What is the point of free will?

[Vico]

After all, no matter how good you might be, you cannot “earn” your way to heaven. Good works, proper decisions, virtuous life are all insufficient. It would be much better to be a “mindless” robot, to be predestined to heaven. To have free will, which allows one to make incorrect decisions is a burden or a curse.

Free will allows for the expression of charity. It affords and Increase of heavenly glory and a higher degree of perfection of the beatific vision.

Dogmas (from Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott):

• There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious (gratia vere et mere sufficiens). (De fide)
• The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified.(De fide)
• The justification of an adult is not possible without Faith. (De fide)
• Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present. (De fide)
• The degree of justifying grace is not identical in all the just. (De fide)
• Grace can be increased by good works. (De fide)
• The grace by which we are justified may be lost, and is lost by every grievous sin. (De fide)
• The loss of sanctifying grace always involves the loss of Charity. (Certain)
• By his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God. (De fide)
• A just man merits for himself through each good work an increase of sanctifying grace, eternal life (if he dies in a state of grace) and an increase of heavenly glory. (De fide)
• The degree of perfection of the beatific vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merits. (De fide)

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Free will allows for the expression of charity. It affords and Increase of heavenly glory and a higher degree of perfection of the beatific vision.

I contend that even the “lowest” level of beatific vision would trump the best day in the eternal suffering in hell. Of course a really loving and caring God would create everyone directly into heaven, where there is no possible “evil” to be performed. The people in heaven are so overwhelmed by the “beatific” vision, that they would not even contemplate to commit any evil act (brainwashing is the word). I read someone describing heaven as people sitting in mindless stupor around God, their virtual saliva running down on their imaginary cheek. This picture is not actually appealing to me… as being something to strive or hope for.

Not that anyone would have any hard information about what is going on in heaven. It is all speculation.

 

[Vico]

I contend that even the “lowest” level of beatific vision would trump the best day in the eternal suffering in hell. Of course a really loving and caring God would create everyone directly into heaven, where there is no possible “evil” to be performed. The people in heaven are so overwhelmed by the “beatific” vision, that they would not even contemplate to commit any evil act (brainwashing is the word). I read someone describing heaven as people sitting in mindless stupor around God, their virtual saliva running down on their imaginary cheek. This picture is not actually appealing to me… as being something to strive or hope for.

Not that anyone would have any hard information about what is going on in heaven. It is all speculation.

This is not speculation, from Catechism 1045 “The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.”
and from Catechism 1035 “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

Of course we do not exactly know what Jesus Christ means by fire in his parable of The Sheep and the Goats, in Matthew 25: 41Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is not speculation, from Catechism 1045 “The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.”
and from Catechism 1035 “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”

Of course we do not exactly know what Jesus Christ means by fire in his parable of The Sheep and the Goats, in Matthew 25: 41Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

I am sorry, but the quoted text from the catechism is just speculation as far as the non-catholics are concerned. There is no Blue-ray movie from heaven to substantiate what you say.

But the point is that being exposed to the lowest level of beatific vision (whatever that might be) is supposed to be superior to the best day in hell, where the fire is not quenched and the worm eats your bowels. (Is that one can expect from a “loving” deity? I don’t think so.)

By the way, here, in this existence we are all separated from God (no beatific vision… actually no vision at all), and this separation is not a torture. Be as it may, I suggest that you read my answer to tonyrey’s observations.

 

[Vico]

I am sorry, but the quoted text from the catechism is just speculation as far as the non-catholics are concerned. There is no Blue-ray movie from heaven to substantiate what you say.

But the point is that being exposed to the lowest level of beatific vision (whatever that might be) is supposed to be superior to the best day in hell, where the fire is not quenched and the worm eats your bowels. (Is that one can expect from a “loving” deity? I don’t think so.)

By the way, here, in this existence we are all separated from God (no beatific vision… actually no vision at all), and this separation is not a torture. Be as it may, I suggest that you read my answer to tonyrey’s observations.

Why are you sorry? Faith is not reason.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Faith is not reason.

You can say that again!

 

[tonyrey]

In that case we’re entitled to indulge to our heart’s content in imagining we are raping or hurting anyone we like…

There’s a vast difference between a creative artist fantasizing about a solution to a specific problem and a frustrated individual habitually imagining he or she is indulging in sadistic activity with a child - which is likely to lead to evil consequences.

Acting under intolerable duress doesn’t affect your free will in the slightest - only the exercise of your free will. You would not be found guilty for doing so.

If you are forced to act against your “will” then your “free will” is pointless… and that is what the thread is all about. The libertarian concept of free will has three parts:

1. You (the agent) have an aim in mind, which you wish to achieve or actualize.
2. There are at least two ways to reach that aim.
3. The locus of decision rests with the agent.

In the example I gave, the agent’s will is not to kill those people he is commanded to kill. There is no way to reach that goal, due to the blackmail. Therefore he cannot act “freely”, because the second requirement is not met.

The concept of free will has nothing to do with physical activity. We can usually choose what to think.

There is a vast difference between intending and permitting as you would realise if you were a surgeon - or even a parent.

If you are aware of something which is about to happen, and have the power/ability to prevent it, and do not prevent it, then you are just as guilty as the perpetrator. Remember the Oklahoma city bombing, where Timothy McVeigh was the actual terrorist and Terry Nichols was “just” an accomplice. His crime was that he knew about the impending act, could have notified the authorities, and failed to do so.

Which demonstrates that is the state of mind that determines whether we are guilty, not whether we act or fail to act.

Should we force our children to conform to our beliefs and values in every respect?

Please, who talks about interfering in EVERY instance? Not I. Only in those instances when the child is about to commit something that is harmful to others (or himself). You would not let your child to play with a loaded gun in the name of “free will”. And besides you argued that disallowing to act on a “will” does not infringe on the “freedom” of the will. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

Adults are not children and we are not prevented from killing ourselves or others if we so wish! Why? Because our free will is more important than anything else. Our power to make an evil decision is further evidence that we have free will. Otherwise morality wouldn’t make sense.

If people never harm others and are always kind and compassionate they are saints…

No, a “saint” must worship God. Mere good actions count for nothing, if they are not motivated by the love of God… according the catechism. Gandhi was never beatified as far as I know.

A person can be a saint without believing in God!

You hurt those who love Jesus if you deliberately blaspheme against the Holy Spirit or desecrate the Eucharist…

Yes, you may call it “hurt”. But I only talk about physical harm. To prevent physical harm would make this existence “immensely” better. Moreover, one can blaspheme against the Holy Spirit “inside” (yet another thought-crime?) and that would not scandalize the believers.

Psychological harm is often far worse than physical harm.

Again, the point is that one can have free will and act on it, if his options are LIMITED to choose between one good, benevolent, beneficial act and another. There is no reason to allow malevolent, hurtful acts to have free will.

How can our mental activity be restricted so that evil thoughts and intentions are excluded, bearing in mind that the power of reasoning presupposes free will?

 

[tonyrey]

Why are you sorry? Faith is not reason.

Indeed. But we have to have faith in reason to be reasonable.

 

[Vico]

Indeed. But we have to have faith in reason to be reasonable.

I see the smiley face, but what I’m referring to is that God gives us the grace which is what gives the gift of faith. There is no* merit* in reason, but in faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote some interesting statements on faith and reason:“Just as a man ought to perform acts of moral virtue on account of reasoned judgment, and not on account of passion, so ought he to believe the things of faith on account of divine authority, and not on account of human reason.”

“…the reasons which are given in support of the authority of faith are not demonstrative reasons, such as could lead the human intellect to intellectual vision. Hence the things of faith do not cease to be unseen. Such reasons remove hindrances to faith, showing that what is proposed in faith is not impossible. They consequently diminish neither the nature nor the merit of faith. But although demonstrative reasons brought in support of the preambles to faith (not in support of the articles) may diminish the nature of faith by causing what is proposed to be seen, they do not diminish the nature of charity, through which the will is ready to believe the things of faith even though they should remain unseen.”
"…a human reason may follow the will to believe. When a man has a ready will to believe, he rejoices in the truth which he believes, thinks about it, and turns it over in his mind to see whether he can find a reason for it. A human reason which thus follows the will to believe does not exclude merit. "

biblehub.com/library/aquinas/nature_and_grace/article_ten_whether_a_reason.htm

 

[tonyrey]

I see the smiley face, but what I’m referring to is that God gives us the grace which is what gives the gift of faith. There is no* merit* in reason, but in faith.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote some interesting statements on faith and reason:“Just as a man ought to perform acts of moral virtue on account of reasoned judgment, and not on account of passion, so ought he to believe the things of faith on account of divine authority, and not on account of human reason.”

“…the reasons which are given in support of the authority of faith are not demonstrative reasons, such as could lead the human intellect to intellectual vision. Hence the things of faith do not cease to be unseen. Such reasons remove hindrances to faith, showing that what is proposed in faith is not impossible. They consequently diminish neither the nature nor the merit of faith. But although demonstrative reasons brought in support of the preambles to faith (not in support of the articles) may diminish the nature of faith by causing what is proposed to be seen, they do not diminish the nature of charity, through which the will is ready to believe the things of faith even though they should remain unseen.”
"…a human reason may follow the will to believe. When a man has a ready will to believe, he rejoices in the truth which he believes, thinks about it, and turns it over in his mind to see whether he can find a reason for it. A human reason which thus follows the will to believe does not exclude merit. "

biblehub.com/library/aquinas/nature_and_grace/article_ten_whether_a_reason.htm

My point is that we have to avoid the extreme view of Luther:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

The power of reason is after all a gift from God without which faith would be helpless. The teaching of Jesus is eminently reasonable and apologists like St Justin and St Irenaeus followed in His footsteps…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There’s a vast difference between a creative artist fantasizing about a solution to a specific problem and a frustrated individual habitually imagining he or she is indulging in sadistic activity with a child - which is likely to lead to evil consequences.

There is none, until it is put into practice.

The concept of free will has nothing to do with physical activity. We can usually choose what to think.

If you keep redefining concepts, there is no reason to talk, since there is no common platform to build on. Besides, you neglected to elaborate what “free will” means in your vocabulary.

Which demonstrates that is the state of mind that determines whether we are guilty, not whether we act or fail to act.

Nonsense. He was convicted because he FAILED to act. It may feel good to “shoot from the hip”, but I suggest you really read and contemplate what I write, otherwise the conversation is futile. It is boring to repeat the argument, because you did not take time to read it in the first place.

Adults are not children and we are not prevented from killing ourselves or others if we so wish! Why? Because our free will is more important than anything else. Our power to make an evil decision is further evidence that we have free will. Otherwise morality wouldn’t make sense.

You were the one who brought up children. Now you wish to change the goalposts?

By the way… when you approach a grieving parent whose child has been abducted, raped and tortured to death by a psychopath, I would not recommend to try the defense of the rapist by asserting that his “free will” was more important than the child’s life. Such a defense might prove to be “counterproductive”. That parent who might not agree that the “free will” of the perpetrator is “more important” than the child’s life, just might grab a handy baseball bat, and beat the living “ahem… daylight” out of you.

A person can be a saint without believing in God!

Only in the colloquial sense. Not according to the church. The catechism explicitly states that good actions without doing them in God’s name are useless. (You cannot be saved by works alone… sounds familiar?) It also states that “stubborn atheism” is a mortal sin. How could anyone be declared to be a saint, who keeps on living in a state of mortal sin, and refuses to repent?

How can our mental activity be restricted so that evil thoughts and intentions are excluded, bearing in mind that the power of reasoning presupposes free will?

That is the point. There is no reason to limit mental activity to “pious” thoughts, because thoughts cannot hurt others. So to allow to have “evil” thoughts is fine…

A quick summary.

1. Free will without the ability to put that “will” into actions is nonsense.
2. Mere thoughts cannot hurt anyone.
3. Only the church declares certain thoughts to be “evil”.
4. To have true, libertarian free will, it is sufficient to limit one’s available actions to harmless and/or beneficial ones.

However, if someone asserts that without “evil” there can be no “good”, then it is sufficient to allow evil thoughts (like blaspheming against to Holy Spirit) and some “evil” actions (like desecrating the Eucharist). No one will be hurt by these thoughts and actions - especially when done in private. So you can have nice, “juicy” evils, and no one suffers.

One more observation. You keep on saying that to have “free will” it is not necessary to be able to act on that will. (This makes your “definition” incoherent, by the way). But if one wishes to entertain this irrational concept, then it logically follows that God could interfere every time when someone wishes to perform an evil act. After all the freedom of the thought is now separated from being able to act on that thought - according to you. As such you successfully managed to dismantle the so called “free will defense” pertaining to the problem of evil.

 

[Vico]

My point is that we have to avoid the extreme view of Luther:

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”

The power of reason is after all a gift from God without which faith would be helpless. The teaching of Jesus is eminently reasonable and apologists like St Justin and St Irenaeus followed in His footsteps…

Through the gifts of the Holy Spirit (supernatural) we have faith whereas reason is natural. What is revealed is of another order than natural reason.
Catechism 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
We also read in the Catechism that**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.”
In accord with these things, St. Pope Gregory the Great in Homilia 26 of Evangelia II states that it follows that sacred doctrine does not proceed by argument.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Catechism 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.

Propositions like this are the reason which make the catechism unacceptable for rational thinkers. I am amazed that the writers of this text would not recognize the blatant circular reasoning employed here. Don’t you realize the logical error of this proposition?

 

[Vico]

Propositions like this are the reason which make the catechism unacceptable for rational thinkers. I am amazed that the writers of this text would not recognize the blatant circular reasoning employed here. Don’t you realize the logical error of this proposition?

It is logical, the works are those of God. Read the whole item:50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

We also have from the Catechism:35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

 

[tonyrey]

There’s a vast difference between a creative artist fantasizing about a solution to a specific problem and a frustrated individual habitually imagining he or she is indulging in sadistic activity with a child - which is likely to lead to evil consequences.

On the contrary, a crime can be committed with evil intent without doing anything. There is such a thing as culpable negligence.

If you keep redefining concepts, there is no reason to talk, since there is no common platform to build on. Besides, you neglected to elaborate what “free will” means in your vocabulary.

I have stated several times that free will is the power to choose what to think, how to act and who to love.

Which demonstrates that is the state of mind that determines whether we are guilty, not whether we act or fail to act.

Nonsense. He was convicted because he FAILED to act. It may feel good to “shoot from the hip”, but I suggest you really read and contemplate what I write, otherwise the conversation is futile. It is boring to repeat the argument, because you did not take time to read it in the first place.

That proves my point and disproves your assertion that “There is none, until it is put into practice.”

Adults are not children and we are not prevented from killing ourselves or others if we so wish! Why? Because our free will is more important than anything else. Our power to make an evil decision is further evidence that we have free will. Otherwise morality wouldn’t make sense.

You were the one who brought up children. Now you wish to change the goalposts?

You haven’t refuted my statements:

1. Our free will is more important than anything else.
2. Our power to make an evil decision is further evidence that we have free will.
3. Otherwise morality wouldn’t make sense.

By the way… when you approach a grieving parent whose child has been abducted, raped and tortured to death by a psychopath, I would not recommend to try the defense of the rapist by asserting that his “free will” was more important than the child’s life. Such a defense might prove to be “counterproductive”. That parent who might not agree that the “free will” of the perpetrator is “more important” than the child’s life, just might grab a handy baseball bat, and beat the living “ahem… daylight” out of you.

Non sequitur. Doing our utmost to protect children doesn’t alter the fact that people are not assumed to be psychopaths unless there is evidence for that belief. Otherwise everyone would be prevented from all contact with children or everyone else for that matter!

The catechism explicitly states that good actions without doing them in God’s name are useless. (You cannot be saved by works alone… sounds familiar?) It also states that “stubborn atheism” is a mortal sin. How could anyone be declared to be a saint, who keeps on living in a state of mortal sin, and refuses to repent?

You are obviously unacquainted with baptism of desire…

How can our mental activity be restricted so that evil thoughts and intentions are excluded, bearing in mind that the power of reasoning presupposes free will?

That is the point. There is no reason to limit mental activity to “pious” thoughts, because thoughts cannot hurt others. So to allow to have “evil” thoughts is fine…

Evil thoughts can harm ourselves and therefore those who love us or admire us.

1. Free will without the ability to put that “will” into actions is nonsense.

It is nonsense that a totally paralysed person lacks free will.

1. Mere thoughts cannot hurt anyone.

Thoughts can harm ourselves and therefore others.

1. Only the church declares certain thoughts to be “evil”.

You are obviously unaware that the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

1. To have true, libertarian free will, it is sufficient to limit one’s available actions to harmless and/or beneficial ones.

You have failed to explain how actions could be restricted in such a way.

However, if someone asserts that without “evil” there can be no “good”, then it is sufficient to allow evil thoughts (like blaspheming against to Holy Spirit) and some “evil” actions (like desecrating the Eucharist). No one will be hurt by these thoughts and actions - especially when done in private. So you can have nice, “juicy” evils, and no one suffers.

Once again you are ignoring the effects on oneself and consequently on others.

One more observation. You keep on saying that to have “free will” it is not necessary to be able to act on that will. (This makes your “definition” incoherent, by the way)

Your view of incoherence is obviously materialistic. Mental activity is far more significant that physical activity.

. But if one wishes to entertain this irrational concept, then it logically follows that God could interfere every time when someone wishes to perform an evil act.

God can intervene but doesn’t do so on every occasion because it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will. He is consistent as well as omnipotent.

After all the freedom of the thought is now separated from being able to act on that thought - according to you. As such you successfully managed to dismantle the so called “free will defense” pertaining to the problem of evil.

On the contrary. You have undermined your case against free will by assuming you have the power to choose the most cogent explanation and have just done so! Without free will we have no guarantee we ever reach the correct conclusions - unless we do so accidentally. Why do we regard computers as inferior to persons if we are simply biological computers? Do you have any explanation?

 

[tonyrey]

Through the gifts of the Holy Spirit (supernatural) we have faith whereas reason is natural. What is revealed is of another order than natural reason.Catechism 50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
We also read in the Catechism that**159 **Faith and science: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason.”
In accord with these things, St. Pope Gregory the Great in Homilia 26 of Evangelia II states that it follows that sacred doctrine does not proceed by argument.

I agree of course. The fact remains that the power of reason is a gift from God without which faith would be helpless. We need both. The teaching of Jesus is eminently reasonable and apologists like St Justin and St Irenaeus followed in His footsteps…
This forum is based on the principle that we can justify our faith by giving reasons why it is true.

 

[Vico]

I agree of course. The fact remains that the power of reason is a gift from God without which faith would be helpless. We need both. The teaching of Jesus is eminently reasonable and apologists like St Justin and St Irenaeus followed in His footsteps…
This forum is based on the principle that we can justify our faith by giving reasons why it is true.

It is faith the gift of the Holy Sprit, and the revelation given, not reason that we assent to. It is helpful to many to have some reasons.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

On the contrary, a crime can be committed with evil intent without doing anything. There is such a thing as culpable negligence.

Inaction IS action.

I have stated several times that free will is the power to choose what to think, how to act and who to love.

Without having at least two options (second requirement of the libertarian free will) there can be no choice. All those imply physical actions.

You haven’t refuted my statements:

1. Our free will is more important than anything else.
2. Our power to make an evil decision is further evidence that we have free will.
3. Otherwise morality wouldn’t make sense.

What is there to refute?

1. That is your personal opinion, nothing more. For the victim of a gang-rape the “freedom” of the rapists is NOT “valuable”.
2. Not really. Those “evil” decisions might be predetermined.
3. Morality is an undefined term.

You are obviously unacquainted with baptism of desire…

I am aware the concept. But if an atheist performs good actions, it does NOT mean that he wishes to be “baptized” by “desire”. The church explicitly teaches that good works without the intent to serve God are worthless.

Evil thoughts can harm ourselves and therefore those who love us or admire us.

Can or do? There is no evidence that having “bad thoughts” will cause “harm” to ourselves. Obviously the word “harm” for you has nothing to do with harm accepted by others.

You are obviously unaware that the Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience.

Not really. The church teaches that ONLY a well-formed conscience is to be followed. And the conscience is ONLY well-formed, if it agrees with the church’s teachings. It sure looks like that I know MUCH more about the church’s teachings than you do.

God can intervene but doesn’t do so on every occasion because it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will. He is consistent as well as omnipotent.

If someone does not interfere to prevent some genuinely evil action to happen, then he is exactly as guilty as the active party. INACTION IS ACTION!

But you miss my point. I am not against “free will”, only against excessive free will.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

It is logical, the works are those of God. Read the whole item:50 By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.1 Through an utterly free decision, God has revealed himself and given himself to man. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all men. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

We also have from the Catechism:35 Man’s faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God’s existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

I guess, you don’t get it. You cannot assume that certain things are the “work” of God (on the basis of his works), and then turn around and assert that these things prove God’s existence. That is called “circular reasoning”, a major no-no in logic. The phrase “natural reason” excludes any kind of “faith” or “revelation”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I guess, you don’t get it. You cannot assume that certain things are the “work” of God (on the basis of his works), and then turn around and assert that these things prove God’s existence. That is called “circular reasoning”, a major no-no in logic. The phrase “natural reason” excludes any kind of “faith” or “revelation”.

No more or less “circular,” I suppose, than someone who claims that on the basis of logic it is a major “no-no” to commit fallacies of logic. There is a certain “faith” in logic which has reared its head here at the same time as it claims to exclude “any kind of ‘faith.’”

Getting back to the alleged “circular” reasoning. The grounds for the position explicated in the CCC are the works of Aquinas, the Scholastics, Aristotle and the works of classical theism. The arguments of natural theology are actually quite sound and begin with rationally defensible logical principles such as the law of sufficient reason, the law of non-contradiction, the law of proportionate causality, and so forth, that lead to a reasoned metaphysic in terms of what would be positvely required for anything like the universe to exist in the first place.

You might say, the case for God lays down a set of logical and metaphysical prerequisites for the universe to exist in the first place, defends those prerequisites on the basis of sound logic and reason and then moves to demonstrate that the classical definition of God in theism fits those prerequisites like no other possibility.

This is no more “circular” than laying down principles or axioms of logic and then using them to defend what is reasonable or logical. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that what the arguments for classical theism do is lay down axioms or principles of ontology or existence and then use those to argue from the existence of what is known to be contingent (creation) to the existence of what is necessarily required for contingent things to exist at all.

This is about as “circular” as using sound logic to defend the validity of logical arguments.

I think Edward Feser does a pretty good job presenting one aspect of the overall case for theism in these two videos, if you care to watch and critique them.

youtu.be/_1Dkp1U9pek
youtu.be/-O40N4nNGUc