The Existence of Freewill

[elopez]

Okay, I must be reading the newadvent.org link wrong, because I'm seeing determinism in both traditions.

Can someone identify the point where the whole "free" part of free will comes in at? It seems God controls my life still by deciding what divine influences He will throw at me at specific times.

You must have missed this post to Simon Templar:

Determinism should not be the default position as there is still the logical option of free will co - existing with determinism, which is called compatibilism and is embraced by many Christians.

What do you mean everything is against determinism? Actually, everything is for it. I am talking of course about the omniscience of God, which is to have knowledge of all - things including the future happenings of mankind. That said what God foreknows of prior to creation is going to happen no matter what; there is nothing that can change that course of known outcomes. That is closely related to logical determinism, which is the view that all propositions about the future are either true or false. We don't know however what propositions are true for tomorrow, the next day, and so on, so we must wait to see if it will happen or make it happen ourselves. That is where free will is relevant to logical determinism: those propositions that God foreknows which are true are not realized by us, and so we tend to think and evaluate our choices and the possible effects.

Then there is casual determinism. That is widely supported by the idea of God. Future happenings occur because of past factors or other past happenings. Like, me responding to you now is happening because I came to the website, and I came to the website because I turned the computer on, etc. The trace of that and all of humanity is attributed to the very first act which was God creating. There is still free will in casual determinism as what we do in the future that is determined is nevertheless what we desire to do, it is how we want to act based on the evaluation of the effects in our mind. As long as nothing is forcing us to act against our will, or preventing us from acting how we want to, we have free will.

 

[Chany]

You must have missed this post to Simon Templar:

Determinism should not be the default position as there is still the logical option of free will co - existing with determinism, which is called compatibilism and is embraced by many Christians.

What do you mean everything is against determinism? Actually, everything is for it. I am talking of course about the omniscience of God, which is to have knowledge of all - things including the future happenings of mankind. That said what God foreknows of prior to creation is going to happen no matter what; there is nothing that can change that course of known outcomes. That is closely related to logical determinism, which is the view that all propositions about the future are either true or false. We don't know however what propositions are true for tomorrow, the next day, and so on, so we must wait to see if it will happen or make it happen ourselves. That is where free will is relevant to logical determinism: those propositions that God foreknows which are true are not realized by us, and so we tend to think and evaluate our choices and the possible effects.

Then there is casual determinism. That is widely supported by the idea of God. Future happenings occur because of past factors or other past happenings. Like, me responding to you now is happening because I came to the website, and I came to the website because I turned the computer on, etc. The trace of that and all of humanity is attributed to the very first act which was God creating. There is still free will in casual determinism as what we do in the future that is determined is nevertheless what we desire to do, it is how we want to act based on the evaluation of the effects in our mind. As long as nothing is forcing us to act against our will, or preventing us from acting how we want to, we have free will.

One, I never declared that freewill or determism should be the default position. I simply been arguing that determinism is more logical and that no one actually demonstrated how we have freewill other than saying we appear to have it. Also, I've been arguing for determinism this whole time, so I'm not sure how I feel everything is against determinism when I'm saying the exact opposite.

Two, soft determinism is still determinism. All because we will things does not make our will somehow free to select out of a choice of options. Considering how God picks everything out for our lives, including our wills, I'm not seeing how I'm getting a choice.

No one adequately explained how our wills are somehow seperate from the causes that shape them. It makes sense if a person's mind is static against causes, but it's not.

 

[MKJ]

Free Will means you have the freedom to choose between good and evil according to the information you have at hand.

It has nothing to do with the fact that you'll make wrong choices, but that you are not predestined to take a course of action without the consent of your will.

A person who is born and raised in a time and place where he will never hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, still has freedom of will to choose between good and evil of what he knows.

Jim

Yes, this is what Paul tells us pretty clearly too. People are judged on the law they know, and there are many kinds of things that can interfere with our knowing truth or facts perfectly.

I am a bit flummoxed by the idea that free will means having all the information available to make choices without error. Whoever made such a claim - you would have to be a moron or living on the moon and know no actual people.

I think it is pretty darn clear that the Fathers and the early Christians did not mean that when they were talking about free will. Nor the ancient pagans, for that matter. So I am not really sure why it is even being proposed as what is meant by free will.

 

[Albion]

I am a bit flummoxed by the idea that free will means having all the information available to make choices without error. Whoever made such a claim - you would have to be a moron or living on the moon and know no actual people.

The key here is to appreciate that, just as predestination does not mean that we're nothing but marionettes, so also free will cannot mean that Man is entirely in charge of his decision-making.

Nothing in science or common sense supports such a notion, but let any debate over free will break out and we're going to be hearing from people who think that salvation is contingent upon all of us mortals making the right decisions -- at the right time -- on questions that we obviously are, by nature, unequipped to handle.

If it were not so, the whole world would be Christian and all of us here would be in perfect accord on the meaning of the Bible. Of course, if doctrine, etc. doesn't matter to God when it comes to our salvation, this poses no problem for us. Few of us are willing to say that, though.

 

[MKJ]

The key here is to appreciate that, just as predestination does not mean that we're nothing but marionettes, so also free will cannot mean that Man is entirely in charge of his decision-making.

Nothing in science or common sense supports such a notion, but let any debate over free will break out and we're going to be hearing from people who think that salvation is contingent upon all of us mortals making the right decisions -- at the right time -- on questions that we obviously are, by nature, unequipped to handle.

If it were not so, the whole world would be Christian and all of us here would be in perfect accord on the meaning of the Bible. Of course, if doctrine, etc. doesn't matter to God when it comes to our salvation, this poses no problem for us. Few of us are willing to say that, though.

Actually, I think many would be willing to say that union with God does not depend on our understanding of doctrine. Nor necessarily even choosing to become a Christian.

This is why in the Divine Comedy Dante has a pagan in Heaven, and there have been those who hoped for universal salvation in the early Church - these are not new ideas that somehow arrived with the Reformation, whatever people may think.

Faith, or in non-Christians Hope, are the virtues that allow us to give ourselves over to Gods mercy. Sanctification is aided by habitually making the right choices from the goods we know, and participation in the sacraments and access to correct teaching about the right choices is a material aid.

i just think this idea of a free choice being totally understood and accurate is a red herring - the early church clearly did not mean that by free will, which they thought we had.

 

[Albion]

Actually, I think many would be willing to say that union with God does not depend on our understanding of doctrine. Nor necessarily even choosing to become a Christian.

I doubt that most here on CF -- or more than a few Christian churches, for that matter -- would say that. But there are such people, sure, and for them this issue is nothing to be concerned about.

 

[MKJ]

I doubt that most here on CF -- or more than a few Christian churches, for that matter -- would say that. But there are such people, sure, and for them this issue is nothing to be concerned about.

Well, Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not teach the paradigm that you describe, so while there may be members of those groups that say they believe those things, I do not think it is really accurate to pin it on the way those churches understand free will.

 

[WarriorAngel]

If free will didnt exist:

We wouldnt be disagreeing. For with God there would no arguments.

The world wouldnt be separated from Him.

All the earth would be doing His will perfectly.

Christ wouldnt have had to die for us to be forgiven. To be forgiven means we had to be the catalyst to something to cause a reason to be forgiven.

The perfect state of good would be all that would exist.

We would all be in love with everyone else.

No one would grieve God.

Sin wouldnt exist.

We would all be in Heaven - and never know anything but peace.

Free will exists - to say it doesnt - erroneously implies God wanted miserable creatures from the beginning and made us to just have it this way - instead of testing us - we would probably not even know He exists at all.

I mean if He really wanted to make creatures just for the sake of having misery - He certainly wouldnt have given us perfect laws on how to give of self and love others.

 

[Albion]

Free will exists - to say it doesnt - erroneously implies God wanted miserable creatures from the beginning and made us to just have it this way.

What a strange notion--on several levels.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If free will didnt exist:

We wouldnt be disagreeing. For with God there would no arguments.

The world wouldnt be separated from Him.

All the earth would be doing His will perfectly.

Christ wouldnt have had to die for us to be forgiven. To be forgiven means we had to be the catalyst to something to cause a reason to be forgiven.

The perfect state of good would be all that would exist.

We would all be in love with everyone else.

No one would grieve God.

Sin wouldnt exist.

We would all be in Heaven - and never know anything but peace.

Free will exists - to say it doesnt - erroneously implies God wanted miserable creatures from the beginning and made us to just have it this way - instead of testing us - we would probably not even know He exists at all.

I mean if He really wanted to make creatures just for the sake of having misery - He certainly wouldnt have given us perfect laws on how to give of self and love others.

What if each of us were but a thought in the mind of God, which runs around in His "brain" with the seeming freedom that our own thoughts seem to run around in our mind? Our thoughts are not always obedient to us, but over time they can be cultivated and controlled and refined. Those runaway thoughts have to be reined in and the supportive ones, supported.

So maybe God watches what we all do, knowing precisely what we will do, because to Him it's all deterministic because He knows us so well that He simply has it projected. Like if a baby falls down on its nose, good chance it will cry. The injury on the nose didn't "make" the baby cry any more than the fact I saw it happening and knew it was going to cry, made it cry.

In a similar way, we don't need to have "true" free will to experience the human benefits of it. Because "free" becomes a relative word rather than absolute. "Free" means no constraints IMO, and sure enough I feel like I have that. After all I could just jump in front of a fast moving bus any day and I choose not to. But how do I know that God didn't predestine me to avoid jumping under a moving bus, rather than that I came to the conclusion not to all on my own? IOW, for all human intents and purposes the illusion of free will is necessary and sufficient, and whether it's "truly" predestined by prior causes, the location and motion of every electron and quark in the universe acting in concert or whatever, is really an academic question. So if we have "free will" for all intents and purposes, even though it may be predestined, as long as the Lord is kind not to reveal our futures to us, we think we're driving.

The goal of surrender is to give up trying to drive, and letting the Lord take us where He will instead.

Alan

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What a strange notion--on several levels.

But it's essentially what you've been saying throughout the thread.


Your premise, is that free will doesn't exist, because we lack the knowledge to make a choice. But lacking knowledge doesn't prevent you from making a choice with the knowledge you have. That's what free will is.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If we didn't have free will, then Adam and Eve didn't sin, but were controlled by a will outside of their own. In fact, they would have no will at all and must rely on another being to control them.

Jim

 

[elopez]

One, I never declared that freewill or determism should be the default position. I simply been arguing that determinism is more logical and that no one actually demonstrated how we have freewill other than saying we appear to have it.

And I never declared that you said free will or determinism should be the default position. Again my post was directed to another poster. I just shared it with you because said post explained what you were asking about. Both free will and determinism are true.

Also, I've been arguing for determinism this whole time, so I'm not sure how I feel everything is against determinism when I'm saying the exact opposite.

Again the post I C&P to you was directed towards another poster, so I wasn't saying you said everything was against determinism. Did you also miss the part when I said that was another post to another poster?

Two, soft determinism is still determinism. All because we will things does not make our will somehow free to select out of a choice of options. Considering how God picks everything out for our lives, including our wills, I'm not seeing how I'm getting a choice.

And yes, soft determinism is still determinism. I haven't claimed anything but that. It's a choice because it's what you desire. No one or anything is forcing you or preventing you to choose.

No one adequately explained how our wills are somehow seperate from the causes that shape them. It makes sense if a person's mind is static against causes, but it's not.

Well I explained logical and causal determinism and how free will co - exists with each. Maybe you're just overlooking an explanation.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It isnt strange.

Understanding God wanted us in Paradise - not knowing evil - but yet we know evil - means He allowed us the freedom to chose to know good AND evil.

Not His preference. Ours.

If God had made it so we didnt have a choice - neither would evil exist. For even angels have freedom - obviously.

The thing with angels is - they knew the difference from the start. Which is why they cannot partake in the Salvation offered from Christ.
Whereas He hid that grace from humanity so if we were to do as the angels and chose to dismiss Him - we too would hold full accountability.
To say otherwise would mean He chose to create us - giving us full knowledge and all - being our 1st parents would chose wrong - would have ceased the line of humanity immediately and our parents would be suffering as would the angels.

But because He allowed us ignorance - he made it possible for us to accept or deny Him. To accept or deny comes fully into our hands - and then we either suffer eternally or not.
Whereas angels - will suffer eternally - period.

In our free will - the gift of ignorance saved us - and led God to keep humanity going - because the wheat and tares would grow up and He would still have gain in the harvest.

To say He simply created us as separated creatures to do His will on earth and He chooses Himself who is good and bad - is wrong on every level. It also flies in the face of His love for us.

Love cannot have its own way. It hopes for the other to love them in return - but it cannot demand it - or it isnt love.
God is fully 100% Love and He cannot force us to love Him and 'feel' the love in return - because as puppets we could no more love Him in return as a material possession we own would ever love us.

We would be merely possessions and the point of making man would be to have love return to Him - as He so desires to be loved by His creatures.
He has enough love to fill to capacity the entire Universe and beyond for His love is without measure.

To receive love in return He desires it from creatures. But forcing ppl to be puppets does not bring back love at all. He is wiser than we are - He knows it would be fruitless and empty.
Being Love - the full encompassing of such - He would not create just to destroy on His preference alone.
That wouldnt be love.

The fact we have free will means we chose - its in our court. he gives us love with is His grace - to come to Him. But He will not interfere in our choices - the only thing He will do is call us. Continuously and perpetually - because He knows our weaknesses outside of Him - and continues to grant great gifts from Him. We must have free will - or receiving love from us - would be moot point. Because frankly, He just wouldnt get any love - period.

Possessions cannot love.

 

[WarriorAngel]

So maybe God watches what we all do, knowing precisely what we will do, because to Him it's all deterministic because He knows us so well that He simply has it projected. Like if a baby falls down on its nose, good chance it will cry. The injury on the nose didn't "make" the baby cry any more than the fact I saw it happening and knew it was going to cry, made it cry.

That theory ends in scriptures themselves...a few in fact.
Like Oh Israel how many times have i wanted you to come to me, like a Mother hen... but you would not.'

And the master goes us in the last hour and finds willing workers - who get paid the same as tho who worked all day.
Meaning:
God calls us - looking for willing hearts [regardless of our inane choices thru out life] to come and 'work' - have faith in Him - in the last hour.
IE - He calls the person [since He knows their time is ending] - to come to Him - and gives them one last shot of grace to 'hear Him' and still make that last choice.

Its not that He wants us to not want Him - even the horrible things we have done - He will still give us a chance - in spite of the miserable way we ignored Him - or refused Him throughout life.

Why? Because He is love - and wantsus to not be lost forever.

In the end - its always our choice.
Our choices make or break our eternity.

Thats not on Him - its on us.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It shows in the Gospels He calls us to Him.
Ppl ask - what must i do?
He tells them... to come follow Him and gives them the 'how to' - yet they walk away.

Does He tell them to 'get lost' they werent part of the chosen? No.
He even explains how they make their choices.

All thru the Gospels - He says 'go and sin no more'...
Even in Acts Simon wants to pay for the Holy Spirit - but Peter admonishes him and tells him to change. But does he?

Why have an entire Book written at all - with His perfect laws = if we cant chose to follow them in the 1st place?

It would seem to suggest God lies.
Both in wanting us to come to Him - and leaving us any laws at all - if they can not offer us help on earth - because we are already either doomed or not.

Makes them - Pointless in fact.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

If we didn't have free will, then Adam and Eve didn't sin, but were controlled by a will outside of their own. In fact, they would have no will at all and must rely on another being to control them.

Jim

Going that direction suggests another possibility. Maybe God and Adam were bored and both wanted some human drama rather than just watching the bunnies and bees hop and dance.

 

[Chany]

Well I explained logical and causal determinism and how free will co - exists with each. Maybe you're just overlooking an explanation.

Like I said, it makes sense if our minds and wills are static and, at least in part, above the world's causation. However, our minds and wills are developed from a starting position. They are shaped by the causes before us, causes which are either a) outside influences outside our control or b) the results of decisions that are under the same result of it.

I'm not arguing that we don't have wills, that we don't reason, or that we don't technically choose. I'm saying that our wills, our reasoning, and therefore our choices are all ultimately determined by the causes that make them and then shape them, all of these causes being outside our control.

 

[bach90]

If we didn't have free will, then Adam and Eve didn't sin, but were controlled by a will outside of their own. In fact, they would have no will at all and must rely on another being to control them.

Jim

Only if you assume that it requires a will of your own to sin. You also have to assume that you can only posses a free will, there's the alternative that they have a will which is not completely free.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Only if you assume that it requires a will of your own to sin. You also have to assume that you can only posses a free will, there's the alternative that they have a will which is not completely free.

CCC
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Deliberate consent is consent of the will.

Unless you willfully commit the grave act, with full knowledge, you have not committed mortal sin.

Jim