The preclusion of Freewill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tlaloc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Free Will and the Christian Religion

The problem of free will assumed quite a new character with the advent of the Christian religion. The doctrine that God has created man, has commanded him to obey the moral law, and has promised to reward or punish him for observance or violation of this law, made the reality of moral liberty an issue of transcendent importance. Unless man is really free, he cannot be justly held responsible for his actions, any more than for the date of his birth or the colour of his eyes. All alike are inexorably predetermined for him. Again, the difficulty of the question was augmented still further by the Christian dogma of the fall of man and his redemption by grace. St. Paul, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, is the great source of the Catholic theology of grace.

Catholic Doctrine Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelageians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. St. Augustine’s teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man’s future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man’s future acts are not necessary? God does not exist in time. The future and the past are alike ever present to the eternal mind as a man gazing down from a lofty mountain takes in at one momentary glance all the objects which can be apprehended only through a lengthy series of successive experiences by travellers along the winding road beneath, in somewhat similar fashion the intuitive vision of God apprehends simultaneously what is future to us with all it contains. Further, God’s omnipotent providence exercises a complete and perfect control over all events that happen, or will happen, in the universe. How is this secured without infringement of man’s freedom? Here is the problem which two distinguished schools in the Church–both claiming to represent the teaching, or at any rate the logical development of the teaching of St. Thomas–attempt to solve in different ways. The heresies of Luther and Calvin brought the issue to a finer point than it had reached in the time of Aquinas, consequently he had not formally dealt with it in its ultimate shape, and each of the two schools can cite texts from the works of the Angelic Doctor in which he appears to incline towards their particular view.
From:newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#chr
 
Let’s put aside whether time-travel makes any sense in the way you spelled it.
God (omniscient) knows how everyone will ever behave under every possible circumstance**/I]

This assumes that middle knowledge is true, most people will deny it or even say that it is incoherent.
Tlaloc;429015:
God (omnipotent) has the power to control every
circumstance and thereby determine every action

This, once again, seems to assume (emphasis on every) that the molinist/congruist approach is true. But suppose that God has this sort of power, where is the problem in this by itself?
God (omnipresent in time and space) has access to every instant ever
,

This assumes eternalism, why should we assume that the past and future exists alongside the present?
God (creator) has created the scenario by creating the universe, nothing happens in it that he did not choose to have happen
Start over, the final step would be somewhat interesting if it wasn’t burdened by all the questionable premises in each previous step. I say somewhat (if at all) interesting because the final step by itself is too vague and ambiguous to entail fatalism.
 
Sorry, I gave too much credit to tlacoc’s argument. Even if all premises were true fatalism does not follow from it.

1- God knows all counterfactuals.

2-A: God has power over all circumstances,

and

B: God can determine every action.

3- God has access to all events through time.

4-God chooses every scenario.

Notice how he slips two premises in number two, where’s the evidence for B? Furthermore, why use the stronger modal expression* to determine* rather than to choose as in the last step?

Putting this aside; the argument is useless. God knows, God has power, God has access, God can. Where does fatalism or the proposition that humans cannot do otherwise come into play?

Even the final step is weak, never mind that it does not follow from any of the previous steps, what is the import of the expression God chooses? It can be construed in different ways, for example, God chooses in conjunction with our free-actions.
 
DanAl,

It might not make much sense to argue with Tlaloc now. The thread you are responding to has been dormant since 2005, and the OP (Tlaloc) has been banned from this forum, according to the notation right under his name.
 
DanAl,

It might not make much sense to argue with Tlaloc now. The thread you are responding to has been dormant since 2005, and the OP (Tlaloc) has been banned from this forum, according to the notation right under his name.
The post is worth replying to for other people that might be impressed by it or at least think that he has a point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top