Necessity of evil

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
If you want to describe it in terms of morality, then yes, X is not to blame for Z's choices, merely by being a cause of Z, but X caused that Z chose, regardless, every bit as surely as the butterfly in China caused the hurricane in the Atlantic.

Finally, something we agree on.

Good. Then extrapolate a little more: If X caused that Z chose, even though through means of Y, X not only caused that Z chose, but X caused precisely what Z chose.

To humanly speculate that Z 'could have' chosen different is irrelevant. Z didn't choose different.

 

[QvQ]

If I offer two flavors of icecream, vanilla and chocolate, it appears you have a choice however I have ultimately decided your choice. You don't have free will because you do not have the ability to create strawberry or the means to acquire it. I also may have instilled in you a tendency to prefer chocolate and instilled in another to prefer vanilla. I also may have instilled the "no" to icecream in others of my creation.
Providence is an important component of Aquinas writings on free will. Because of the boundaries imposed, ultimately, free will is not free.

 

[zoidar]

Mark Quayle said:
If you want to describe it in terms of morality, then yes, X is not to blame for Z's choices, merely by being a cause of Z, but X caused that Z chose, regardless, every bit as surely as the butterfly in China caused the hurricane in the Atlantic.

Good. Then extrapolate a little more: If X caused that Z chose, even though through means of Y, X not only caused that Z chose, but X caused precisely what Z chose.

To humanly speculate that Z 'could have' chosen different is irrelevant. Z didn't choose different.

Sounds like you are saying our choices have already happened, but they are not made yet. You can choose differently until you make the choice. I don't believe that is illusion, but the reality of life.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sounds like you are saying our choices have already happened, but they are not made yet. You can choose differently until you make the choice.

To me, that sounds like an extraneous statement, but for the part that to the Creator, it is 'already' a done deal. Your second sentence seems to me either irrelevant, or false. We cannot choose until we choose, so what's the point of the speculation that we CAN choose differently until the moment of choice?

 

[zoidar]

To me, that sounds like an extraneous statement, but for the part that to the Creator, it is 'already' a done deal. Your second sentence seems to me either irrelevant, or false. We cannot choose until we choose, so what's the point of the speculation that we CAN choose differently until the moment of choice?

God knowing doesn't make it a done deal. It's a done deal when it's done.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God knowing doesn't make it a done deal. It's a done deal when it's done.

—From our POV, yes, but from His? I think he spoke the whole business into fact, 'instantaneously' complete. But, obviously, we can't think how he does about such things.

Infinity is a humorous concept. It puts brains to shame. God's infinite nature implies things to us, such as the fact that this complicated causation within our timeline, has to be, for him, very simple to grasp. We want to say he has to think of every detail before putting his creation into operation, but that, too, is an ignorant statement. So I end up saying, He spoke it into fact with a word, intending every detail. But I am ignorant.

 

[zoidar]

—From our POV, yes, but from His? I think he spoke the whole business into fact, 'instantaneously' complete. But, obviously, we can't think how he does about such things.

I think that is speculation. How can we in the present even have a relationship with God who is outside of time. It's like God is both in time and outside of time. God is with us in the present moment, and knows what we are experiencing right now.

Infinity is a humorous concept. It puts brains to shame. God's infinite nature implies things to us, such as the fact that this complicated causation within our timeline, has to be, for him, very simple to grasp. We want to say he has to think of every detail before putting his creation into operation, but that, too, is an ignorant statement. So I end up saying, He spoke it into fact with a word, intending every detail. But I am ignorant.

 

[QvQ]

Aquinas stated that man could reason, therefore he could, by his own power, choose right or wrong and subsequently he could be held accountable.
However, 1 Corinthians 1:2 clearly states that man cannot know right from wrong based on his own wisdom. It is only through the Spririt of God and the mind of Christ that a person can know right from wrong. Paul speaks specifically about the men who crucified Christ, which was right for them, based on their reason.

1 Corinthians 2:5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

It is also what we do, the words taught by the Spirit.

 

[zippy2006]

In other words, "We find we must think so." (Not, "it is so")

So you decided to deny the entire concept of truth in order to avoid the rational considerations at hand. That's a rather rash and desperate route, but it nevertheless also undercuts all of your own claims vis-a-vis truth.

But notice in your argument, #2 translates (thus making a further assumption not spelled out as such) that "event" is equivalent to #1's, "free act".

No, not at all. The point is that a free act effects an event, and therefore the event is not ineluctable. You have shown no interest in answering this argument or the others in the thread.

 

[QvQ]

Here's an argument:

1. A free act is self-caused by an agent. {Premise}
2. If an event is self-caused by an agent then the agent decides whether to bring it about, and they are also able prevent the event from occurring by refraining from action. {From the definition of 'self-caused'}
3. Therefore, Events which are freely caused by an agent are not infallible or inevitable. {From 1 & 2}
4. Therefore, If an event is infallibly caused by God, then it is not freely caused by Jones. {From 3}

Providence
1) Two brothers, one loves beets, one would starve before eating a beet.
2) The brothers do not decide to eat or not eat the beets. That is pre-ordained. One eats, One spits.
3) The choice of each brother is infallible and inevitable if the choice is beets.
4) Therefore, although there is an element of "choice" it is necessarily contingent on factors beyond the control of either brother.
What determines that choice? Reason? Hardly.

 

[zippy2006]

Providence
1) Two brothers, one loves beets, one would starve before eating a beet.
2) The brothers do not decide to eat or not eat the beets. That is pre-ordained. One eats, One spits.
3) The choice of each brother is infallible and inevitable if the choice is beets.
4) Therefore, although there is an element of "choice" it is necessarily contingent on factors beyond the control of either brother.
What determines that choice? Reason? Hardly.

(2) and (3) are both false. The first brother could choose to abstain from eating beets and the second could choose to eat them. The contradiction present in your reasoning is easily seen by the fact that "decision" and "choice" are synonyms, and yet you assert that they choose but do not decide.

That one likes or dislikes beets does not mean that they are ineluctably forced to consume or abstain from beets.

 

[QvQ]

The first brother could choose not to eat beets, depending on how hungry he was, yes, but the other brother, as any parent can tell you would not choose to eat a beet. The difference between would and could is moot as beets cause the second brother to throw up.
Also, whatever a person freely chooses to eat, in no case has it ever been anything but ineluctably forced to consume.
The brothers "choice" or "decision" to eat beets or carrots is predicated on the fact that the brothers will eat...or die.
Man is born into circumstances that detemine certain ineluctably forced actions.
There was a sentence posted on another forum:
You know you are an adult when you realize you will be cooking (finding, buying whatever) dinner every night for the rest of your life
The idea of free will is in some ways a juvenile conceit.

 

[Robban]

"Fear God, conduct yourself with integrity and the One above will take care of everything."

 

[zippy2006]

The brothers "choice" or "decision" to eat beets or carrots is predicated on the fact that the brothers will eat...or die.

I would suggest getting out your dictionary and looking up two words which will be new to you: "martyrdom" and "suicide."

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think that is speculation. How can we in the present even have a relationship with God who is outside of time. It's like God is both in time and outside of time. God is with us in the present moment, and knows what we are experiencing right now.

To me, to say he is 'outside of time' doesn't mean he is not immanent, even to be experienced, within time. But that he is not subject to it, is at least Biblical. He may 'subject himself' to anything he chooses, but we really don't know what it means to say even that; certainly he is not 'owned' by (or obligated to) any fact external to himself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

zippy2006 said:
Here's an argument:

1. A free act is self-caused by an agent. {Premise}
2. If an event is self-caused by an agent then the agent decides whether to bring it about, and they are also able prevent the event from occurring by refraining from action. {From the definition of 'self-caused'}
3. Therefore, Events which are freely caused by an agent are not infallible or inevitable. {From 1 & 2}
4. Therefore, If an event is infallibly caused by God, then it is not freely caused by Jones. {From 3}

Mark Quayle said:
In other words, "We find we must think so." (Not, "it is so")

So you decided to deny the entire concept of truth in order to avoid the rational considerations at hand. That's a rather rash and desperate route, but it nevertheless also undercuts all of your own claims vis-a-vis truth.

Ha! Is this an indication that your argument declares truth? But where do you get from what I said, that I "deny the entire concept of truth"?

But what I was getting at with, '"We find we must think so." (Not, "it is so")' was in part because not only is the argument entirely human —for example, the general statement of #3 is not quite accurate, as God is an agent, and when he freely causes, it is indeed infallible and inevitable; but even specifically, the {Premise} is only assumed, and very humanly expressed— but also humans seem to have this penchant for assuming that their words convey substance.

As I remember, in 3 of Aquinas' 5 ways, for example, his arguments go like this, (though he does not say so): We say L and M, thus we find we must believe N. While I agree with Aquinas' concerning the existence of God, I find those 3 'Ways' only binding on what we must think, if we are to be consistent. They do not prove God's existence.


Mark Quayle said:
But notice in your argument, #2 translates (thus making a further assumption not spelled out as such) that "event" is equivalent to #1's, "free act".

No, not at all. The point is that a free act effects an event, and therefore the event is not ineluctable. You have shown no interest in answering this argument or the others in the thread.

You seem rather combative at this point, if not in your other paragraph. I meant you no insult.

Your argument did not express the assumption, "1a. A free act effects an event." My mistake was to assume you were going directly from 1 to 2, when you had not, but through assumption 1a.

I rather thought I had and have repeatedly stated my answer to this and your other claims/arguments. But, ok, here's one way to put it: "The word 'free' if it describes a choice uncaused by other causes and effects previous to itself, and independent of them, is a useless word, conveying a declaration of independence, but a declaration full of bravado without substance. It means nothing, but displays a mind of self-determinism.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
Well, no, current physics models suggest events that appear random. There is no demand for actual random. The fact we don't know the cause(s) doesn't make it random.

I said physics "allows for" random events, not that physics requires them.

But if one trusts human terminology to accurately describe fact, then consider that Chance can determine nothing —it is self-contradictory.
...

I do not trust human terminology to accurately describe facts at the edge of our comprehension - or beyond. Language evolved to address human survival and desire in the world we see in front of our faces. Beyond that it gets pretty brittle and breaks easily.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said:
.....
Well, no, current physics models suggest events that appear random. There is no demand for actual random. The fact we don't know the cause(s) doesn't make it random.

I said physics "allows for" random events, not that physics requires them.

I'm saying physics —and I'm not talking about current physics models, here— does not allow for randomness and chance, because there is no such thing, except in our own minds. Everything is caused, except for first cause.

 

[durangodawood]

In the same article:

".....But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will."​

This was conceived long before we had machines that perform logical operations. In my time I never even got that chance to associate rationality necessarily with free will. Now to do so we have to invoke tremendous assumptions - like the one in bold above..

So I hold to free will not as a the conclusion of great arguments, but as a preference - aided by the lack of good arguments against it.

 

[durangodawood]

Mark Quayle said:

I'm saying physics —and I'm not talking about current physics models, here— does not allow for randomness and chance, because there is no such thing, except in our own minds. Everything is caused, except for first cause.

Ok, how exactly do you know this?