Why does God's nature require freedom?

[PseuTonym]

I have seen how predictable people’s actions always are.

Actually, you have a hypothesis that lets you imagine making predictions. You cannot actually predict people’s actions. Predicting their actions would require you to be one step ahead of everybody else in terms of insights, ideas, inventiveness, and creativity.

Watch a chess game of Kasparov versus somebody else. Watch from the beginning of the game. Before each move that Kasparov makes, can you predict his move? Give yourself as much time as you like, and you still won’t be able to predict his move. So, how far into the future can you predict?

In the case of chess, it is actually quite easy to create a list of possibilities if you are not looking ahead beyond one move that Kasparov is to make. It can be tedious, but it is simple. The difficult part is selecting his move.

There are at least two different kinds of predictions of human behavior. Here is one kind of prediction: given a list of possibilities, you can select one. We have seen that selecting the one actual action from a list of possibilities can be extremely challenging.

However, there is another kind of prediction: creating a list of possibilities. Outside of artificial situations like chess, you cannot create a list of possibilities that is guaranteed to include the actual choice that a person will make. It’s not merely challenging. Perhaps God can do it, but we cannot.

Should I believe that you could have invented all musical instruments, and composed all existing music?

Given nothing but the astronomy of Ptolemy and the physics of Aristotle, could you have thought of the science and technology that makes it possible to broadcast and receive radio signals?

Now, we can put it together …

---

The radio is turned on. You need to know only the year, month, day, time of day, and the frequency of a radio station,. Before you hear any music, you already know what you will hear.

You can say, “Ah, Toccata and Fugue in D minor. I could have predicted that J. S. Bach would write that. I would have written it myself if he hadn’t done it first. I could have played it exactly the way this performer is playing it. Given the radio frequency, the date, and the time of day, I could have predicted that this would be playing.”

Do you really believe that? I don’t.

 

[blase6]

I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern. Why should I not expect that to be the case in others?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I know that I am experiencing what seems like an external world. But to go on and say that I know certainly that an external world exists would be false, since I cannot “leave” my internal world of perception.

The idea of “tabula rasa” is just a theory which isn’t necessarily true. For example, you probably believe that angels are created with infused knowledge, and animals have primal knowledge, so why would human beings not have primal knowledge?

A Catholic cannot be a solipsist or an idealist. Because the Catholic Church accepts the Divine Revelation as Truth. And this Revelation teaches that God really exist, that he really spoke to us and continues to speak to us through the Catholic Church and that the world he created and sustains and guides really does exist.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[PseuTonym]

I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern.

No, you don’t find that. You claim to have made a successful prediction about your own behavior: waving your arm in the air. I would be more impressed by John Wilkes Booth successfully predicting that Lincoln would be assassinated. After all, Booth was up against some difficulties. He had to find Lincoln, hit the target, and avoid causing a non-fatal injury.

However, I can accept your claim that you successfully predicted your own behavior. After all, it was your experience, not mine. I don’t claim that it is impossible to predict your own behavior. The problem occurs when you attempt to generalize from some particular predictions that were successful to your claim that your choices “are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern.”

Please take notice of the word “predictable” = “predict” + “able.” You are claiming to know that there is always a possibility of predicting human behavior. However, do you remember the following?

“An experience of possibilities does not mean that those possibilities are real. You may think that you can choose between X and Y, but when you finally choose Y, you can’t know if the possibility of choosing X was real.”
Link:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12704522&postcount=18

You claim that we cannot know if a possibility is real, except under very special circumstances. What are the circumstances?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it seems that you have invoked a general principle. Invoking it here, we obtain the following conclusion: we cannot know that an alleged possibility of making an accurate prediction of human behavior is a real possibility unless the prediction is actually made.

You have already admitted that you do not have a clear idea of the concept of free will. So it does not make sense for you to claim to be confident that people do not have free will. Inevitably, under these circumstances, what you do have is a clear attitude. However, harmony of attitude does not guarantee logical consistency of assertions. The more clearly you present your arguments, the more clear it will become that you are relying upon assumptions that contradict each other.

Of course, it is no sin to have an attitude of some kind. We are human beings, not machines. Inevitably, we have attitudes. However, nobody can create a proof to support what is actually merely an attitude. The problem is that you are attempting the impossible.

 

[blase6]

A Catholic cannot be a solipsist or an idealist. Because the Catholic Church accepts the Divine Revelation as Truth. And this Revelation teaches that God really exist, that he really spoke to us and continues to speak to us through the Catholic Church and that the world he created and sustains and guides really does exist.

Pax
Linus2nd

You can say what you think a Catholic can or can’t be, but it doesn’t really make a difference. I do believe in Catholic dogma. I just have a different idea of what “belief” means from you.

 

[PseuTonym]

I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern. Why should I not expect that to be the case in others?

If the actions of all people were predictable, then it would be possible to predict when a new world record would be achieved in sports, such as a new and shorter duration to run a specified distance on a track that conforms to specifications.

 

[blase6]

If the actions of all people were predictable, then it would be possible to predict when a new world record would be achieved in sports, such as a new and shorter duration to run a specified distance on a track that conforms to specifications.

No, because such a prediction would not be as simple as you think. There are so many factors such as the runner’s body weight, shape, strength, attitude, date, time, temperature, and many other small components which would lead to the outcome. It is still far beyond the capabilities of human prediction to predict even a “simple” outcome like that.

 

[PseuTonym]

No, because such a prediction would not be as simple as you think.

We’re not talking about what I think. We’re talking about what you think:

“I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern. Why should I not expect that to be the case in others?”

You didn’t say merely that your intentions were predictable. You said that your actions were entirely predictable, and you seemed to reach the default conclusion that actions of all people are entirely predictable, with the onus being on others to refute your default conclusion.

 

[blase6]

We’re not talking about what I think. We’re talking about what you think:

“I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern. Why should I not expect that to be the case in others?”

You didn’t say merely that your intentions were predictable. You said that your actions were entirely predictable, and you seemed to reach the default conclusion that actions of all people are entirely predictable, with the onus being on others to refute your default conclusion.

Obviously I cannot say that I can perfectly predict my own actions. But when experiences continually show that my actions follow a pattern which is incompatible with the idea of freedom, then it becomes more and more obvious that freedom probably doesn’t exist. That is the meaning of “predictable” I was trying to use.

 

[PseuTonym]

my actions follow a pattern which is incompatible with the idea of freedom

You are free to follow a pattern. You are also free to change the pattern, such as by attempting to do things that you sincerely believe you cannot do. Occasionally, you will surprise yourself and discover that what seemed to be impossible was actually possible.

 

[blase6]

You are free to follow a pattern. You are also free to change the pattern, such as by attempting to do things that you sincerely believe you cannot do. Occasionally, you will surprise yourself and discover that what seemed to be impossible was actually possible.

In retrospective everything can be explained by one’s situation and disposition. As nice as freedom sounds (or perhaps not), it is not necessary to explain any choice.

 

[PseuTonym]

In retrospective everything can be explained by one’s situation and disposition.

That does not summarize, explain, or conclude this discussion. You are talking about putting together some kind of explanation – after the fact – to explain what you could not actually predict. Anybody can do that. Some will be more successful than others at impressing some audience with such an explanation. The topic is now successful deception, or successful self-deception.

Look at how this part of the thread started:

I quoted what you wrote:
“I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern. Why should I not expect that to be the case in others?”

I wrote:
“If the actions of all people were predictable, then it would be possible to predict when a new world record would be achieved in sports, such as a new and shorter duration to run a specified distance on a track that conforms to specifications.”

 

[blase6]

That does not summarize, explain, or conclude this discussion. You are talking about putting together some kind of explanation – after the fact – to explain what you could not actually predict. Anybody can do that. Some will be more successful than others at impressing some audience with such an explanation. The topic is now successful deception, or successful self-deception.

Look at how this part of the thread started:

I quoted what you wrote:
“I find from my actions that my choices are entirely predictable and invariably follow a pattern. Why should I not expect that to be the case in others?”

I wrote:
“If the actions of all people were predictable, then it would be possible to predict when a new world record would be achieved in sports, such as a new and shorter duration to run a specified distance on a track that conforms to specifications.”

Ok, let’s forget about “predictability”. What I am doing is examining my action after the fact, and finding that there is one option to act which appears better than the other options at that point, and that seems to be what determines how I act, not my will.