking you: how can you devise an experiment which will show that a nonexistent apple is different from a nonexistent piano?

Why do you think essence has to have attributes, particularly for something is in potentiality, rather than in actuality?

 

[ateista]

Actually you didn’t specify it that way in tour orginal request see below.

Looks like I did not explicitly stated what I meant. Of course it was obvious to me, after all I was talking about “existence” as in actual, physical existence.

Why do you think essence has to have attributes, particularly for something is in potentiality, rather than in actuality?

Potential existence is the same as nonexistence. An empty notebook is just that, an empty notebook. It could be a potential diary, or a potential ledger, or a potential short story, a potential fuel for fire or even a potential toilet paper.

“Essence” is the set of defining attributes. Without attributes there are no defining attributes - therefore no essense. Without existence there are no attributes.

 

[davidv]

“Essence” is the set of defining attributes. Without attributes there are no defining attributes - therefore no essense. Without existence there are no attributes.

It seems to me this definition properly belongs to “existance”, not “essence”. No wonder we are confusing each other.

Since this is a Philosophy thread we ought to use the terms as they are meant to be in this context. From Dictionary.com

"Essence’ in Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.

From the Catholic Encylopedia:

Essence, however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.

Given these, attributes are only meaningful for those things in existance, or those that some essence might taken on if it were actualized.

 

[ateista]

It seems to me this definition properly belongs to “existance”, not “essence”. No wonder we are confusing each other.

Since this is a Philosophy thread we ought to use the terms as they are meant to be in this context. From Dictionary.com

"Essence’ in Philosophy. the inward nature, true substance, or constitution of anything, as opposed to what is accidental, phenomenal, illusory, etc.

I agree with the one from Dictionary.com. I have to point out that it is an “existential” (as opposed to constructive) definition and as such useless to decide just “what is” the essence of any particular object. But as a “theoretical” construct, it is fine.

I also agree with the first line from the Catholic Encyclopedia: “Essence, however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is.” Perfectly good theoretical definition, though again useless in practice.

Let’s look at it in a short and purely formal manner: “Essence is what it is”. You can see that it contains, presupposes the concept that “it is”. The definition does not say that “Essence is what it would be, if it existed”.

Therefore even the Encyclopedia implicitely “admits” that essence presupposes existence, though it then denies it in the second sentence.

I see another major problem with “essence”. It is a subjective assessment. For me the “essence” of being a human is to have a working brain. I would surmise that for you the essence of a human is to have an immortal soul. We work off of two axiomatic systems, therefore we cannot agree just what the “essence” of a human is.

The duck principle is: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck - it is a duck”. Or to use Forrest Gump’s immortal line: “Stupid is as stupid does”.

Still we can agree that a particular human exists. As opposed to essence, existence is an objective category.

 

[davidv]

Still we can agree that a particular human exists. As opposed to essence, existence is an objective category.

Is this “objective category” the only legitimate category?

There are simply too many things in my existence to limit all things to this category. There must be provision for, and means to reason through, those objects which are subjective. The distinction between essence and existence is one of these means.

 

[planter654]

Giving me a headache! Thank God through Jesus Christ did not make it this difficult to seek, knock and ask.

God Bless

 

[planter654]

What is the free will problem would we rather to be held under bondage and be force to do what you choose not to do? Jesus Christ has set you free indeed do you want to go back into bondage? For even Jesus Christ did not boast of self, but has given you the free will to choose, accept, believe or not believe, don’t you think?

Free will given to each soul is not a problem only if we choose to do what is not good and serve evil. Don’t you think?

God Bless

 

[ateista]

Is this “objective category” the only legitimate category?

Of course not. Why would it be? There are infinitely many categories we can use. Existence is objective, just like many other things. It is the most basic “thing” however. Moreover it does not have to be physical existence, it can be just a concept. But we sould never confuse physical existence with conceptual existence.

There are simply too many things in my existence to limit all things to this category. There must be provision for, and means to reason through, those objects which are subjective. The distinction between essence and existence is one of these means.

The concept of “essence” can be useful, no question about it, though it can be hazy sometimes. Could you tell me, what is the essence of a pebble? Of a grain of sand? Of a proton?

 

[ateista]

Giving me a headache! Thank God through Jesus Christ did not make it this difficult to seek, knock and ask.

As the old bumper sticker says: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it!”?

But, you know, no matter how many times I knocked… there was no one “at home” to answer even the door… much less my questions.

 

[planter654]

As the old bumper sticker says: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it!”?

But, you know, no matter how many times I knocked… there was no one “at home” to answer even the door… much less my questions.

Keep knocking…!!

GOD BLESS

 

[ateista]

Keep knocking…!!

My fingers already wore off to the knuckles…

 

[Sarpedon]

My fingers already wore off to the knuckles…

If you keep seeking God, He will reward your toil.

I will respond to your posts, but it may take me a few days as I am now preparing for my school debate.

 

[OTavern]

As the old bumper sticker says: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it!”?

But, you know, no matter how many times I knocked… there was no one “at home” to answer even the door… much less my questions.

Good answers depend upon expectations. The “answers” you were getting may not have been those you “wanted” to hear and so you dismissed them as “no answers.”

In my own life it is almost an absolute truth that an answer that comes via experience is better and sinks in deeper than one simply begged in advance. Perhaps God works on a “need to know” basis.

Or perhaps He doesn’t want to create “dependent” personalities – you just needed to “get out on your own” for a bit to prepare you to ask the right questions.

In any case, you seem to have all the answers without Him so you must be satisfied with your own pre-eminence of will and knowledge, what questions could possibly remain to ask?

 

[Sarpedon]

As the old bumper sticker says: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that’s the end of it!”?

How is is different from saying "My neurons said it, I believe them, that’s the end of it? Although the perspective presented in your quote is not the Catholic approach to truth, I honestly would find it more reasonable to place blind trust in a creator than matter. Matter just doesn’t seem that “trustworthy”. Why should I believe your axiom (assuming atheism)? Can you create an experiment to test it?

 

[ateista]

Good answers depend upon expectations. The “answers” you were getting may not have been those you “wanted” to hear and so you dismissed them as “no answers.”

That is a very interesting question. How do you know that something (anything) is an answer from God? Is there any criteria one can use?

In any case, you seem to have all the answers without Him so you must be satisfied with your own pre-eminence of will and knowledge, what questions could possibly remain to ask?

I am aware that I am fallible, and what seem to be “answers” to me, may be wrong. True, I know that I have a pretty signifiant IQ, based on somewhat-objective tests, but I am not willing to allow that to influence me into over-confidence.

You see, I would be very happy to be wrong. I would be very happy if this life would not be “all there is”. But I have no evidence to support this wish. Important to note: evidence is a much lower requirement than proof.

What can I use as evidence? The Bible? Useless old script of uneducated, superstitious people. Filled with scientific nonsense and glaring errors. Other people’s testimony? Why should I accept someone else’s testimony if it makes no sense? There is not one iota of objective evidence for any kind of deity. Much as I would like to have one, I must dismiss this hypothesis as nothing more than wishful thinking. It is too bad… but I must go by the evidence - or the lack of it. Just because I very much would love to be proven incorrect, I cannot assume it. That would be a violation of the “intelligence” allegedly God gave me. Would God be “pleased” if I squandered his gift to me?