Argument for Pre-Destination

[Chany]

This is an argument that I'be been thinking about for a while now.

Presumptions:

1) Humans make decisions following what they percieve and reason to be the best course of action.

2) Human perception (stimulus) and reason is formed by outside influences and the processing of those influences. This processing is formed from past experiences, information, and basic instincts.

3) God is responsible for all causes, as all causes can be traced back to Him and God has the foresight to see all possibilities.

For.the argument, I will use a hypothetical, full grown, functioning man who has no awareness of the world around him. It avoids the confusion of using a baby as I don't know the exact time babies start developing and rely on reasoning as opposed to pure instinct. It just muddles up the point of the argument. It also avoids real world conditions, as the stimuli are very numerous and too constant to account for properly.

Argument:

1) Consider person X, recently created by God and put into a universe. X is exposed to choice 1 with a stimuli and choice 2 with a different stimuli. X acting on instinct, chooses 1, resulting in an effect occurring. X witnessing the effect.

2) X is then presented with two new choices, 3 and 4. X, based on instinct and past experiences with choice 1, chooses 3.

3) God is the Creator of X and the universe. He knew the effects of stimuli 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the instincts of X.

4) Therefore, God knew X would pick choice 3.

5) Although X may make the decision between 3 and 4 on his own, his reasoning was based on past experience with choice 1 and 2.

6) The choice between 1 and 2 was determined by X's instinct.

7) X's instinct was determined by God.

8) Therefore, God predestined X to choice 3.

Sorry for any confusion. I always wanted to present an argument in a semi-philosophical format. Please prove me wrong.

 

[catholicbybirth]

This is an argument that I'be been thinking about for a while now.

Presumptions:

1) Humans make decisions following what they percieve and reason to be the best course of action.

2) Human perception (stimulus) and reason is formed by outside influences and the processing of those influences. This processing is formed from past experiences, information, and basic instincts.

3) God is responsible for all causes, as all causes can be traced back to Him and God has the foresight to see all possibilities.

For.the argument, I will use a hypothetical, full grown, functioning man who has no awareness of the world around him. It avoids the confusion of using a baby as I don't know the exact time babies start developing and rely on reasoning as opposed to pure instinct. It just muddles up the point of the argument. It also avoids real world conditions, as the stimuli are very numerous and too constant to account for properly.

Argument:

1) Consider person X, recently created by God and put into a universe. X is exposed to choice 1 with a stimuli and choice 2 with a different stimuli. X acting on instinct, chooses 1, resulting in an effect occurring. X witnessing the effect.

2) X is then presented with two new choices, 3 and 4. X, based on instinct and past experiences with choice 1, chooses 3.

3) God is the Creator of X and the universe. He knew the effects of stimuli 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the instincts of X.

4) Therefore, God knew X would pick choice 3.

5) Although X may make the decision between 3 and 4 on his own, his reasoning was based on past experience with choice 1 and 2.

6) The choice between 1 and 2 was determined by X's instinct.

7) X's instinct was determined by God.

8) Therefore, God predestined X to choice 3.

Sorry for any confusion. I always wanted to present an argument in a semi-philosophical format. Please prove me wrong.

I would find it more helpful if you told us exactly what choices 1, 2, 3, and 4 were. Why? Well, were they moral choices, or just choices on what to eat?

Since when can there be a fully functioning adult who has no awarness around him?

Can a person never go against their "instincts"? I was taught in school so many years ago, that animals have instincts. Humans have learned behavior. That man's instincts are limited to infants sucking, grasping and flailing.

Janice

 

[Chany]

I would find it more helpful if you told us exactly what choices 1, 2, 3, and 4 were. Why? Well, were they moral choices, or just choices on what to eat?

Since when can there be a fully functioning adult who has no awarness around him?

Can a person never go against their "instincts"? I was taught in school so many years ago, that animals have instincts. Humans have learned behavior. That man's instincts are limited to infants sucking, grasping and flailing.

Janice

Thank you for responding. You have no idea how much my heart sank when no one replied when I woke up.

The choices don't matter and remain unnamed to avoid an overfocus upon the actual choices. The argument applies to all possibilities. They could be the choice between murder/forgiveness and cherry/apple pie; it really doesn't matter.

It's a thought experiment. It's not an example of reality; it's only meant to highlight a certain part of it through the use of extremes.

Sorry about not explaining instinct. I'm mainly trying to say there is a point where a human being is really a blank slate. He may have traits such as intellect and will, or even personality, inherently apart of him. All I'm really saying is that humans are a product of a series of causes. It doesn't matter if the behavior is instinctual or learned; it still means humans choose based upon previous experiences that can be traced back to a predisposition set by God.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Man's free will consists of his ability to make rational judgments as to which action to take in given circumstances. We have reflexes, which are involuntary motions of the sensitive body, motions which in no way pass into the knowledge of the actor. Animals have reflexes as well. Then we have voluntary motions, or motions which are done with some knowledge of the actor. In animals, these are only instinctive, while in man, these include the rational. Because only rational decisions are choices, only rational decisions are moral or immoral, and so when a man acts out of fear or some other instinct, his culpability for some act like killing may be considerably reduced if not altogether removed -- only God knows how much of his decision was truly rational.

That being said, your conclusion is correct. God is the first efficient cause and the final cause of all generated substances, so he predestines all things according to the goodness of his will.

 

[Davidnic]

Are you familiar with the concept of Middle Knowledge. Where God can see all ends even those that are not done but possible. And the additional theory gives man the grace to accomplish the best of them and it is up to man to accept, use free will and follow the call of grace. So man is capable of accepting the grace that leads them to God and to choose how they will. This is how many reconcile human freedom and God's all knowing nature.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Pre-destined - means only that God knew us [we were in His thoughts], knew His Church would exist and that it would survive. [via scriptures]

Personal level of predestination - not really.

Yes, God creates us for certain things - the purpose - to Love Him and others.
Everything else is getting along in the world til we come to judgment.
God gives us a path - IOW - He gives us talents to share with others [like a brain surgeon for example] and we take hold of those 'dreams' doesnt mean we are not still the ones 'beating the path' - for we have the inspiration of the Lord to do these things. That doesnt mean this is what we 'better do' but rather what God gave us an ability to do.

Destiny exists - we all have it.

For instance - Hitler had the means to lead - he had charisma - he took hold of his ability and forged a path that harmed many.
Was he predestined to go this route?
No. He was given an ability to be a leader - but he didnt do it to help mankind.

Predestined - technically speaking - is when God gives each a talent to help others - to be part of the community in love - and we follow our talents and give back to others with those means.
Due to the fall - the use of those talents do not always fall in some neat line - for we have the broad path and the narrow path and those are always choices.

So what we do with what God gives us - is our own choosing.
God gives us the inspiration and talents to do His will. The choice always remains ours. Or we simply wouldnt have free will.

 

[Chany]

Are you familiar with the concept of Middle Knowledge. Where God can see all ends even those that are not done but possible. And the additional theory gives man the grace to accomplish the best of them and it is up to man to accept, use free will and follow the call of grace. So man is capable of accepting the grace that leads them to God and to choose how they will. This is how many reconcile human freedom and God's all knowing nature.

The problem still remains.

The decision to follow God's will or not falls into my example.

What I am saying is that we really have no free will. Our choices are really just products of our constantly expanding list of experiences and knowledge. Because we never made the first choice in the chain of events, we have no control over our fate.

 

[Davidnic]

The problem still remains.

The decision to follow God's will or not falls into my example.

What I am saying is that we really have no free will. Our choices are really just products of our constantly expanding list of experiences and knowledge. Because we never made the first choice in the chain of events, we have no control over our fate.

Except choices also flow from natural law, what God puts in our hearts and the ability to know right from wrong on an intrinsic level. This means decisions and choices are not made by experience, observation and instinct alone. So point number two is not correct. Natural Law is not basic instinct. It is something much more.

So there are two things operating in this that mean that man has a will to decide other than 3. Those two things are Natural Law and Grace.

God sees that in a situation of man (X) picking numbers 3 or 4. X will pick three if left to only experience and instinct. But X also has Natural Law in his heart and Grace to strengthen and understand the urgings of that law if his heart and will are oriented to God. That orientation is the functional part of the choice.

So God gives X enough grace to choose 4...X then can follow the urgings of Grace in the guidance of Natural Law (also the teachings of the Church) and choose 4. Or he can refuse to cooperate with grace and choose 3.

But he was given sufficient grace for his personality to choose 4, because God saw with middle knowledge how much grace would be needed to do so. It was then up to X to cooperate with Grace or act against it. This is one theory of how free will operates with God's all knowing and creating nature.

 

[Chany]

Except choices also flow from natural law, what God puts in our hearts and the ability to know right from wrong on an intrinsic level. This means decisions and choices are not made by experience, observation and instinct alone. So point number two is not correct. Natural Law is not basic instinct. It is something much more.

So there are two things operating in this that mean that man has a will to decide other than 3. Those two things are Natural Law and Grace.

God sees that in a situation of man (X) picking numbers 3 or 4. X will pick three if left to only experience and instinct. But X also has Natural Law in his heart and Grace to strengthen and understand the urgings of that law if his heart and will are oriented to God. That orientation is the functional part of the choice.

So God gives X enough grace to choose 4...X then can follow the urgings of Grace in the guidance of Natural Law (also the teachings of the Church) and choose 4. Or he can refuse to cooperate with grace and choose 3.

But he was given sufficient grace for his personality to choose 4, because God saw with middle knowledge how much grace would be needed to do so. It was then up to X to cooperate with Grace or act against it. This is one theory of how free will operates with God's all knowing and creating nature.

Natural law is part of the natural instinct of man. When I use the term instinct, I'm including the spiritual aspects that every man has.

Grace is also just another stimulus to draw man to a particular option.

I don't see the argument. You just brought in more of the spiritual side as opposed to the physical side. However, they are still instincts and still stimuli; my argument stands.

 

[Davidnic]

Natural law is part of the natural instinct of man. When I use the term instinct, I'm including the spiritual aspects that every man has.

Grace is also just another stimulus to draw man to a particular option.

I don't see the argument. You just brought in more of the spiritual side as opposed to the physical side. However, they are still instincts and still stimuli; my argument stands.

There are multiple types of grace, Sanctifying and Actual. Actual is the one at work here. And we can resist or cooperate with the effects.

How does your argument still stand if a person has the option to chose either 3 or 4, the help to make the right decision over the wrong and still makes the wrong when the the right was equally possible?

Grace is far more than just another stimulus and natural law is more than instinct because of the role it plays in informed conscience.

For your argument to stand it would have to discount that grace exists. Or it would proceed with a definition of grace that is not real.

Once grace enters into the situation it is far more than an urging, although that may be the form it take. It is the help, sufficient in itself, from God to exercise the choice for good.

In that it is greater than mans instinct and experience and works with faith and a heart open to God to guide man...if he chooses to follow it. And this is where Free Will comes into play.

 

[Michie]

*subscribing*

 

[Davidnic]

It is an interesting and important discussion. We do believe in a limited form of predestination. What we reject is reprobation where people are destined to hell.

But the mystery of how free will works is intricate, beautiful and (at times) frustrating.

 

[Chany]

There are multiple types of grace, Sanctifying and Actual. Actual is the one at work here. And we can resist or cooperate with the effects.

How does your argument still stand if a person has the option to chose either 3 or 4, the help to make the right decision over the wrong and still makes the wrong when the the right was equally possible?

Grace is far more than just another stimulus and natural law is more than instinct because of the role it plays in informed conscience.

For your argument to stand it would have to discount that grace exists. Or it would proceed with a definition of grace that is not real.

Once grace enters into the situation it is far more than an urging, although that may be the form it take. It is the help, sufficient in itself, from God to exercise the choice for good.

In that it is greater than mans instinct and experience and works with faith and a heart open to God to guide man...if he chooses to follow it. And this is where Free Will comes into play.

Define grace and natural law.

 

[Davidnic]

Actual or habitual grace:

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.
(CCC)

Gods interventions to guide us. He does this for all people as much as they need to have to choose what is right, even if they would not otherwise. They can work with it or reject it using free will.

Natural Law

1955 The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

(CCC)

So natural law is more than instinct. It is placed in us by God and cooperates with Habitual and more so Actual grace and guides us if we see to do what is right. Habitual sets the intent of the heart and actual gives us strength.

So even a man who has all experience and instinct to do wrong, can in free will choose the good with grace and natural law. It is not easy. But God guides.

 

[Davidnic]

work overnight so going to bed. Very good discussion.

 

[Davidnic]

As Ludwig Ott points out in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

The dogma of human freedom is not abrogated by the dogma of the infallible certainty of the Divine prevision of future free actions. The Fathers point to the eternal character of the Divine knowing and conclude that the Divine foreknowledge imposes as little compulsion on future actions as human remembering does on the past.
Cf. St. Augustine..."As thou through thy remembrance dost not oblige that which is past to have occurred, so God through His prescience does not compel that which shall be in the future to happen."

Can't source the page because I am using my spiffy Kindle copy.

 

[ivebeenshown]

The problem still remains.

The problem is that some make free will out to be more than it really is.

What I am saying is that we really have no free will. Our choices are really just products of our constantly expanding list of experiences and knowledge. Because we never made the first choice in the chain of events, we have no control over our fate.

You are right in that we do not control our fate. God is sovereign, but it is not that he makes our decisions -- he makes us to make the decisions we do.

 

[WarriorAngel]

The problem still remains.

The decision to follow God's will or not falls into my example.

What I am saying is that we really have no free will. Our choices are really just products of our constantly expanding list of experiences and knowledge. Because we never made the first choice in the chain of events, we have no control over our fate.

Not so.

God gives us abilities - He doesnt force us to do them.
If we chose to go another way - did we not go the other way?

If someone is a talented singer - and chose not to sing - does this mean our destiny was laid out in concrete?

For every choice and ll choices are free will - another path is given and given to help us - help others... in some way.

Our destiny is and remains to love others - love God. That is what we are 'predestined' for - everything else is getting thru this life.

 

[Chany]

Actual or habitual grace:

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God's call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God's interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.
(CCC)

Gods interventions to guide us. He does this for all people as much as they need to have to choose what is right, even if they would not otherwise. They can work with it or reject it using free will.

Natural Law

1955 The "divine and natural" law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one's equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called "natural," not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring. The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

(CCC)

So natural law is more than instinct. It is placed in us by God and cooperates with Habitual and more so Actual grace and guides us if we see to do what is right. Habitual sets the intent of the heart and actual gives us strength.

So even a man who has all experience and instinct to do wrong, can in free will choose the good with grace and natural law. It is not easy. But God guides.

You're treating the acceptance of grace as an influence upon the decision between 3 and 4. I'm treating it as the decision between 3 and 4. That is, X's choice to accept God's grace is another decision. The outcome will be determined by X's processing with reason and human nature (it's a better term for what I am trying to get at, as it includes natural law and human learned reactions).

First off, natural law is defined as an imprint upon the person givin at the moment of creation. It's a natural call to follow a certain path of goodness that is a part of every single human being. I'll admit human nature is a much better term than instinct, but the fact still remains that the natural law, per the definition as a integral part of human nature, can be classified under the instinct section of my argument. You're adding it into the equation at decision 3/4, like it wasn't present up onto that point. However, it's been a part of the equation since the beginning as an important part of X, as X could not be human without having natural law since the moment of his creation. Therefore, natural law has been influencing X since the beginning, just like everything else.

 

[Davidnic]

But Human nature is Imago Deus, in the Image and Likeness of God...that means, along with other things, possessing free will. So when you say human nature that is, by default includes free will. You can not include something as part of the decision that includes a thing in a proof that the included thing does not exist.